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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group 5 (claims 1, 16-20) in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
“Examiner appears to be only looking at a partial recitation of the features of independent claim 1” and “nor is the Examiner considering any of the other claims 2-5 which are part of Group”. The arguments are not persuasive because the restriction requirement considered all of claim 1 (see mapping of all of claim 1 to prior art in the restriction requirement); also, all claims were considered (see, for example, claims 2-5 grouped into Group 1 which is separate from Group 2); also, the restriction requirement is based on a unity of invention analysis for a national stage application (see MPEP 1893.03(d)) and identifies a lack of unity between groups, not between individual claims or within groups.
“Propellor blades and wind turbine blades are not aerodynamically equivalent” and “This functional difference leads to key design differences between the two, including airfoil shape, thickness and blade twist” and “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not expect a protective cap designed for the particular geometry of a propellor to function, or even fit, on a wind turbine blade”. The arguments are not persuasive because propeller blades and turbine blades are both in the same field of endeavor of rotor blades and a specific shape or thickness or twist are design details of all rotor blades. One having ordinary skill in the art would be able to modify one rotor blade with a feature of another rotor blade, even if the blades have, for example, different thicknesses.
“The cap would have no way of being attached to Caruso's blade without substantial modification of Caruso” and “the combination of Merz and Caruso et al. is potentially impossible and, at the least, would result in the destruction of the desired aerodynamic properties of Caruso's blade”. The argument is not persuasive because the restriction requirement does not rely on a modification as such, and the cap feature and all required supporting structure could be attached to Caruso's blade by one having ordinary skill in the art without destruction of the desired aerodynamic properties of Caruso's blade (Merz’s disclosure, e.g. col 1 line 28, also Fig 1, indicates that the cap maintains high aerodynamic efficiency without changing the profile of the leading edge and shows how the cap may be incorporated into a rotor blade).
A search/examination burden does not exist between the indicated groups. This is not deemed to be persuasive because the restriction requirement set forth was based on a unity of invention analysis for a national stage application. The unity of invention requirement is separate from the “independent and distinct” analysis and does not consider search burden in its analysis (see MPEP 1893.03(d)). Applicant references MPEP 806.05 which does not apply to the unity of invention analysis.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 2-15, 21-25 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 (line 1) recites the limitation “A wind turbine blade assembly” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same wind turbine blade assembly previously identified in claim 16 or a different wind turbine blade assembly. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the wind turbine blade assembly --.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 20 recite(s) the same limitation, suffering from the same deficiency, thus is/are similarly rejected.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below 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, 16-20 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 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 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 (Fig 1 clearly shows this).
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 facture 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 17, Santiago as modified above discloses:
the leading edge at the first part of the wind turbine blade is spaced from the protective cap (via cavity 3, for example; Fig 1).
Regarding claim 18, Santiago as modified above discloses:
for any wind turbine blade airfoil 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 said airfoil.
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
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 4895491 A - cited for teaching a metallic erosion resistant member 110.
US 7896616 B2 - cited for teaching integrated erosion, lightning and icing protection for a leading edge.
US 20210363963 A1 - cited for teaching leading edge protector 30.
US 20170334577 A1 - cited for teaching a blade sheath for protection.
US 20230115914 A1 - cited for teaching two leading edge protection elements 50.
US 20230265828 A1 - cited for teaching a leading edge protection element 50
US 5165859 A - cited for teaching protection member 20.
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 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745