DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 06/13/2025 following the Non-Final Rejection of 03/13/2025. Claims 1, 11, 15 and 20 were amended; claim 24 is newly added. Claims 1, 3, 5-13 and 15-24 are currently pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/13/2025, with respect to claim objections and claims rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and/or rejections of 03/13/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 06/13/2025, with respect to claim objections and claims rejected under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's point on page 12 of Remarks that ‘independent claim 1 requires that “the at least one primary restraining mechanism is fixedly connected to the at least one bushing” and that a threaded connection is inherently removably or releasably connected. In Huth et al., the pin 38 is inherently removably or releasably connected to the bushings due to the threaded connection’ was not found persuasive by the Examiner. Since the threads 62 make up the inner surface of the bushings as shown in figs. 8-9 of Huth, they would be fixedly connected to the at least one bushing. Additionally, a threaded connection is supported as a form of fixedly connected by the instant invention which recites “a threaded joint” as an option for the primary restraining mechanism in claims 3 and 13.
Applicant's point on page 12 of Remarks that “Neither Huth et al. nor Maejima et al. teaches a splined pin. Thus, it is believed that independent claim 24 is even further distinguished from the presently cited prior art” was not found persuasive by the Examiner towards allowing claim 24 over the prior art of record. While the combination of Huth in view of Maejima fails to explicitly teach the splined pin aspect, claim 24 was determined to be obvious. See rejection of claim 24 below for details.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one primary restraining mechanism” in claim 1, claim 11, claim 20 and claim 24. The word “mechanism” being the generic placeholder; “to restrain at least one of sliding and rotary movement of the locking pin” being the functional language recited in the claim; insufficient modifying structural limitations found in the claim.
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is: “primary restraining mechanism is at least one of a retention cap and a threaded joint” in para. 11; “primary restraining mechanism 7 may also comprise of a second threading connection 7 b. The internal surface of the first bush 1 a and the external surface of the locking pin 74 at the top end (a) may be defined with threads” in para. 47; “the retention cap 7 a in the current embodiment may be fixedly connected to the bushing by the retention pin 15 without the first threading connection” para. 48; and “the primary restraining mechanism 7 may include a retention cap 7 a with a retention pin 15 and first threading connection 5” in para. 52. The paragraphs cited are the ones on the instant published application (PGPub), US 2023/0374971.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-13 and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0340510, herein referenced as Huth, in view of US 2007/0031270, herein referenced as Maejima.
Examiner Note: for readability, the claim rejections are presented in order of claim dependency.
PNG
media_image1.png
362
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Huth
Regarding Claim 1, Huth discloses a mechanism for restraining movement of a locking pin (chord-wise extending pin 38 fig. 6), the mechanism comprising:
a plurality of bushings (see first flanged bushings 48 and second flanged bushings 50 in figs. 6-9), wherein the locking pin has opposed ends (opposing ends 43 of pin 38 fig. 6), wherein at least one of the plurality of bushings is provided in an aperture (see bushings 48,50 in figs. 6-7 within the bore holes 37,39 in figs. 4-5), and wherein at least one of the plurality of bushings is provided on each end of the locking pin (bushings 48 and 50 are shown to be provided on each of the opposing ends 43 of the pin 38 in fig. 6; “the joint assembly 32 includes at least one flanged bushing 48, 50 arranged in the first and/or second bore holes 37, 39 that receive the pin 38” pr. 45);
at least one primary restraining mechanism (see internal threading 62 on first bushing 48 in fig. 9 for the front and aft first bushings 48 in fig. 6) configured in the at least one bushing (see front and aft first bushings 48 fig. 6) at each of the ends of the locking pin (first bushing 48 shown to be at both ends, left end and right end, of the pin 38 in figs. 6-7; “the joint assembly 32 includes at least one flanged bushing 48, 50 arranged in the first and/or second bore holes 37, 39 that receive the pin 38” pr. 45), wherein the at least one primary restraining mechanism (internal threads 62 of the front and aft first flanges 48 on the ends of pin 38 in fig. 6) is fixedly connected to the at least one bushing (the internal threads 62 of the front and aft first flange 48 are shown to be fixedly connected to the bushing/flange 48 in figs. 8-9) at each of the ends (shown to be at both the right end and left end of pin 38 in fig. 6; “the joint assembly 32 includes at least one flanged bushing 48, 50 arranged in the first and/or second bore holes 37, 39 that receive the pin 38” pr. 45) of the locking pin (see front and aft first bushing 48 fig. 6), the at least one primary restraining mechanism being further configured to restrain at least one of sliding and rotary motion of the locking pin (38 fig. 6). (“the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50 may include optional internal threads 62. Thus, in such embodiments, the chord-wise extending pin 38 may have corresponding threads that engage the internal threads 62 of the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50” pr. 47; this structure would restrain, i.e., restrict, both sliding movement and rotary movement due to the friction interface between the threads of the pin 38 and the bushings 48,50; this structure accomplishing this is further supported by para. 47 of the instant published application);
However, Huth fails to anticipate a secondary restraining mechanism configured to be accommodated in a cavity defined in the locking pin, wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is removeably coupled to the locking pin through at least one of the bushings, the secondary restraining mechanism being configured to restrain the rotary movement of the locking pin, and wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is an anti-rotational pin oriented parallel to a central axis of the locking pin.
Huth is are considered analogous art since they relate to the field of endeavor of mechanisms for restraining movement of locking pins. Maejima is considered analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant restricting rotating between two components.
PNG
media_image2.png
522
672
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Maejima
Maejima teaches of a restraining mechanism (bolt 191 fig. 1) configured to be accommodated in a cavity defined in [a shaft] (see bolt hole 161 which forms a cavity within the shaft 213 in fig. 1), wherein the restraining mechanism is removeably coupled to the [shaft] through [a component] (bolt 191 shown to go through bolt passing hole 185 on rotor 103 in fig. 1; it would be removeably coupled since it’s a threaded bolt), the restraining mechanism being configured to restrain the rotary movement of the [shaft] (“the rotor shaft 213 and the rotor 103 are fastened to each other by the bolts 191”pr. 92; since the bolts fasten the shaft 213 and rotor 103 together, it would prevent rotary movement between the two components), and wherein the restraining mechanism is an anti-rotational pin (see bolts 191 in fig. 1; “fastening the bolts 191, a hexagonal wrench (not shown) is fittingly engaged with the hexagonal hole 163 of the rotor shaft 113, thereby preventing rotation of the rotor 103 and the rotor shaft 113. As a result, the rotor 103 and the rotor shaft 113 are easily fastened together” pr. 46) oriented parallel to a central axis of the [shaft] (bolts 191 shown to be oriented parallel with rotor shaft 213 in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified at least one end 43 of pin 38 and the corresponding closed end 52 of bushing 48 in figs 6-7 of Huth with the eccentric bolt(s) 191, bolt passing hole(s) 185 and bolt hole(s) 161 disclosed by Maejima so as to obtain the benefit of ‘preventing relative rotation between the component with the bolt pass through hole and the component with the bolt hole as well as easily fastening these components together’ as taught by Maejima. This modification would further provide the benefit of redundancy in preventing relative rotation of the components should the threads of the bushing from Huth fail.
In the combination of above, the bolt would be accommodated in a cavity defined in the pin since the bolt hole 161 from Maejima would be provided in the end of the pin of Huth, the bolt would restrain rotary movement of the pin since it would connect the bushing 48 with the pin in fig. 7 of Huth. In the modification as stated above, the bolt 191 of Maejima would be parallel with the pin 38 of Huth.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the at least one primary restraining mechanism is at least one of a retention cap and a threaded joint (see front and aft first bushing 48 which is formed as a retention cap in fig. 6-7 of Huth, having internal thread 62 as shown in fig. 9 of Huth).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the mechanism according to claim 3, wherein the retention cap is connected to at least one of the bushings and the locking pin (see connection of first bushing 48 with pin 38 in fig. 7 of Huth; “the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50 may include optional internal threads 62. Thus, in such embodiments, the chord-wise extending pin 38 may have corresponding threads that engage the internal threads 62 of the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50” para. 47 of Huth) by at least one of a first threading connection (see inner threads 62 in fig. 9 of Huth) and a retention pin.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the mechanism according to claim 3, comprising a retaining ring (see second flanged bushing 50 in figs. 6-8 of Huth, shown in fig. 8 to take the form of a ring) mounted over the retention cap (see 48 in fig. 6 of Huth , the second flanged bushing 50 shown to be mounted over, i.e. on top of, the first flanged bushing 48 in fig. 7 of Huth), wherein the retaining ring is configured to receive and hold the locking pin (see internal threads 62 and open ends 60 of second flanged bushing 50 which would hold and receive the pin 38 fig. 7 of Huth).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the at least one of the bushings provided in the aperture extends along a length of the aperture (see front and aft first bushing 48 provided in the aperture of 36 and extending through its thickness length in figs. 6-7 of Huth).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the at least one bushing is provided on ends of the aperture defined in the spar structure (aft first bushing 48 shown to be provided on the ends of the aperture of 36 in the spar structure in fig. 6 of Huth).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of bushings (see forward first bushing 48 in fig. 6 of Huth) is provided at a top end of the locking pin (38 fig. 6 of Huth) and at least one of the plurality of bushings (see rear first bushing 48 in fig. 6 of Huth) is provided at a bottom end of the locking pin (38 fig. 6 of Huth) are connectable to the locking pin by a second threading connection (see forward first bushing 48 in fig. 6 of Huth which can also be threaded to form a second threading connection 62 fig. 9 of Huth; “the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50 may include optional internal threads 62. Thus, in such embodiments, the chord-wise extending pin 38 may have corresponding threads that engage the internal threads 62 of the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50” para. 47 of Huth).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the mechanism according to claim 1, wherein the cavity is defined with internal threads (see internal threads of bolt hole 161 in fig. 1 of Maejima, as used to modify the end of pin 38 in fig. 6 of Huth, the bolt hole defining a cavity therein) or a keyway to receive the anti-rotational pin and the anti-rotational pin is at least one of a splined pin or a threaded pin (see threaded bolt 191 in fig. 1 of Maejima, as used to modify Huth).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the mechanism according to claim 1 wherein the anti-rotational pin is a threaded pin (see threaded bolt 191 which is analogous to a threaded pin in fig. 1 of Maejima, as used to modify Huth above) or a splined pin.
Regarding Claim 11, Huth discloses a wind turbine blade having a profiled contour (see wind turbine blade with profiled contour 20 fig. 2) including a leading edge and a trailing edge (see leading edge and trailing edge of blade 20 in fig. 2) with a chord having a chord length extending therebetween (see chord length of blade in fig. 2), the wind turbine blade extending in a spanwise direction between a root end and a tip end (see spanwise extension from a root end 22 to a tip end 24 in fig. 2), wherein the wind turbine blade comprises:
a first blade segment (see root ring 35 in fig. 3, or alternatively a blade segment 26 in fig. 3) connected to a second blade segment (see one of the blade segments 26 in fig. 3) by a spar structure (comprised of 34 and male structural member 34 and the female structural members 36 in fig. 3);
the spar structure including a first part (male structural member 34 fig. 3) housed in the first blade segment (root ring 35 shown to house 34 in fig. 3; alternatively, the blade segments 26 could also be interpreted to house the male member 34 when assembled as shown in fig. 6) and a second part housed in the second blade segment (see female structural member 36 housed within the blade segment 26 in fig. 3),
wherein the first part of the spar structure is defined with a first aperture (see bores 39 of male structural member 34 in fig. 5) and the second part of the spar structure is defined with a second aperture (see bores 37 of female structural members 36 in fig. 4);
a locking pin (38 fig. 6) provided in the first and second apertures (see pin 38 which has been inserted into the apertures of male structural member 34 and female structural member 36 in fig. 6) for connecting the first part and the second part of the spar structure and connecting the first blade segment to the second blade segment (by connecting 34 and 36 together, the pin 38 would thereby connect the root ring 35 and the blade segments 26 together in fig. 3; alternatively, this would also be the case between two blade segments 26 in fig. 3), respectively; and
a mechanism for restraining movement of the locking pin (38 fig. 6), the mechanism comprising:
a plurality of bushings (see first flanged bushings 48 and second flanged bushings 50 in figs. 6-9), wherein the locking pin has opposed ends (opposing ends 43 of pin 38 fig. 6), wherein at least one of the plurality of bushings is provided in each of the first and second apertures (see bushings 48,50 in figs. 6-7 which are provided within the bore holes 37,39 of structural members 34 and 36 in figs. 4-5) defined in the spar structure (34 and 36 fig. 3) and wherein at least one of the plurality of bushings is provided on each end of the locking pin (bushings 48 and 50 are shown to be provided on each of the opposing ends 43 of the pin 38 in fig. 6);
at least one primary restraining mechanism (see internal threading 62 on first bushing 48 in fig. 9 for the front and aft first bushing in fig. 6) provided in the at least one of the bushings provided on each of the ends of the locking pin (first bushing 48 shown to be at both ends, left end and right end, of the pin 38 in figs. 6-7; “the joint assembly 32 includes at least one flanged bushing 48, 50 arranged in the first and/or second bore holes 37, 39 that receive the pin 38” pr. 45), wherein the at least one primary restraining mechanism (internal threads 62 of the front and aft first flange 48 on the left and right ends of pin 38 in fig. 6) is fixedly connected to the at least one of the plurality of bushings provided on each of the ends of the locking pin (the internal threads 62 of the front and aft first flange 48, shown to be at both ends of the pin 38 in fig. 6, are shown to be fixedly connected to the bushing/flange 48 in figs. 8-9), the at least one primary restraining mechanism being further configured to receive the locking pin to restrain at least one of sliding and rotary movement of the locking pin (38 fig. 6). (“the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50 may include optional internal threads 62. Thus, in such embodiments, the chord-wise extending pin 38 may have corresponding threads that engage the internal threads 62 of the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50” wl1a. 47; this structure would restrain, i.e., restrict, both sliding movement and rotary movement due to the friction interface between the threads of the pin 38 and the bushings 48,50; this structure accomplishing this is further supported by para. 47 of the instant published application).
However, Huth fails to anticipate a secondary restraining mechanism configured to be accommodated in a cavity defined in the locking pin, wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is removeably coupled to the locking pin, the secondary restraining mechanism being configured to restrain the rotary movement of the locking pin, and wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is an anti-rotational pin orientated parallel to a central axis of the locking pin.
Huth is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades. Maejima is analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant restricting rotating between two components.
Maejima teaches of a restraining mechanism (see eccentric bolt 191 fig. 1) configured to be accommodated in a cavity defined in [a shaft] (see eccentric bolt hole 161 which forms a cavity within the shaft 213 in fig. 1), wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is removeably coupled to the [shaft] (bolt 191 shown to go through bolt passing hole 185 on rotor 103 in fig. 1; it would be removeably coupled since it’s a threaded bolt), the restraining mechanism being configured to restrain the rotary movement of the [shaft] through [a component] (bolt 191 shown to go through bolt passing hole 185 on rotor 103 in fig. 1; it would be removeably coupled since it’s a threaded bolt), and wherein the restraining mechanism is an anti-rotational pin (see bolts 191 in fig. 1; “fastening the bolts 191, a hexagonal wrench (not shown) is fittingly engaged with the hexagonal hole 163 of the rotor shaft 113, thereby preventing rotation of the rotor 103 and the rotor shaft 113. As a result, the rotor 103 and the rotor shaft 113 are easily fastened together” pr. 46) oriented parallel to a central axis of the [shaft] (bolts 191 shown to be oriented parallel with rotor shaft 213 in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified at least one end 43 of pin 38 and the corresponding closed end 52 of bushing 48 in figs 6-7 of Huth with the eccentric bolt(s) 191, bolt passing hole(s) 185 and bolt hole(s) 161 disclosed by Maejima so as to obtain the benefit of ‘preventing relative rotation between the component with the bolt pass through hole and the component with the bolt hole as well as easily fastening these components together’ as taught by Maejima. This modification would further provide the benefit of redundancy in preventing relative rotation of the components should the threads of the bushing from Huth fail.
In the combination of above, the bolt would be accommodated in a cavity defined in the pin since the bolt hole 161 from Maejima would be provided in the end of the pin of Huth, the bolt would restrain rotary movement of the pin since it would connect the bushing 48 with the pin in fig. 7 of Huth. In the modification as stated above, the bolt 191 of Maejima would be parallel with the pin 38 of Huth.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 11, wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is removeably coupled to the locking pin through one of the bushings (bolt 191 shown to go through bolt passing hole 185 on rotor 103 in fig. 1 of Maejima, as used to modify the end of locking pin and the bushing of Huth above; the bolt would be removeably coupled since it’s a threaded bolt).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the wind turbine blade as claimed in claim 11, wherein the at least one primary restraining mechanism is at least one of a retention cap and a threaded joint (see front and aft first bushing 48 which is formed as a retention cap in fig. 6-7 of Huth, having internal thread 62 as shown in fig. 9 of Huth; this would qualify it as both a retention cap and a threaded joint due to the internal threads).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 13, wherein the retention cap is connected to at least one of the bushings and the locking pin (see connection of first bushing 48 with pin 38 in fig. 7 of Huth; “the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50 may include optional internal threads 62. Thus, in such embodiments, the chord-wise extending pin 38 may have corresponding threads that engage the internal threads 62 of the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50” para. 47 of Huth) by at least one of first threading connection (see inner threads 62 in fig. 9 of Huth) and a retention pin.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 13, further comprising a retaining ring (see second flanged bushing 50 in figs. 6-8 of Huth, shown in fig. 8 to take the form of a ring) mounted over the retention cap (see 48 in fig. 6 of Huth , the second flanged bushing 50 shown to be mounted over, i.e. on top of, the first flanged bushing 48 in fig. 7 of Huth), wherein the retaining ring is configured to receive and hold the locking pin (see internal threads 62 and open ends 60 of second flanged bushing 50 which would hold and receive the pin 38 fig. 7 of Huth).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 11, wherein the at least one of the bushings provided in each of the apertures extends along a length of the corresponding one of the apertures (see front and aft first bushing 48 provided in the apertures of 36 and extending through its thickness length in figs. 6-7 of Huth).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 11, wherein at least one of the plurality of bushings (see forward first bushing 48 in fig. 6 of Huth) is provided at a top end of the locking pin (38 fig. 6 of Huth) and at least one of the plurality of bushings (see rear first bushing 48 in fig. 6 of Huth) is provided at a bottom end of the locking pin (38 fig. 6 of Huth), the bushing provided at the top and bottom ends being connectable to the locking pin by a threading connection (see forward first bushing 48 in fig. 6 of Huth which can also be threaded to form a second threading connection 62 fig. 9 of Huth; “the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50 may include optional internal threads 62. Thus, in such embodiments, the chord-wise extending pin 38 may have corresponding threads that engage the internal threads 62 of the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50” para. 47 of Huth).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 11, wherein the cavity is defined with internal threads (see internal threads of bolt hole 161 in fig. 1 of Maejima, as used to modify the end of pin 38 in fig. 6 of Huth, the bolt hole defining a cavity therein) or a keyway to receive the anti-rotational pin and the anti-rotational pin is at least one of a splined pin or a threaded pin (see threaded bolt 191 in fig. 1 of Maejima, as used to modify Huth).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 11, wherein the anti-rotational pin is a threaded pin (see threaded bolt 191 which is analogous to a threaded pin in fig. 1 of Maejima, as used to modify Huth above) or a splined pin.
Regarding Claim 20, Huth discloses a method of assembling a wind turbine blade (20 fig. 2) having a profiled contour (see wind turbine blade 20 fig. 2) including a leading edge and a trailing edge (see leading edge and trailing edge of blade 20 in fig. 2) with a chord having a chord length extending therebetween (see chord length of blade in fig. 2), the wind turbine blade extending in a spanwise direction between a root end and a tip end (see spanwise extension from a root end 22 to a tip end 24 in fig. 2), the method comprising:
connecting a first blade segment (see root ring 35 in fig. 3, or alternatively a blade segment 26 in fig. 3) with a second blade segment (see one of the blade segments 26 in fig. 3) by a spar structure (comprised of 34 and male structural member 34 and the female structural members 36 in fig. 3), the spar structure comprising a first part (male structural member 34 fig. 3) housed in the first blade segment (root ring 35 shown to house 34 in fig. 3; alternatively, the blade segments 26 could also be interpreted to house the male member 34 when assembled as shown in fig. 6) and a second part housed in the second blade segment (see female structural member 36 housed within the blade segment 26 in fig. 3);
aligning (see alignment done in fig. 6) a first aperture (see bores 39 of male structural member 34 in fig. 5) defined in the first part (34 fig. 3) with a second aperture (see bores 37 of female structural members 36 in fig. 4) defined in the second part (36 fig. 3);
inserting a locking pin (38 fig. 6) in the first aperture and the second aperture of the first part and the second part (see pin 38 which has been inserted into the apertures of male structural member 34 and female structural member 36 in fig. 6) and connecting the first blade segment with the second blade segment of the wind turbine blade (by connecting 34 and 36 together, the pin 38 would thereby connect the root ring 35 and the blade segments 26 together in fig. 3; alternatively, this would also be the case between two blade segments 26 in fig. 3);
providing a plurality of bushings (see first flanged bushings 48 and second flanged bushings 50 in figs. 6-9) in the first and the second apertures (see bushings 48,50 in figs. 6-7 which are provided within the bore holes 37,39 of structural members 34 and 36 in figs. 4-5) of the spar structure (34 and 36 fig. 3) for housing the locking pin (bushings 48 and 50 shown to be on both ends of pin 38 fig. 6);
providing a primary restraining mechanism (see internal threading 62 on first bushing 48 in fig. 9 for the front and aft first bushings 48 in fig. 6) configured in the at least one the bushings at each end of the locking pin (first bushing 48 shown to be at both ends, left end and right end, of the pin 38 in figs. 6-7; “the joint assembly 32 includes at least one flanged bushing 48, 50 arranged in the first and/or second bore holes 37, 39 that receive the pin 38” pr. 45), wherein the primary restraining mechanism (internal threads 62 of the front and aft first flange 48 on the right end and the left end of pin 38 in figs. 6-9) is fixedly connected to the at least one of the bushings (see front and aft first bushings 48 fig. 6; the internal threads 62 are shown to be fixedly connected to the bushings in figs. 8-9) and is configured to restrain at least one of sliding and rotary movement of the locking pin (38 fig. 6; “the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50 may include optional internal threads 62. Thus, in such embodiments, the chord-wise extending pin 38 may have corresponding threads that engage the internal threads 62 of the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50” para. 47; this structure would restrain, i.e., restrict, both sliding movement and rotary movement due to the friction interface between the threads of the pin 38 and the bushings 48,50; this structure accomplishing this is further supported by para. 47 of the instant published application).
However, Huth fails to anticipate providing a secondary restraining mechanism configured to be accommodated in a cavity defined in the locking pin, wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is removably coupled to the locking pin through the at least one bushings and restrains the rotary movement of the locking pin, and wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is an anti-rotational pin oriented parallel to a central axis of the locking pin.
Huth is are considered analogous art since they relate to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades. Maejima is considered analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant restricting rotating between two components.
Maejima teaches of providing a [restraining] mechanism (bolt 191 fig. 1) configured to be accommodated in a cavity defined in [a shaft] (see bolt hole 161 which forms a cavity within the shaft 213 in fig. 1), wherein the restraining mechanism is removeably coupled to the [shaft] through [a component] (bolt 191 shown to go through bolt passing hole 185 on rotor 103 in fig. 1; it would be removeably coupled since it’s a threaded bolt) and restrains the rotary movement (“the rotor shaft 213 and the rotor 103 are fastened to each other by the bolts 191”pr. 92; since the bolts fasten the shaft 213 and rotor 103 together, it would prevent rotary movement between the two components), and wherein the restraining mechanism is an anti-rotational pin (see bolts 191 in fig. 1; “fastening the bolts 191, a hexagonal wrench (not shown) is fittingly engaged with the hexagonal hole 163 of the rotor shaft 113, thereby preventing rotation of the rotor 103 and the rotor shaft 113. As a result, the rotor 103 and the rotor shaft 113 are easily fastened together” pr. 46) oriented parallel to a central axis of the [shaft] (bolts 191 shown to be oriented parallel with rotor shaft 213 in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified at least one end 43 of pin 38 and the corresponding closed end 52 of bushing 48 in figs 6-7 of Huth with the eccentric bolt(s) 191, bolt passing hole(s) 185 and bolt hole(s) 161 disclosed by Maejima so as to obtain the benefit of ‘preventing relative rotation between the component with the bolt pass through hole and the component with the bolt hole as well as easily fastening these components together’ as taught by Maejima. This modification would further provide the benefit of redundancy in preventing relative rotation of the components should the threads of the bushing from Huth fail.
In the combination of above, the bolt would be accommodated in a cavity defined in the pin since the bolt hole 161 from Maejima would be provided in the end of the pin of Huth, the bolt would restrain rotary movement of the pin since it would connect the bushing 48 with the pin in fig. 7 of Huth. In the modification as stated above, the bolt 191 of Maejima would be parallel with the pin 38 of Huth.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Huth and Maejima comprises the method according to claim 1 wherein the anti-rotational pin is a threaded pin (see threaded bolt 191 which is analogous to a threaded pin in fig. 1 of Maejima, as used to modify Huth above) or a splined pin.
Regarding Claim 24, Huth discloses a mechanism for restraining movement of a locking pin (chord-wise extending pin 38 fig. 6), the mechanism comprising:
a plurality of bushings (see first flanged bushings 48 and second flanged bushings 50 in figs. 6-9), wherein the locking pin has opposed ends (opposing ends 43 of pin 38 fig. 6), wherein at least one of the plurality of bushings is provided on each end of the locking pin (bushings 48 and 50 are shown to be provided on each of the opposing ends 43 of the pin 38 in fig. 6);
at least one primary restraining mechanism (see internal threading 62 on first bushing 48 in fig. 9 for the aft first bushing in fig. 6) configured in the at least one bushing (aft first bushing 48 fig. 6) at one of the ends of the locking pin (first bushing 48 shown to be at an end of the pin 38 fig. 7), wherein the at least one primary restraining mechanism (internal threads 62 of the aft first flange 48 on the right end of pin 38 in fig. 6) is fixedly connected to the at least one bushing at the one of the ends of the locking pin (see aft first bushing 48 fig. 6); the internal threads 62 are shown to be fixedly connected to the first bushing 48 in fig. 9), the at least one primary restraining mechanism being further configured to restrain at least one of sliding and rotary movement of the locking pin (38 fig. 6). (“the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50 may include optional internal threads 62. Thus, in such embodiments, the chord-wise extending pin 38 may have corresponding threads that engage the internal threads 62 of the flanged bushing(s) 48, 50” pr. 47; this structure would restrain, i.e., restrict, both sliding movement and rotary movement due to the friction interface between the threads of the pin 38 and the bushings 48,50; this structure accomplishing this is further supported by para. 47 of the instant published application);
However, Huth fails to anticipate a secondary restraining mechanism configured to be accommodated in a cavity defined in the locking pin, wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is removably coupled to the locking pin through at least one of the bushings, the secondary restraining mechanism being configured to restrain the rotary mechanism is an anti-rotational pin oriented parallel to a central axis of the locking pin, the anti-rotational pin being a spline pin.
Huth is are considered analogous art since they relate to the field of endeavor of mechanisms for restraining movement of locking pins. Maejima is considered analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant restricting rotating between two components.
a restraining mechanism (bolt 191 fig. 1) configured to be accommodated in a cavity defined in [a shaft] (see bolt hole 161 which forms a cavity within the shaft 213 in fig. 1), wherein the restraining mechanism is removeably coupled to the [shaft] through [a component] (bolt 191 shown to go through bolt passing hole 185 on rotor 103 to reach main shaft 151 in fig. 1; it would be removeably coupled since it’s a threaded bolt), the secondary restraining mechanism being configured to restrain the rotary movement of the [shaft] (“the rotor shaft 213 and the rotor 103 are fastened to each other by the bolts 191”pr. 92; since the bolts fasten the shaft 213 and rotor 103 together, it would prevent rotary movement between the two components), and wherein the secondary restraining mechanism is an anti-rotational pin (see bolts 191 in fig. 1; “fastening the bolts 191, a hexagonal wrench (not shown) is fittingly engaged with the hexagonal hole 163 of the rotor shaft 113, thereby preventing rotation of the rotor 103 and the rotor shaft 113. As a result, the rotor 103 and the rotor shaft 113 are easily fastened together” pr. 46) oriented parallel to a central axis of the [shaft] (bolts 191 shown to be oriented parallel with rotor shaft 213 in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified at least one end 43 of pin 38 and the corresponding closed end 52 of bushing 48 in figs 6-7 of Huth with the eccentric bolt(s) 191, bolt passing hole(s) 185 and bolt hole(s) 161 disclosed by Maejima so as to obtain the benefit of ‘preventing relative rotation between the component with the bolt pass through hole and the component with the bolt hole as well as easily fastening these components together’ as taught by Maejima. This modification would further provide the benefit of redundancy in preventing relative rotation of the components should the threads of the bushing from Huth fail.
In the combination of above, the bolt would be accommodated in a cavity defined in the pin since the bolt hole 161 from Maejima would be provided in the end of the pin of Huth, the bolt would restrain rotary movement of the pin since it would connect the bushing 48 with the pin in fig. 7 of Huth. In the modification as stated above, the bolt 191 of Maejima would be parallel with the pin 38 of Huth.
However, the combination of above fails to teach the anti-rotational pin being a spline pin.
Splined connections between a pin/bolt and a bore through which it extends through are another manner known in the art of limiting rotary movement between two component. Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of simple substitution to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the threaded pin/bolt in the combination of Huth and Maejima for a splined pin, for the predictable result of a suitable means for limiting rotary movement between components. See MPEP 2143 subsection B “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745