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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, Applicant’s remark appears to be correct: Form PTOL-326 of the office action mailed on 3/3/2026 appears to mistakenly identify that the drawings are objected to while no actual objections to drawings are identified within the written office action. This mistake is corrected within the instant Form PTOL-326 of this office action.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 4 of page 9 through paragraph 3 of page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim 1 limitation (last limitation) “and wherein the protective cap (310) is furthermore spaced from the leading edge (18) of the wind turbine blade (305) by another space (408)” unnecessarily includes the term “furthermore” because nowhere previously is a space between the protective cap (310) and the leading edge (18) described. The term should be removed to remove confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110142678 A1 (hereinafter Santiago) in view of US 4944655 A (Merz).
Regarding claim 1, Santiago discloses:
A protective cap (110; Fig 2) for protecting a leading edge (26) of a wind turbine blade (16),
the wind turbine blade extending along a longitudinal axis between a root end of the wind turbine blade and a tip end of the wind turbine blade (Fig 2 indicates all this),
Santiago may not explicitly disclose:
the protective cap comprising a first attachment portion for attaching the protective cap to a suction side of the wind turbine blade and comprising a second attachment portion for attaching the protective cap to a pressure side of the wind turbine blade,
the protective cap further comprising:
- a first metal layer having a first side and a second side opposite the first side,
the first metal layer extending between the first attachment portion and the second attachment portion of the protective cap,
- a second metal layer having a first side and a second side opposite the first side,
the second metal layer extending between the first attachment portion and the second attachment portion of the protective cap,
the first metal layer and the second metal layer being at least partly spaced apart.
However, Merz, in the same field of endeavor, rotor blades, teaches:
protective cap (2 combined with 6; Fig 1) for protecting a leading edge (Fig 1 shows this) of a blade (13; Fig 1),
the protective cap comprising a first attachment portion (portion at upper weld location 4 in Fig 1; col 2 lines 55-58) for attaching (via inner shroud 6; Fig 1) the protective cap to a suction side (e.g., the upper side in Fig 1) of the blade and comprising a second attachment portion (portion at lower weld location 4 in Fig 1) for attaching (via inner shroud 6; Fig 1) the protective cap to a pressure side (e.g., the lower side in Fig 1) of the blade,
the protective cap further comprising:
- a first metal layer (metal shroud 2; Fig 1) having a first side (exterior side in Fig 1) and a second side (interior side in Fig 1) opposite the first side,
the first metal layer extending between the first attachment portion and the second attachment portion of the protective cap (Fig 1 shows this),
- a second metal layer (6; Fig 1; metal per col 2 lines 47-58) having a first side (exterior side in Fig 1) and a second side (interior side in Fig 1) opposite the first side,
the second metal layer extending between the first attachment portion and the second attachment portion of the protective cap (Fig 1 shows this),
the first metal layer and the second metal layer being at least partly spaced apart from each other by a space (e.g. shown at reference character 4 in Fig 1),
and wherein the protective cap is furthermore spaced from the leading edge of the wind turbine blade by another space (via cavity 3, for example; Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Santiago to include Merz’s teachings as described above, having Merz’s cap and related supporting structure replace Santiago’s cap, in order to have the cap instead comprise a number of metal sections which can help offset thermal expansion and reduce risk of fatigue fracture and enable replacement of individual sections upon damage (col 2 lines 59-66).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to Merz unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 16, Santiago as modified above discloses:
A wind turbine blade assembly comprising:
- a wind turbine blade extending along a longitudinal axis between a root end of the wind turbine blade and a tip end of the wind turbine blade (claim 1 mapping above identifies all this),
the wind turbine blade having a leading edge and a trailing edge and a suction side extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge and a pressure side extending between the leading edge and the trailing edge (e.g. Santiago Fig 2 shows all this),
and - a protective cap in accordance with claim 1 (see claim 1 above),
wherein the first attachment portion of the protective cap is attached to the suction side of the wind turbine blade (Fig 1 shows this) and the second attachment portion of the protective cap is attached to the pressure side of the wind turbine blade (Fig 1 shows this),
the protective cap extending along at least a first part (e.g., the cross section of Fig 1) of the leading edge of the wind turbine blade,
whereby the first part of the leading edge is protected by the protective cap (Fig 1 shows this).
Regarding claim 18, Santiago as modified above discloses:
for the wind turbine blade within the first part of the leading edge of the wind turbine blade (Fig 1 shows this),
the protective cap extends backwards (downstream) on the pressure side and the suction side at most (not extending beyond, as indicated by Applicant’s Fig 4) to a chord coordinate (location along a chord of the blade) of maximum thickness (generally at the leader line of reference character 13 in Fig 1) of the wind turbine blade.
Regarding claim 19, Santiago, as modified above, discloses:
a first conductor (heating conductor 5 which is also lightning conductor 20; Fig 6) electrically connecting the protective cap to a downconductor connector (as indicated by Fig 6; col 4 lines 30-32; Fig 6; col 5 lines 19-26) of the wind turbine blade.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 10202966 B2 (hereinafter Lipka).
Regarding claim 20, Santiago, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not disclose:
the protective cap is electrically isolated from a downconductor of the wind turbine blade.
However, Lipka, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
A heating device (30; Fig 3, Fig 4) which is electrically isolated from the lightning conductor (26) via spark gaps (40) during normal operation in order to prevent the heating current from leaking away via the lightning conductor (e.g. col 5 line 65 – col 6 line 4); the spark gap ignites only upon the occurrence of high voltages, such as those that occur in the case of a lightning strike (e.g. col 6 lines 24-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Santiago as modified above to include Lipka’s teachings as described above, having Merz’s heating conductor (5)/protective cap electrically isolated from a downconductor via spark gaps, in order to prevent the heating current from leaking away via the lightning conductor (e.g. col 5 line 65 – col 6 line 4) and having the spark gap ignite only upon the occurrence of high voltages, such as those that occur in the case of a lightning strike (e.g. col 6 lines 24-27).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights