DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 12/02/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “axially extending struts 160” on Page 12, Line 4 of the third paragraph, should read “axially extending struts 190”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 14-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“a vertical axis wind turbine” in Claim 1, Line 2 should read “the vertical axis wind turbine”.
“extend longitudinal” in Claim 1, Line 8 should read “extending longitudinally”.
“the perpendicular to the axis” in Claim 3, Line 3 should read “a perpendicular to the vertical axis”.
“wherein shroud” in Claim 7, Line 2 should read “wherein the shroud”.
“either of” in Claim 14, Line 1 should be deleted.
“any one of” in Claim 15, Line 2 should be deleted.
“the stack of vertical axis wind turbines are coaxial” in Claim 16 should read “the vertical axis wind turbines of the stack are coaxial”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitations "the converging surfaces" and “the outwardly facing surface” in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 depends upon Claim 1; however, neither Claim 3 nor Claim 1 disclose converging surfaces of an outwardly facings surface.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, Claim 3 is being treated as being dependent upon Claim 2, which does disclose converging surfaces and an outwardly facing surface.
Regarding Claim 4, the word "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following “optionally” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the central hub" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 fails to disclose a central hub prior to the recitation of “the central hub”.
Claim 9 is rejected due to its dependence upon rejected Claim 8.
Claim 12 discloses the limitations “A vertical axis wind turbine”, “a rotor”, and “a shroud”. However, Claim 12 can depend upon Claim 1, and Claim 1 already discloses each of these limitations.
Claim 13 discloses the limitations “a central hub”, “a rotor”, and “a shroud”. However, Claim 13 depends upon Claim 12, and Claim 12 already discloses each of these limitations.
Claims 14-16 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected Claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayer (EP 3118450 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Mayer discloses a shroud for a vertical axis wind turbine (Figures 1-2), the shroud being configured in use to externally surround a rotor (Figure 1, No. 20) of the vertical axis wind turbine, wherein the shroud comprises upper (Figure 2, No. 33) and lower (32) axially spaced apart supports, configured in use to be respectively positioned above and below the rotor (Figures 1-2), and each support has a radially outer periphery defining a polygonal shape with a plurality of circumferentially distributed corners (Figures 1-2); a plurality of circumferentially distributed stators (30) each extending longitudinally between a corner of the upper support and a corner of the lower support such that adjacent pairs of stators and the interposed sections of the outer periphery of the upper and lower support define a plurality of quadrilateral frames configured in use to circumferentially surround the rotor (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 2: Mayer discloses the shroud of Claim 1, wherein outwardly facing surfaces of the interposed sections of the upper and lower quadrilateral frames are radially inwardly converging such that each quadrilateral frame defines a converging duct (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 4: Mayer discloses the shroud of Claim 1, wherein the upper and lower supports define a regular polygonal shape, and optionally the polygonal shape has between 6 and 12 sides (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6: Mayer discloses the shroud of Claim 1,wherein the corresponding corners of the upper and lower supports are circumferentially aligned, and each stator extends parallel to the axis of the turbine (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 7: Mayer discloses the shroud of Claim 1, wherein the shroud comprises a truss structure and the upper and lower supports each comprise a generally planar framework axially separated by the plurality of stators (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 8: Mayer discloses the shroud of Claim 7, wherein the upper and lower supports each comprise a plurality of radial spokes connecting the framework to a central hub (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 9: Mayer discloses the shroud of claim 8, wherein a radial spoke extends to each corner of the framework (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 12: Mayer discloses the vertical axis wind turbine comprising a central hub defining the axis (10) of the turbine, the axis being generally vertically aligned in use (Figure 1); the rotor comprising a plurality of blades (31) circumferentially distributed about the axis, each blade extending longitudinally along the axial direction of the wind turbine and supported by at least one radially extending support rotatably mounting the blade relative to the central hub (Figures 1-2); and the shroud as claimed in Claim 1 (one of the preceding claims).
Regarding Claim 13: Mayer discloses the vertical axis wind turbine of Claim 12, wherein the central hub, the rotor, and the shroud are formed as a modular unit which can be installed and/or removed without the need for disassembly of said modular unit (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 14: Mayer discloses the vertical axis wind turbine of Claim 12, wherein the wind turbine is an offshore wind turbine (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs [0001]-[0002]).
Claim(s) 1 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (KR 20130132327 A).
Regarding Claim 1: Kim discloses a shroud for a vertical axis wind turbine (Figures 1-3, No. 1000), the shroud being configured in use to externally surround a rotor (1200) of the vertical axis wind turbine, wherein the shroud comprises upper (1110) and lower (1130) axially spaced apart supports, configured in use to be respectively positioned above and below the rotor (Figures 1-3), and each support has a radially outer periphery defining a polygonal shape with a plurality of circumferentially distributed corners (Figure 1); a plurality of circumferentially distributed stators (Figure 3b, No. 1120) each extend longitudinal between a corner of the upper support and a corner of the lower support such that adjacent pairs of stators and the interposed sections of the outer periphery of the upper and lower support define a plurality of quadrilateral frames configured in use to circumferentially surround the rotor (Figure 3b).
Regarding Claim 10: Kim discloses the shroud of Claim 1,wherein the plurality of stators are each formed from rectangular cross section beams (Figure 3b).
Regarding Claim 11: Kim discloses the shroud of Claim 10, wherein the rectangular cross section beams are transversely radially aligned (Figure 3b).
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maynard (US Patent No: 8,591,171).
Regarding Claim 1: Maynard discloses a shroud for a vertical axis wind turbine (Figures 1-2, No. 10), the shroud being configured in use to externally surround a rotor of a vertical axis wind turbine, wherein the shroud comprises upper (26) and lower (20) axially spaced apart supports, configured in use to be respectively positioned above and below the rotor, and each support has a radially outer periphery defining a polygonal shape with a plurality of circumferentially distributed corners (Figure 1); a plurality of circumferentially distributed stators (34) each extend longitudinal between a corner of the upper support and a corner of the lower support such that adjacent pairs of stators and the interposed sections of the outer periphery of the upper and lower support define a plurality of quadrilateral frames configured in use to circumferentially surround the rotor (Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 12: Maynard discloses the vertical axis wind turbine comprising a central hub (72) defining the axis of the turbine, the axis being generally vertically aligned in use (Figure 1); the rotor comprising a plurality of blades (48, 86) circumferentially distributed about the axis, each blade extending longitudinally along the axial direction of the wind turbine and supported by at least one radially extending support rotatably mounting the blade relative to the central hub (via bearings 32, 33); and the shroud as claimed in Claim 1 (one of the preceding claims).
Regarding Claim 15: Maynard discloses a wind turbine comprising a stack of vertical axis wind turbines as claimed in Claim 12 (Figure 2 – separated by 44).
Regarding Claim 16: Maynard discloses the wind turbine of Claim 15, wherein the vertical axis wind turbines of the stack are coaxial (Figure 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer in view of Miller (US Patent No: 6,857,846).
Regarding Claim 3: Mayer discloses the shroud of Claim 1; however, Mayer fails to disclose the converging surfaces of the outwardly facing surface are angled at 30 degrees to a perpendicular to the axis of the turbine.
Miller teaches a vertical axis wind turbine (Figure 1, No. 1) comprising stators (Figure 3, No. 17) with surfaces angled at 30 degrees to a perpendicular to an axis (10) of the turbine (Column 5, Lines 14-18).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the converging surfaces of the outwardly facing surface of Mayer angled at 30 degrees to a perpendicular to the axis of the turbine, as taught by Miller, for the purpose of allowing the wind passing over the rotor to provide some lift in the vertical direction both as the wind enters and exits the rotor assembly (Column 7, Lines 7-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US Patent No: 9,033,650) discloses a vertical axis wind turbine (Figure 3) comprising a shroud with upper (40) and lower (40’) axially spaced apart supports, each support having a radially outer periphery defining a polygonal shape with a plurality circumferentially distributed corners (Figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights