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(s) submitted December 8, 2025 and August 26, 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, 40, and 54 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 1 recites “one or more of the wheels” which should be changed to “the at least one of the plurality of wheels” to be consistent with claim 5.
Claim 9, line 2 recites “the wheel diameter” which should be changed to “a wheel diameter” to properly introduce the feature. The examiner notes “a wheel diameter” is introduced in claim 3, however claim 9 depends from claim 1.
Claim 40, lines 3-4 recite “the at least one biasing mechanism” should be changed to “the biasing mechanism” to be consistent with claim 54.
Claim 54, line 13 recites “at least one drive mechanism” which should be changed to “the one or more drive wheel mechanisms” to be consistent with line 3.
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 2, 4, 7-11, 41, 55, and 56 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “no greater than 70% of the rotor diameter”, and the claim also recites “preferably, no greater than 60% of the rotor diameter” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Also, the term “preferably” makes it unclear whether the limitation is required in the claim or not. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as not requiring this limitation.
Claim 4 similarly recites “preferably no greater than 50% of the rotor diameter” after the range of “no greater than 70% of the rotor diameter”, which render claim 4 indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 7, line 3 introduces an “outer surface” of a bearing ring, and line 6 also introduces “an outer surface of the bearing ring” and it is unclear whether these are the same feature or separate features. If these are separate features, then they should be given unique names to avoid confusion.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and contains its limitations, and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 9 introduces “at least one wheel” however claim 9 depends from claim 1 which introduced “a plurality of wheels” and it is unclear whether the “at least one wheel” is part of the plurality or is a separate feature.
Claim 10 similarly introduces “at least one wheel” which renders the claim indefinite for the same reason. For the purpose of examination, the “at least one wheel” will be treated as being part of the plurality of wheels.
Claim 11 similarly introduces “at least one wheel” which renders the claim indefinite for the same reason. Claim 11 further recites “preferably a solid tyre including polyurethane or a completely polyurethane solid tyre” and the term “preferably” makes it unclear whether the limitation is required or not. For the purpose of examination, the “at least one wheel” will be treated as being part of the plurality of wheels, and the claim will be treated as not requiring the preferable limitation.
Claim 41, lines 4-5 also recite a limitation beginning with “preferably” which renders the claim indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 55, lines 1-4 state the “plurality of wheels” define a “wheel assembly” and the wheel assembly comprises “at least one wheel”, and it is unclear whether the “at least one wheel” is part of the “plurality of wheels” or is a separate feature. The different number of wheels (plurality vs possibly one) suggests these are separate features, but if they are separate, then the meaning of the phase “the plurality of wheels define a wheel assembly” is unknown.
Further, line 4 introduces “a wheel axis” for the “at least one wheel”, and if the “at least one wheel” and the plurality are the same, then this is a second wheel axis since claim 1 already introduces a wheel axis for the plurality of wheels.
Claim 55, line 8 refers to “the at least one wheel”. If line 4 is amended, then line 8 should be amended accordingly.
Claim 55, lines 8, 12, 14, and 15 all refer to “the wheel” and it is unclear to which “wheel” these lines refer.
Claim 56, line 4 introduces “a wheel” however line 1 introduces “at least one wheel” but claim 1 introduced “a plurality of wheels”. It is unclear to which “wheel” line 4 refers.
Claim 56, line 6 also refers to “the wheel”. If claim 4 is amended to clarify the “wheel”, then line 6 should be amended accordingly.
Any and all claims rejected above under 35 USC 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 35 USC 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,027,490 to Winkler in view of case law.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 2
Winkler teaches:
A Magnus rotor (6) comprising:
a rotor (9, 22) rotatable about a rotor axis (axis of rotation through middle of 7) and having an external surface (radially outer surface of 9) defining a rotor diameter, the rotor having an internal running surface (radially inner surface of 22) defining a running surface diameter;
a support structure (7, 10) configured to rotatably support the rotor; and,
a plurality of wheels (upper instance of 23), each wheel being rotatably mounted to the support structure so as to rotate about a respective wheel axis (axis of wheel 23) extending substantially parallel to the rotor axis and being positioned such that the wheel rolls against the internal running surface as the rotor rotates about the support structure (see column 10, line 54 through column 11, line 17 and Figure 9).
Regarding the wheel, the examiner notes page 13, line 33 through page 14, line 1 of the applicant’s specification describe the wheels 103 as being rotatably mounted to a carrier 105, contacting the radially inner surface of the bearing ring 102, and rolling against the running surface 102a of the bearing ring. This description is a bearing under the broadest reasonable interpretation. The examiner considers the bearings 23 of Winkler to be a plurality of wheels.
PNG
media_image1.png
728
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Winkler fails to teach:
The running surface diameter is no greater than 80% of the rotor diameter. Winkler shows the running surface diameter is less than 100% of the rotor diameter, but is silent regarding the percentage and does not disclose the scale of the Magnus rotor.
The Court has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Winkler teaches the Magnus rotor having the rotor diameter and the running surface diameter, where the running surface diameter is less than 100% of the rotor diameter.
There is a reasonable expectation of success when sizing the running surface diameter to be no greater than 80% of the rotor diameter, because the difference in size of the diameters is merely a matter of scaling. The radial length of the radial flange 22 of Winkler determines the running surface diameter. The radial length is required to extend from the rotor wall toward the extension member 10. The extension member telescopes out of the displacement member 7, and thus the extension member requires a diameter smaller than the displacement member in order to fit within the displacement member. The relative sizes of the components are a matter of scale.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Magnus rotor of Winkler by sizing the running surface diameter to be no greater than 80% of the rotor diameter in view of case law which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a Magnus rotor having a radial flange which extends for at least 20% of the rotor diameter.
Regarding claim 2, the same case law applied in the rejection of claim 1 could still be applied to design a running surface diameter which is no greater than 70% of the rotor diameter.
In Reference to Claim 3
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 1, comprising each wheel which has an outer surface defining a wheel diameter.
Winkler as modified by case law fails to teach:
The wheel diameter is at least 10% of the rotor diameter.
The case law cited above also applies to claim 3. The size of the wheel affects its strength where a larger wheel has more strength. Figure 9 shows the wheel is less than 100% of the rotor diameter since the wheel is located within the rotor.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Magnus rotor of Winkler as modified by case law by sizing the wheel diameter to be at least 10% of the rotor diameter in view of case law for the purpose of increasing the strength of the wheel.
In Reference to Claim 4
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of wheels are spaced apart from one another about a pitch circle such that each wheel axis extends through the pitch circle; and
the pitch circle defines a pitch diameter.
PNG
media_image2.png
608
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Winkler as modified by case law fails to teach:
The pitch diameter is no greater than 70% of the rotor diameter.
The case law cited above also applies to claim 4. The pitch diameter depends on the location of the wheels, and the length of the radial flange and the diameter of the displacement member determine the location of the wheels, therefore the size of the pitch diameter compared to the size of the rotor diameter is a matter of scaling. The radial flange could be of sufficient length such that the pitch diameter is no greater than 70% of the rotor diameter.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Magnus rotor of Winkler as modified by case law by sizing the radial flange such that the pitch diameter is no greater than 70% of the rotor diameter in view of case law which is a matter of scaling and would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a Magnus rotor having a wheel mounted against the displacement member and a radial flange which holds the rotor further outward. A larger rotor diameter is capable of capturing more wind to generate more rotation.
In Reference to Claim 5
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 1, wherein:
the support structure comprises a hollow tower (7, see Figure 9) having a wall with a substantially circular cross-sectional shape; and,
at least one of the plurality of wheels lies at least partially within an outer diameter of the tower. The upper bearing 23 is located radially inward of the displacement member 7 (see Figure 9), and therefore is at least partially within an outer diameter of the tower.
In Reference to Claim 6
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 5, wherein the at least one of the plurality of wheels lying at least partially within the outer diameter of the tower is positioned so a majority of the or each wheel lies within the outer diameter of the tower. Figure 9 of Winkler shows the center of the upper bearing 23 is within the outer diameter of the displacement member 7, and therefore a majority (more than half) of the wheel lies within the outer diameter of the tower.
In Reference to Claim 7
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 1, wherein the rotor further includes:
a bearing ring (radially inner end of 22 contacting the bearings 23, see Figure 9) having an inner surface that is the running surface of the rotor; and
a radial flange (22) configured to have an annulus structure with an inner edge (radially inner portion contacting the bearing ring) that is connected to an outer surface of the bearing ring and an outer edge (radially outer portion) which is connected to an inner surface of the rotor (see Figure 9).
In Reference to Claim 9
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 1, comprising at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels, wherein the at least one wheel has an axial height and a wheel diameter (see Figure 9).
Winkler as modified by case law fails to teach:
The axial height is at least 50% of a wheel diameter.
The case law cited above also applies to claim 9. The size of the height and diameter of the wheel are matters of scaling, where a larger axial height results in a wider wheel which can better support the radial flange.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Magnus rotor of Winkler as modified by case law by sizing the wheel such that the axial height is at least 50% of a wheel diameter in view of case law for the purpose of better supporting loads from the radial flange.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,027,490 to Winkler as modified by case law as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of CA 2,810,764 to Rohden et al.
In Reference to Claim 8
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 7, comprising the radial flange.
Winkler as modified by case law fails to teach:
The radial flange comprises an accessway.
Rohden teaches:
A Magnus rotor comprising a rotary body (carrier) which has an accessway (opening) (see page 3, lines 19-29, and Figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Magnus rotor of Winkler as modified by case law by adding an accessway as taught by Rohden for the purpose of allowing service personnel to enter higher spaces of the rotor, such as for maintenance.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,027,490 to Winkler as modified by case law as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 9,394,910 to Rohden.
In Reference to Claim 10
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 1, comprising at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels.
Winkler as modified by case law fails to teach:
The at least one wheel comprises a substantially cylindrical outer surface. Winkler only shows the wheels schematically and not their specific shape.
Rohden teaches:
A Magnus rotor (2) comprising at least one wheel (12) of a plurality of wheels (12), wherein the at least one wheel comprises a substantially cylindrical outer surface (has a cylinder shape which has an outer surface) (see column 8, lines 25-31 and Figures 13 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Magnus rotor of Winkler as modified by case law by forming the wheel with a cylinder shaping having a substantially cylindrical outer surface as taught by Rohden for the purpose of providing a sufficiently large enough surface to support the radial flange.
In Reference to Claim 11
Winkler as modified by case law teaches:
A Magnus rotor according to claim 1, comprising at least one wheel of the plurality of wheels.
Winkler as modified by case law fails to teach:
The at least one wheel comprises solid tyre.
Rohden teaches:
A Magnus rotor (2) comprising at least one wheel (12) of a plurality of wheels (12), wherein the at least one wheel comprises a solid tyre (see column 8, lines 25-33 and Figures 13 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Magnus rotor of Winkler as modified by case law by forming the plurality of wheels as solid tyres as taught by Rohden for the purpose of having sufficient strength to be able to support the rotor when tilting due to gusts of wind (column 8, lines 41-45 of Rohden).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40 and 54 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 41, 55, and 56 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach a drive assembly comprising one or more drive wheel mechanisms including a drive wheel, a drive mechanism, and one or more idler wheel mechanisms, and wherein at least one drive wheel comprises a first tyre of a first tyre composition and at least one idler wheel comprising a second tyre of a second composition different than the first composition or the one or more drive wheel mechanisms further include a biasing mechanism configured to bias the corresponding drive wheel toward the internal running surface as recited in claim 54. Winkler teaches a drive mechanism (8), but does not teach first and second tyres having different compositions or a biasing mechanism to bias the drive wheel toward the internal running surface.
Claims 40 and 41 depend from claim 54 and therefore would be allowable for the same reason (and upon overcoming the 112(b) rejection for claim 41).
The prior art of record fails to teach at least one biasing mechanism comprising a first coupling, a second coupling, and a biasing member as recited in claim 55. Winkler fails to teach a biasing mechanism.
The prior art of record fails to teach a gimballed wheel mechanism comprising a wheel, and a mounting assembly including a gimballing support as recited in claim 56. Winkler fails to teach a gimballed wheel mechanism.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 10,227,121 to Levander teaches a Magnus rotor comprising wheels. US 8,230,798 to Rohden teaches a Magnus rotor comprising a drive assembly comprising a drive wheel, idler wheels, and a drive mechanism. US 2024/0101237 to Podhola teaches a Magnus rotor comprising a gimbal joint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
