DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 07/15/2025. Claims 1 and 19 were amended. Claims 1-20 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 .
This is a non-Final Rejection. Although all claims have been rejected, it is not a final decision. Typically, the second Office Action is a Final Rejection, and continuing prosecution after the second, Final Office Action may require additional fees. The Applicant may reply to this Office Action within 3 months, without incurring any additional fee. Replies must be in the proper format and properly signed, as described in the internet resources described above – otherwise corrections will be required, causing delays that can incur fees. The Applicant may contact the Inventors Assistance Center, the Pro Se Assistance Program, or the Examiner without incurring any additional fees.
The patent process is a complex set of laws, regulations, policies and procedures; therefore, the USPTO always recommends using a registered patent attorney or agent to assist in preparing your application. The USPTO also recognizes that the cost of legal assistance is prohibitive for many applicants, particularly independent inventors and small businesses. The Pro Se Assistance Program provides resources to help independent inventors and small businesses meet their goal of protecting valuable intellectual property. You can access information and services by going to uspto.gov/patents/basics/using-legal-services/pro-se-assistance-program . The Inventors Assistance Center also offers information about responding to Office Actions like this one at uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/inventors-assistance-center-iac . Further, the Examiner for this application is available for an interview to further explain the rejections and how to overcome 112(b) rejections and claim objections. Examiner Wesley Fisher can be reached at 469-295-9146.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/15/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-13 and 19-20) in the reply filed on 07/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “adding the limitation that repurposed blades be obsolete” would withdraw the restriction requirement. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are still distinct from each other. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)).
In the instant case, the product of Invention I can be made by another and material different process than the process of Invention II since the process of claim 14 requires “providing a plurality of obsolete wind turbine blades mounted on one or more HAWTs” which is not required by the product of claims 1 or 19. Invention I requires obsolete repurposed fiber reinforced polymer rotor blades which is distinct from the obsolete blades from a HAWT as required by Invention II. Additionally, the product of Invention I can be made by another and materially different process since a process of making the product of Invention I can be done without the process step of assessing a stress profile of the obsolete wind turbine blades as required by Invention II (see step c and step d in claim 14).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner Note: a restriction between a product/apparatus and a process/method is different from a restriction between two products in that only a one-way distinctness needs to be demonstrated between the product and the process; instead of a two-way distinctness which would be required to be shown in a restriction between two products.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, the phrases “obsolete” and “repurposed” in the limitation “a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades” in claim 1 and claim 19 are interpreted as product by process limitations and renders claims 1 and 19, and their respective dependent claims, product-by-process claims. The phrase “obsolete” would include a process so as to establish or label the blade as obsolete. The phrase “repurposed” represents a process of repurposing the blades from an original purpose. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted) in MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims”.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “wherein the plurality of repurposed blades have had a prior use in which they were subject to mechanical stresses sufficient to render them unusable in an intended prior application and wherein mechanical stresses of the present use differ from those of a prior use” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation and renders this claim a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims”.
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “wherein the number of repurposed blades is greater than in a primary use design” renders this claim a product-by-process claim since the number of repurposed blades being greater than in a primary use design represents a process of repurposing blades from their primary use to a secondary use. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims”.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “wherein the plurality of repurposed blades each have a long axis originally designed to be mounted to a horizontal-axis drive” renders this claim a product-by-process claim since the repurposed blades each having a long axis originally designed to be mounted to a horizontal-axis drive represents a process of repurposing blades from their original use to a secondary use. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims”.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitation “wherein the plurality of repurposed blades comprise matching longitudinal segments of their original rendering, such that the segments are subject to reduced mechanical stress” renders this claim a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims”.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “wherein at least two repurposed blades are bisected along a long axis and the halves mounted as longitudinally cupped sails on a vertical axial drive” renders this claim a product-by-process claim. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims”.
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: “blade pitch control system” in claim 20; “blade pitch control” being the function recited in the claim; the claim lacking sufficient structure limitations. Corresponding structure for this limitation was not found in the instant specification.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 fails to written description requirement due to the limitation “blade pitch control system” interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f) as noted above. The instant disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure of this limitations leading to the conclusion that Applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention at the effective filing date.
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 1-13 and 19-20 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 Claims 1 and 19, the limitation “a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades” renders the claim indefinite since the words “obsolete” and “repurposed” result in these claims being product-by-process claims and it is not clear what structure (if any) these words establish for the claimed invention. Additionally, the word obsolete does not have a fixed understanding in the art as an item could be considered obsolete by one in the art while another person in the art would not consider this item obsolete. The word “repurposed” is a product by process-limitation and would not carry patentable weight in a product-by-process claim; it is unclear if applicant intends for this to be the case.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, the term “obsolete” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “obsolete” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term does not have a concrete meaning in the art and is also relative and subject to other factors. For example, obsolete would have no implication on the structure in situations where new blades designs make the prior blade design obsolete to state of the art wind turbine businesses.
Claims 2-13 and 20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claims 1 or 19 rejected above.
Regarding Claim 6, the limitation “wherein the plurality of repurposed blades have had a prior use in which they were subject to mechanical stresses sufficient to render them unusable in an intended prior application and wherein mechanical stresses of the present use differ from those of a prior use” renders the claim indefinite. This limitation also establishes this claim as a product-by-process claim as noted above. It is unclear what structural limitations would be imposed by this limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, the term “sufficient” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficient” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term does not have a concrete meaning in the art and is also relative and subject to other factors.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitation “wherein the plurality of repurposed blades each have a long axis originally designed to be mounted to a horizontal-axis drive, and wherein each long axis is presently mounted to a vertical-axis drive” renders the claim indefinite. This limitation also establishes this claim as a product-by-process claim as noted above. It is unclear what structural limitations would be imposed for the apparatus of claim 8 by “a long axis originally designed to be mounted to a horizontal-axis drive” and “wherein each long axis is presently mounted to a vertical-axis drive”.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “wherein at least two repurposed blades are bisected along a long axis and the halves mounted as longitudinally cupped sails on a vertical axial drive” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if “wherein at least two repurposed blades are bisected along a long axis” would establish two new blades, or if this limitation would establish four new blades (from two blades being bisected/split).
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the halves". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0057987, herein referenced as Fuglsang.
PNG
media_image1.png
415
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 9 of Fuglsang
Regarding Claim 1, Fuglsang discloses a wind turbine (2 fig. 1) comprising a support base (comprised of tower 4 and nacelle 6 in fig. 1), an axial drive (drive of rotor which includes the hub 8 fig. 1) rotatably attached to the base (comprised of nacelle 6 and tower 4 fig. 1), and a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades (see blades 10 in fig. 1 and blade, particularly the first base part 141, in fig. 9; “the blade and in particular the first base part comprise a shell structure made of a composite material. The composite material may be a resin matrix reinforced with fibres” pr. 69; “The use of the novel profile makes it feasible to achieve a modular blade design, in which the base part can be used for several different blade types and blade lengths. Thus, it is possible to reuse the base part of an existing blade further outboard on a larger/longer blade, or alternatively reuse the base part of an existing blade further inboard on a smaller/shorter blade. All in all, it is possible to make a blade design in such a way that the blade design of the airfoil region is put together from pre-designed sections and that blades of different lengths can be composed partly from sections already existing from previous blades” pr. 23) mounted to the drive (see blades 10 mounted to hub 8 in fig. 1).
(The limitation “a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades” renders the claim a product-by-process claim. The apparatus/structure claimed is identical to Fuglsang and is therefore anticipated by Fuglsang since patentability of a product claim does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” for more details)
Regarding Claim 2, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein the blades are airfoils (shown by figs. 1-2 and 9).
Regarding Claim 3, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein the polymer is a thermoset (“The composite material may be a resin matrix reinforced with fibres. In most cases the polymer applied is thermosetting resin, such as polyester, vinylester or epoxy” pr. 69).
Regarding Claim 4, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine of claim 3 wherein the polymer is an epoxy (“The composite material may be a resin matrix reinforced with fibres. In most cases the polymer applied is thermosetting resin, such as polyester, vinylester or epoxy” pr. 69).
Regarding Claim 5, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein the polymer is a thermoplastic (“The composite material may be a resin matrix reinforced with fibres. In most cases the polymer applied is thermosetting resin, such as polyester, vinylester or epoxy. The resin may also be a thermoplastic” pr. 69).
Claim(s) 1 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20150015914A, herein referenced as Choi.
PNG
media_image2.png
1145
570
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Choi
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a wind turbine comprising a support base (see support 3 and/or support shaft 2 in fig. 2), an axial drive (rotating shaft 10 fig. 2) rotatably attached to the base (3 and/or 2 in fig. 2), and a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades (see elongated blades 30 fig. 2; “the blade is manufactured from glass fiber reinforced plastic” pr. 29) mounted to the drive (10 fig. 2).
(The limitation “a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades” renders the claim a product-by-process claim. The apparatus/structure claimed is identical to Choi and is therefore anticipated by Choi since patentability of a product claim does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” for more details)
Regarding Claim 12, Choi discloses the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein at least two repurposed blades are bisected along a long axis (see blades 30 in fig. 2) and the halves mounted as longitudinally cupped sails on a vertical axial drive (the blades 30 are shown to be longitudinally cupped sails mounted on the vertical axial drive 10 in fig. 2; the blades 30 could be formed from halved blades that were bisected along a long axis).
(The limitation “wherein at least two repurposed blades are bisected along a long axis” renders the claim a product-by-process claim. The apparatus/structure claimed is identical to Choi and is therefore anticipated by Choi since patentability of a product claim does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” for more details)
Regarding Claim 13, Choi discloses the wind turbine of claim 1 further comprising an electric generator (see generator formed by magnets 7 and stator 4 in fig. 4) wherein the support base (support shaft 2 and support 3 in fig. 2) , axial drive (10 fig. 2) and generator (see 6 fig. 2) are supported at ground level (“It is also possible to connect and install a support (3) to the above support shaft (2) for easy fixation to the ground” pr. 37).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2010120041A2, herein referenced as Park.
PNG
media_image3.png
1139
768
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Park
Regarding Claim 19, Park discloses a wind turbine comprising a support base (tower 10 fig. 1), a vertical axial drive (see rotor 14 under nacelle 12 in figs. 1-2) rotatably attached to the base (10 fig. 2), a hub (upper hub 14a of rotor 14 fig. 2) and a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades (see elongated blades 16 in fig. 1; “Blade 16 is preferably made of a fiber-reinforced plastic material or carbon fiber reinforced composite material” first complete paragraph on page 8) mounted to the hub (14a fig. 2) at an angle within a 30-70 degree range relative to the axial drive (see angles ranging from 50 degrees to 70 degrees in fig. 20; see MPEP 2131.03 - Anticipation of Ranges).
(The limitation “a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades” renders the claim a product-by-process claim. The apparatus/structure claimed is identical to Park and is therefore anticipated by Park since patentability of a product claim does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” for more details)
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 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111852758A, herein referenced as Li.
PNG
media_image4.png
746
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
669
838
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figures 1 and 4 of Li
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a wind turbine comprising a support base (the motor/generator which would be connected with the motor end connecting shaft 13 in fig. 1), an axial drive (main shaft 3 fig. 1) rotatably attached to the base (“drives the entire wind rotor structure to rotate around the main axis 3 at an angular velocity of ω, and then drives the rotor of the generator through the motor end connecting shaft 13 to achieve the purpose of power generation” pr. 44), and a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades (see new blades 2 fig. 1; “The vertical axis wind turbine rotor structure based on the reuse of horizontal axis wind turbine blades proposed in the present invention not only realizes the effective reuse of large horizontal axis wind turbine blades that have met their service life” pr. 20) mounted to the drive (3 fig. 1).
However, Li fails to explicitly anticipate that the blades are fiber-reinforced polymer rotor blades.
The Examiner is taking official notice that wind turbine blade are most commonly constructed from fiber-reinforced polymer as they provided a good combination of desirable material properties such as strength and lightweight. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blades of Li to be constructed of fiber-reinforced polymer as they offer a strong/lightweight material that is commonly used to make wind turbine blades.
Note: The limitation related to the blades being “obsolete [and] repurposed” renders the claim a product-by-process claim. The apparatus/structure claimed is obvious over Li and is therefore found obvious over Choi since patentability of a product claim does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” for more details)
Regarding Claim 6, Li as modified above comprises the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein the plurality of repurposed blades have had a prior use in which they were subject to mechanical stresses sufficient to render them unusable in an intended prior application (“The purpose of the present invention is to provide a vertical axis wind turbine rotor structure based on the reuse of horizontal axis wind turbine blades, which not only realizes the reuse of large horizontal axis wind turbine blades that have met their service life, but also improves the wind energy utilization rate of the vertical axis wind turbine” pr. 8; the blades 1 fig. 4 having reached the end of their service life means would have been subject to mechanical stresses sufficient during its service life to render them unusable in an intended prior application) and wherein mechanical stresses of the present use differ from those of a prior use (the mechanical stress of the new blades 2 on a vertical wind turbine would be different from the original blades 1 on a horizontal wind turbine in fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Li as modified above comprises the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein the number of repurposed blades is greater than in a primary use design (this limitation renders the claim a product by process limitation; the new blades 2 in fig. 1 could have originated from a two-bladed horizontal wind turbine).
(The limitation “wherein the number of repurposed blades is greater than in a primary use design” renders the claim a product-by-process claim. The apparatus/structure claimed is identical to Li as modified above and is therefore found obvious over Choi since patentability of a product claim does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” for more details)
Regarding Claim 8, Li as modified above comprises the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein the plurality of repurposed blades each have a long axis originally designed to be mounted to a horizontal-axis drive (see original blades 1 on a horizontal axis drive in fig. 4), and wherein each long axis is presently mounted to a vertical-axis drive (see new blades 1 which is a vertical axis drive in fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Li as modified above comprises the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein the plurality of repurposed blades comprise matching longitudinal segments of their original rendering (shown in fig. 4 by new blade 1 comprising 85% of the original blade 1), such that the segments are subject to reduced mechanical stress (see fig. 1; the new blades 2 comprise the required structure to accomplish this limitation).
Regarding Claim 10, Li as modified above comprises the wind turbine of claim 1 wherein the plurality of repurposed blades each have a first end (see blade bottom ends 9 fig. 1) attached to the drive (9 are attached to main shaft 3 via connecting long rods 10 in fig. 1) and a second end (see blade top end support 6 in fig. 1) supported by a stay (see connecting short rods 8, analogous to a stay, which support the blade top ends 6 in fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Li as modified above comprises the wind turbine of claim 10 wherein the repurposed blades are further supported by one or more stays midway (see cables 11 which are coupled to a midway location of the blades 2 in fig. 1) between the first and second ends (between blade top end 6 and blade bottom end 9 in fig. 1).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN102953928A, herein referenced as Hong.
PNG
media_image6.png
615
659
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Hong
Regarding Claim 19, Hong discloses a wind turbine comprising a support base (see motor/generator 7 fig. 4), a vertical axial drive (rotating shaft 1 fig. 4) rotatably attached to the base (7 fig. 4), a hub (see bracket 2 fig. 4) and a plurality of elongate obsolete repurposed rotor blades (see elongated blades 8 fig. 4) mounted to the hub (blades shown to be mounted to hub in fig. 4) at an angle within a 30-70 degree range relative to the axial drive (“When the long-pitch universal windmill is used as a vertical-axis windmill (for large, medium and small machines), the appropriate inclination angle (α) is 60 degrees to 80 degrees” pr. 31; see MPEP 2131.03 - Anticipation of Ranges).
However, the prior art fails to explicitly anticipate the blades being made of fiber-reinforced polymer.
The Examiner is taking official notice that wind turbine blade are most commonly constructed from fiber-reinforced polymer as they provided a good combination of desirable material properties such as strength and lightweight. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the blades of Hong to be constructed of fiber-reinforced polymer as it is a strong/lightweight material that is commonly used to make wind turbine blades.
Note: The limitation related to the blades being “obsolete [and] repurposed” renders the claim a product-by-process claim. The apparatus/structure claimed is obvious over Hong and is therefore found obvious over Hong since patentability of a product claim does not depend upon its method of production. See MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” for more details)
Regarding Claim 20, Hong as modified above comprises the wind turbine of claim 19 further comprising a blade pitch control system in the hub (see blade heads 3 which are mounted in the bracket 2 in fig. 4; “The universal windmill with adjustable pitch length uses a blade head to adjust the pitch (α), eccentricity (β), and installation angle of attack (γ) of the blade, thereby improving its starting performance and efficiency”. The use of adjustable pitch length can stabilize power output and ensure safe operation, thereby greatly expanding the scope of wind power applications” pr. 13, since the blade heads are used to control the pitch and/or angle of attack, they represent a blade pitch control system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 9057359 – US patent grant of prior art cited above.
CN111535993A and US 11867152 – discloses a vertical wind turbine blade with blades which extend out from a central hub at an angle relative to vertical.
WO2011050806A2 – discloses a blade hub adaptor for a wind turbine which may advantageously improve the possibility of combining different blade types with a given hub and thereby a given nacelle or a given wind turbine type. The modular hub system may advantageously enable selection of a blade with some desired properties to a wind turbine type which was not designed to match this blade. Further, the modular hub system may enable reuse of blades with useful service life, e.g. from decommissioned wind turbines, on different wind turbine types.
US 12276208 – discloses a Savonius wind turbine with various blade profiles.
CN 115628176A – discloses a means for utilizing a blades main in the construction of another blade.
NPL Decommissioned Wind Turbine Blade Management Strategies, NPL Sustainable End-of-Life Management of Wind Turbine Blades and NPL Sustainability Implications of Current Approaches to End-of-Life of Wind Turbine Blades – discusses strategies to manage and handle wind turbine components, particularly wind turbine blades, when they reach their End-of-life or are decommissioned.
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