DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 4 should be amended to -a trailing edge and the adjoining [[wiglet]] winglet comprising an inboard section that-.
line 14 should be amended to - features formed into the blade [[section]] portion during the additive manufacturing-. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 should be amended to - wherein the vortex [[generator]] generating features are selected from the group consisting-. 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 5, 6-17, 19 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 5:
The claim recites the limitation "the blade section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6:
The claim recites the limitation "the blade section" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 7:
The claim recites the limitation "the wing tip" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8:
The claim recites the limitation "the blade section" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9:
The claim recites the limitation "the blade section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10:
The claim limitation “a leading edge” in line 2 is unclear. The limitation is unclear because of the earlier recitation of the limitation “a leading edge” in line 3 of claim 1 (on which this claim depends) which raises a question of if two of leading edges are required by the claim 10 or only one. For the sake of examination, the office has assumed that only one leading edge is required by the claim. However, the applicant should amend the claim to clarify.
The claim recites the limitation "the blade section" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 11:
The claim recites the limitation "the blade section" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12:
The claim recites the limitation "the wind turbine blade portion" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 12.
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, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106762389 A to Zhou et al. (Zhou)(see English language machine translation attached to this or a previous office action) in view of US 2018/0135602 to Tobin et al. (Tobin).
Regarding claim 1:
Zhou discloses:
A method of forming a turbine blade tip (figures 1-3), comprising:
forming a blade portion (31) and adjoining winglet (32) together, the blade portion (31) having a plane (plane extending from the leading edge A in figure 1 below to trailing edge B in figure 1 below) from a leading edge (A in figure 1 below) to a trailing edge (B in figure 1 below) and the adjoining wiglet comprising an inboard section (32) that extends out of the plane of the blade portion (31);
wherein the plane of the blade portion (31) lies in a turbine blade plane (plane from the leading and trailing edge of turbine blade 2) when attached to a turbine blade (2);
wherein the blade portion (31) comprises vortex generator features (9) formed into the blade section (as shown in figure 2); and
wherein the vortex generator features (9) are selected from the group consisting essentially of openings (see the vortex generator 9 are serrations that form openings that extend through the interior portion of the blade portion 31) in the blade portion (31) that penetrate into an interior portion of the blade portion (31) (as shown in figure 2) and tabs that extend away from a surface of the blade portion away from the plane of the blade portion (the tab structure is not shown).
Zhou fails to disclose:
Forming a blade portion and adjoining winglet together by an additive manufacturing process,
wherein the additive manufacturing process is selected from the group consisting of particle deposition, powder bed fusion, binder jetting, and particle or material extrusion,
wherein the blade portion comprises vortex generator features formed into the blade section during the additive manufacturing process.
Tobin teaches:
A method for forming a turbine blade tip (102) that can be made by any suitable manufacturing process including 3D printing/additive manufacturing process/particle deposition (¶0067). The reference further teaches 3D printing has advantages including providing an automated and economical manufacturing process that produces the desired shape that can be easily customized for various lengths, sizes, and internal geometry to match up to the existing blade surface (¶0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to make the turbine blade tip including the blade portion, winglet and vortex generators features from a 3D printing/additive manufacturing process/particle deposition process as taught by Tobin since the process of 3D printing is automated and economical manufacturing process.
PNG
media_image1.png
398
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 – figure 2 of Zhou, annotated by the examiner
Regarding claim 3:
Zhou discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the additive manufacturing process is particle deposition process is 3D printing (see the 3D printing process of Tobin incorporated into Zhou).
Regarding claim 5:
Zhou discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the adjoining winglet (32) is structural formed with the blade section (31) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 8:
Zhou discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
forming by additive manufacturing (see the additive manufacturing process incorporated from Tobin into Zhou) vortex generators (9/91) on a surface of the blade section (31).
Regarding claim 11:
Zhou discloses:
A wind turbine blade tip comprising the blade section (31) formed by the method of claim 1 (see the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12:
Zhou discloses:
A wind turbine blade tip (figures 1-3), comprising:
a blade portion (31) and adjoining winglet (32);
wherein the blade portion (31) includes vortex generating features (9) formed directly into the blade portion (31) (as shown in figure 2);
wherein the blade portion (31) and the adjoining winglet (32) is formed together with the blade portion (31) (as shown in figure 2);
wherein the blade portion (31) lies within a plane (plane extending from the trailing edge of 3/31 as shown in figure 4) and the adjoining winglet (32) extends outward from the plane (see figure 2 where the winglet 32 extends out from the plane of 31); and
wherein the vortex generator features (9) are selected from the group consisting essentially of openings (see the vortex generator 9 are serrations that form openings that extend through the interior portion of the blade portion 31) in the blade portion (31) that penetrate into an interior portion of the blade portion (31) (as shown in figure 2) and tabs that extend away from a surface of the blade portion away from the plane of the blade portion (the tab structure is not shown).
Zhou fails to disclose:
a blade portion and adjoining winglet formed by a single additive manufacturing process, wherein the single additive manufacturing process is selected from the group consisting of particle deposition, powder bed fusion, binder jetting, and particle or material extrusion such that the wind turbine blade portion or winglet has no component joints;
wherein the blade portion includes vortex generating features formed directly into the blade portion by an additive manufacturing process;
wherein the blade portion and the adjoining winglet is formed together with the blade portion during the additive manufacturing process;
Tobin teaches:
A method for forming a turbine blade tip (102) that can be made by any suitable manufacturing process including 3D printing/additive manufacturing process/particle deposition (¶0067). The reference further teaches 3D printing has advantages including providing an automated and economical manufacturing process that produces the desired shape that can be easily customized for various lengths, sizes, and internal geometry to match up to the existing blade surface (¶0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to make the turbine blade tip including the blade portion, winglet and vortex generators features from a 3D printing/additive manufacturing process/particle deposition process as taught by Tobin since the process of 3D printing is automated and economical manufacturing process.
Regarding claim 14:
Zhou discloses:
The blade tip of claim 12, wherein the winglet (32) comprises a tip section (see the tip section 3 and shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 15:
Zhou discloses:
The blade tip of claim 14, wherein the winglet (32) is seamlessly joined to the blade portion (31) as the blade portion (31) and winglet (32) are additively manufactured seamlessly together (see the additive manufacturing process described of Tobin incorporated into Zhou).
Regarding claim 16:
Zhou discloses:
The blade tip of claim 12, wherein the blade portion (31) further comprises additively manufactured trailing edge treatments (see the edge C in figure 1 above of the blade portion).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106762389 A to Zhou et al. (Zhou) and US 2018/0135602 to Tobin et al. (Tobin) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2007/0110585 to Bonnet.
Regarding claim 6:
Zhou fails to disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the blade section includes surface dimples formed into a surface of the blade section.
Bonnet teaches:
A blade section (figure 3) for a wind turbine (¶0001). The wind turbine further includes dimples (154) on the surface of the blade section. The dimples aid in reducing the drag and noise of the turbine blade (¶0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to include surface dimples on the blade section as taught by Bonnet for the purpose of reducing the drag and noise of the wind turbine blade.
Regarding claim 7:
Zhou fails to disclose:
The method of claim 4, wherein the adjoining winglet includes surface dimples formed into a surface of the wing tip.
Bonnet teaches:
A blade section (figure 3) for a wind turbine (¶0001). The wind turbine further includes dimples (154) on the surface of the blade section. The dimples aid in reducing the drag and noise of the turbine blade (¶0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to include surface dimples on the wing tip as taught by Bonnet for the purpose of reducing the drag and noise of the wind turbine blade.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106762389 A to Zhou et al. (Zhou) and US 2018/0135602 to Tobin et al. (Tobin) as applied to claims 12 above, and further in view of US 2007/0110585 to Bonnet.
Regarding claim 17:
Zhou fails to disclose:
The blade tip of claim 12, wherein the blade portion comprises surface dimples.
Bonnet teaches:
A blade section (figure 3) for a wind turbine (¶0001). The wind turbine further includes dimples (154) on the surface of the blade section. The dimples aid in reducing the drag and noise of the turbine blade (¶0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to include surface dimples on the blade section as taught by Bonnet for the purpose of reducing the drag and noise of the wind turbine blade.
Claim(s) 9, 10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106762389 A to Zhou et al. (Zhou) and US 2018/0135602 to Tobin et al. (Tobin) applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2009/0285682 to Baker et al. (Baker).
Regarding claim 9:
Zhou fails to disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: forming active controls into a surface of the blade section.
Baker teaches:
A wind turbine (figure 1) that includes blades (10). The blades further include active controls/deflectors (30/32 in figure 9) on the leading edge (20 in figure 5). The deflectors are located on the blade (16) and tip (18) of the blade (see figure 19). The active controls/deflectors are made of erosion resistance material/stainless steel (¶0055). The active controls/deflectors reduce the loads experienced by the blades of the wind turbine and prevent damage to the wind turbine (¶0009 and 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to further include active controls/deflectors on the leading edge of the blade section as taught by Baker for the purpose of reducing the loads on the blade section to prevent damage (Baker, ¶0009 and 0011).
Regarding claim 10:
Zhou fails to disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: forming a leading edge of an erosion resistant material into the blade section.
Baker teaches:
A wind turbine (figure 1) that includes blades (10). The blades further include active controls/deflectors (30/32 in figure 9) on the leading edge (20 in figure 5). The deflectors are located on the blade (16) and tip (18) of the blade (see figure 19). The active controls/deflectors are made of erosion resistance material/stainless steel (¶0055). The active controls/deflectors reduce the loads experienced by the blades of the wind turbine and prevent damage to the wind turbine (¶0009 and 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to further include active controls/deflectors on the leading edge of the blade section as taught by Baker for the purpose of reducing the loads on the rotors to prevent damage (Baker, ¶0009 and 0011). This would put active controls on the leading edge on the blade section which are made of erosion resistant material (stainless steel as indicated above in Baker) which would be greater than the material used elsewhere on the blade (such as aluminum as taught by Tobin in ¶0073).
Regarding claim 19:
Zhou fails to disclose:
The blade tip of claim 12, wherein the adjoining winglet comprises a tip section that comprises active controls.
Baker teaches:
A wind turbine (figure 1) that includes blades (10). The blades further include active controls/deflectors (30/32 in figure 9) on the leading edge (20 in figure 5). The deflectors are located on the blade (16) and tip (18) of the blade (see figure 19). The active controls/deflectors are made of erosion resistance material/stainless steel (¶0055). The active controls/deflectors reduce the loads experienced by the blades of the wind turbine and prevent damage to the wind turbine (¶0009 and 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to further include active controls/deflectors on the leading edge of the winglet section as taught by Baker for the purpose of reducing the loads on the winglet to prevent damage (Baker, ¶0009 and 0011).
Regarding claim 20:
Zhou fails to disclose:
The blade tip of claim 12, wherein the blade portion comprises a leading edge of a material having an erosion resistance greater than other portions of the blade portion.
Baker teaches:
A wind turbine (figure 1) that includes blades (10). The blades further include active controls/deflectors (30/32 in figure 9) on the leading edge (20 in figure 5). The deflectors are located on the blade (16) and tip (18) of the blade (see figure 19). The active controls/deflectors are made of erosion resistance material/stainless steel (¶0055). The active controls/deflectors reduce the loads experienced by the blades of the wind turbine and prevent damage to the wind turbine (¶0009 and 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhou to further include active controls/deflectors on the leading edge of the blade section as taught by Baker for the purpose of reducing the loads on the rotors to prevent damage (Baker, ¶0009 and 0011). This would put active controls on the leading edge on the blade section which are made of erosion resistant material (stainless steel as indicated above in Baker) which would be greater than the material used elsewhere on the blade (such as aluminum as taught by Tobin in ¶0073).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/11/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 5-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zhou and Tobin.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1 and 12:
The applicant has argued that the combination does not teach “openings in the blade portion that penetrate into an interior portion of the blade portion and tabs that extend away from a surface of the blade portion away from the plane of the blade portion” (see page 8 and 9 of the remarks) and for this reason the above rejection should be withdrawn. However, the office is not persuaded by this since the serrations/vortex generators 9 read on this limitation since they are openings in the blade that penetrate into an interior portion of the blade (the center of the blade) since they extend completely through the blade. The office believes the applicant is attempting to claim that the openings are located at a center portion of the blade in between the leading and trailing edge of the blade (based on the arguments) however this is not what is claimed or the claim is not limited to this interpretation. The serrations 9 are openings in the blade that extend into an interior (middle) of the blade and for this reason they read on the limitation of the claim. For this reason, the above rejections are made.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) claim rejections:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have addressed the previous claim rejections and for this reason they have been withdrawn. However, a new set of rejections have been made because of the amendments to the claims.
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 HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-3665. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am-5pm.
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, Michael Tsai can be reached on (571) 270-5246. 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.
/WESLEY G HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3783