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 2/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejection regarding “airflow modifying elements”, in paragraph 4 of page 7 through paragraph 4 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the written description discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Particularly Applicant points to para 0050 (“Airflow modifying elements or “deflectors””), 0051 (“a filler material to form one or more of the airflow modifying elements. A filler material may be e.g. a foam, or bulk material.”), 0052 (“Any suitable airflow modifying element including e.g. a net, blocks, a straight or curved plate or fence may be used.”), 104 (“deflectors attached to an outside of the device”). The arguments are persuasive and the related rejection is hereby withdrawn. Based on the paragraphs identified above the “airflow modifying elements” are interpreted as deflectors, a foam, or bulk material, plates, nets, blocks, straight or curved plates or fences, or equivalents thereof.
Regarding all other prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all of those rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 5 of page 8 through paragraph 2 of page 11 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 Interpretation
The previous claim interpretation(s) (identified in the office action mailed on 1/27/2026) made under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) regarding the term(s) “airflow modifying elements”; “removable locking element” are maintained.
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) 12 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 12 (line 4) recites the limitation “the device comprising” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the one or more devices each comprising --.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20220356865 A1 (Buhl).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Buhl discloses:
A device for mitigating vibrations of a rotor blade (blade 10; Fig 1) of a wind turbine (2; Fig 1) during standstill, the device comprising:
a flexible base (50; Fig 4a; para 0064: “The blade damping device comprises a flexible and resilient foamed polymer material so that the base part 50 conforms to the exterior shape of the wind turbine blade 10 when the blade damping device is attached to the wind turbine blade 10”) having a first connection area (Annotated Fig 6a) and a second connection area (Annotated Fig 6a),
the first connection area configured for attachment to the second connection area to form a removable attachment (Fig 6 shows this),
and one or more airflow modifying elements (60; Fig 6) attached to the flexible base,
wherein the flexible base is configured to fit around a portion of the rotor blade (Fig 6 shows this) such that the removable attachment comprising the first connection area and the second connection area (Fig 6 shows that the removable attachment does comprise of the first connection area and the second connection area) is positioned at a leading edge (18; Fig 6) of the rotor blade (Fig 6 shows all this) (note that this limitation as currently written does not require the first connection area and the second connection area to each be located at the leading edge, it merely requires that the removable attachment comprise the first connection area and the second connection area, and that the removable attachment is positioned at a leading edge; note that the use of “is” points to a singular item, the removable attachment, not a plurality of items).
PNG
media_image1.png
581
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 6a
Regarding claim 3, Buhl discloses:
the removable attachment comprises a removable locking element (70a; Fig 6).
Regarding claim 4, Buhl discloses:
a line (81; Fig 6) attached (via 41c) to the removable locking element (Fig 6 shows this).
Regarding claim 12, Buhl discloses:
A wind turbine rotor blade, comprising:
an aerodynamic body (blade 10; Fig 1) comprising a leading edge (18; Fig 6) and trailing edge (20; Fig 6);
one or more devices (generally shown in Fig 6) for mitigating vibrations of the wind turbine rotor blade during standstill (intended use), the device comprising:
a flexible base (50; Fig 4a; para 0064: “The blade damping device comprises a flexible and resilient foamed polymer material so that the base part 50 conforms to the exterior shape of the wind turbine blade 10 when the blade damping device is attached to the wind turbine blade 10”) having a first connection area (Annotated Fig 6a) and a second connection area (Annotated Fig 6a),
the first connection area configured for attachment to the second connection area to form a removable attachment (Fig 6 shows this),
and one or more airflow modifying elements (60; Fig 6) attached to the flexible base,
wherein the flexible base is configured to fit around a portion of the wind turbine rotor blade (Fig 6 shows this) such that the removable attachment comprising the first connection area and the second connection area (Fig 6 shows that the removable attachment does comprise of the first connection area and the second connection area) is positioned at the leading edge (Fig 6 shows all this) (note that this limitation as currently written does not require the first connection area and the second connection area to each be located at the leading edge, it merely requires that the removable attachment comprise the first connection area and the second connection area, and that the removable attachment is positioned at a leading edge; note that the use of “is” points to a singular item, the removable attachment, not a plurality of items).
Examiner’s note: Regarding limitations identified as “intended use”:
Courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does or how a device is intended to be employed. See MPEP 2114(II).
It has also been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
In this case, the device in the prior art reference has all the necessary structure and therefore performs the claimed function in the same manner as Applicant’s device. Since the prior art discloses all of the same structural elements which Applicant claims, the prior art structure would be expected to perform the same as Applicant’s structure, the prior art’s device being capable of mitigating vibrations.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
A recitation of the intended use, or intended result, of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buhl in view of non-patent literature “Hook-and-loop fastener” (hereinafter Half).
Regarding claim 5, Buhl discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
the first connection area comprises a first series of fasteners,
and the second connection area comprises a second series of fasteners,
wherein the first series of fasteners is configured to fit in the second series of fasteners,
and wherein the first series of fasteners are secured to the second series of fasteners with the removable locking element.
However, Half, in the same field of endeavor, fastening elements, teaches:
In paragraph 1 hook and loop fasteners comprising two fabric strips, a first fabric strip comprising hooks, a second fabric strip comprising loops.
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 Buhl to include Half’s teachings as described above, having Buhl’s strap 70a (which para 0065 identifies “can be detached by means of a release device (not shown), which upon activation, detaches the blade damping devices 41a, 41b from the wind turbine blade 10 e.g. by detaching ends of the first connector element 70”) comprise hook and loop fasteners, in order to leverage any of the many well known benefits of hook and loop fasteners such as, for example, any of those identified on Half page 4, to easily secure/remove the device from the blade.
This modification results in teaching the limitation as follows:
the first connection area comprises a first series of fasteners (hooks),
and the second connection area comprises a second series of fasteners (loops),
wherein the first series of fasteners is configured to fit in the second series of fasteners (hooks in loops),
and wherein the first series of fasteners are secured to the second series of fasteners with the removable locking element (the hooks and loops are on strap 70a).
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 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
Prosecution Insights