DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Preliminary Formalities
The preliminary amendment filed 05/06/2024 is noted and has been entered. Amended claims 1-9 and new claims 10-15, as filed therein, are under examination.
A thorough review of both the claims and the disclosure has been made. Pursuant to MPEP 707.07(j), and for the purposes of assisting Applicant and expediting prosecution, it is respectfully noted that there does not appear to be any patentable subject matter disclosed in the application.
Specifically, an extensive number of issues present in the instant application, raised under both 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and 35 U.S.C. §112(b), discussed in greater detail hereinbelow, would appear to preclude patentability of the instant invention.
Should Applicant desire to pursue the claimed subject matter, filing of a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) type application would allow for addition of new matter and provision of appropriate written description to address the deficiencies discussed herein, while also obviating any new matter issues. See, e.g., MPEP § 201.08, § 211 et seq. for more information.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A certified copy of DK PA202170541, filed 04 November 2021, has been received.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, each element and/or step should be separated by a line indentation. See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m). Specifically, the elements of the “wind turbine” set forth in the preamble should each be separated by a line indentation.
Regarding claim 7, line 2, the limitation “measuring at least one parameter” should be: —measuring the at least one parameter—.
Claim Interpretation
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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:
Claims 1, 10: “a pitch mechanism,” which uses the generic nonce term “mechanism” and may be interpreted as —a means for pitching—;
Claims 1, 10: “a pre-tension mechanism,” which uses the generic nonce term “mechanism” and may be interpreted as —a means for pre-tensioning—;
Claim 10: “a controller configured to perform an operation,” which may be interpreted as —a means for controlling— and/or —a means for performing an operation—.
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 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 10, the limitation “a pitch mechanism” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
As discussed above, the limitation appears to invoke, and is being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
However, the specification fails to make clear what a “pitch mechanism” may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise. The specification mentions this feature in four separate instances (page 3, line 4; p. 4, ll. 24-29; p. 13, l. 10) but, though the feature is named, the specification does not provide a written description of what it may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, the limitation “a pre-tension adjustment mechanism” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
As discussed above, the limitation appears to invoke, and is being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
However, the specification fails to make clear what a “pre-tension adjustment mechanism” may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise. The specification discusses this feature at, e.g., p. 4, ll. 10-21; p. 6, ll. 15-29; and p. 13, ll. 18-26. However, though the feature is named and its functionality may be discussed, the specification does not provide a written description of what it may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, the limitation “deriving an estimate for a rotor imbalance of the wind turbine from the at least one measured parameter” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear how such an “estimate for a rotor imbalance of the wind turbine” may actually be “deriv[ed]”. The specification discusses this feature in a few different instances but, though the feature is named and the specification indicates that the “step of deriving an estimate for a rotor imbalance” may comprise different aspects, it does not provide a clear and definite written description of how, specifically, the “estimate for a rotor imbalance” may be “deriv[ed]”.
For example, the specification indicates that the “step of deriving an estimate for a rotor imbalance may comprise deriving an estimate for a static rotor imbalance” (see p. 7, ll. 15-16) but it fails to indicate how the “estimate for a static rotor imbalance” may be “deriv[ed]”. Similarly, the specification indicates that “the step of deriving an estimate for a rotor imbalance may comprise deriving an estimate for a dynamic rotor imbalance” (p. 8, ll. 15-16) or “[t]he step of deriving an estimate for a rotor imbalance may comprise passing the measurements of the at least one parameter through a low pass filter” (p. 8, ll. 25-26).
Disappointingly, however, in none of these instances does the specification explicitly set forth how “an estimate for a rotor imbalance of the wind turbine” may actually be calculated or “deriv[ed]”. No equations are presented, no explicit description of input variable(s) required or how such input variable(s) may be used to calculate an output of “an estimate for a rotor imbalance of the wind turbine”
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “controlling a pitch angle of the wind turbine blades in accordance with the estimated rotor imbalance” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
Notably, the specification fails to make clear how the “pitch angle of the wind turbine blades” may be “controll[ed]” specifically “in accordance with the estimated rotor imbalance” as claimed. The specification discusses this feature in a single paragraph, on p. 12, ll. 17-23, but, though the feature is mentioned, the specification does not provide a written description of how the “pitch angle of the wind turbine blades” may be “controll[ed]” specifically “in accordance with the estimated rotor imbalance” as claimed.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a controller configured to perform an operation” appears to comprise subject matter which was not described in the specification as originally filed.
As discussed above, the limitation appears to invoke, and is being interpreted under, 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
However, the specification fails to make clear what a “controller configured to perform an operation, comprising: measuring […]; deriving […]; and controlling […]” may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise which would allow it to perform the claimed method/steps. The specification discusses this feature on p. 15, ll. 5-12 but, though the feature is named, the specification does not provide a written description of what it may be or what corresponding structure(s) it may comprise—including, for example, whether the “controller” may be a mechanical “controller” or some sort of hardware-, software-, and/or firmware-based “controller”—as well as how the “controller” may be “configured to” perform the steps of, e.g., “measuring […]; deriving […]; and controlling […]”.
Thus, it is found that the subject matter noted above was not described in the specification as originally filed in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-9; and claims 11-15; they are dependent on claims 1, 10, respectively, and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as the scope of the claims is not commensurate with the scope of the enabling disclosure.
Regarding claims 1, 10, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while appearing to be enabling for “measuring at least one parameter of the wind turbine” wherein, specifically, the “measuring […] comprises measuring an edge moment of each of the wind turbine blades” (as specified in claims 4, 13, respectively1), does not reasonably provide enablement for “measuring at least one parameter of the wind turbine” wherein, as currently set forth in claims 1, 10, the “at least one parameter” is not defined and could be interpreted as comprising virtually anything. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with claims 1, 10 which exclude the limitations of claims 4, 13, respectively.
For the limitation of “measuring […] comprises measuring an edge moment of each of the wind turbine blades,” this feature is discussed on page 9, lines 21-23 and appears to be sufficiently described to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Note that the specification does making a passing mention of other “suitable parameter[s],” specifically “related to rotor imbalance, such as main shaft tilt moment, yaw moment, tower or nacelle acceleration levels, drivetrain torque, power signals, flap moment signals, etc.” (see p. 11, l. 31 to p. 12, l. 3) but there is no description regarding how any of these “parameter[s]” may be “measured”.
Regarding claims 2-3, 7-9; and claims 11-12; they are dependent on claims 1, 10, respectively, and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 4-5; and similarly in claim 10; the limitation “a pitch mechanism” is vague and indefinite. As discussed above, the limitation invokes and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the specification fails to make clear what the corresponding structure(s) for the “pitch mechanism” may comprise.
Regarding claim 1, lines 4-5; and similarly in claim 10; the limitation “each wind turbine blade extending between a root end connected to the hub via a pitch mechanism, and a tip end, […]” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear to what element(s) the “end” features belong. If the “end” features belong to respective “wind turbine blade[s],” the limitation could be clarified as follows: —each wind turbine blade extending between a root end of the wind turbine blade of the wind turbine blade, wherein the root end of each wind turbine blade is connected to the hub via a pitch mechanism, […]—.
Regarding claim 1, line 9; and similarly in claim 10; the limitation “and to a pre-tension adjustment mechanism” is vague and indefinite. The phrase appears to be missing a verb and/or connecting phrase. If the intended scope is to require “each pre-tension wire” to also be —connected to— the “pre-tension adjustment mechanism,” such should be made clear.
Regarding claim 1, line 9; and similarly in claim 10; the limitation “a pre-tension adjustment mechanism” is vague and indefinite. As discussed above, the limitation invokes and is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). However, the specification fails to make clear what the corresponding structure(s) for the “pre-tension adjustment mechanism” may comprise.
Regarding claim 1, line 11; and similarly in claim 10; the limitation “measuring at least one parameter of the wind turbine” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear both i) what the “at least one parameter of the wind turbine” may comprise, and ii) how the “parameter” may be “measur[ed]”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 12-13; and similarly in claim 10; the limitation “deriving an estimate for a rotor imbalance of the wind turbine from the at least one measured parameter” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how an “estimate for a rotor imbalance” may be “deriv[ed]” specifically “from the at least one measured parameter” as claimed. See associated rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) above as the specification also fails to provide a clear written description of how the “estimate […]” may be “deriv[ed]”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 14-15; and similarly in claim 10; the limitation “controlling the pre-tension adjustment mechanism based on the estimated rotor imbalance in order to counteract the rotor imbalance” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the “pre-tension adjustment mechanism” may be “control[ed]” specifically “based on the estimated rotor imbalance” and how this may “counteract the rotor imbalance,” as claimed.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claims 2, 11, the limitation “deriving the estimate for a rotor imbalance comprises deriving an estimate for a static rotor imbalance” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what a “static rotor imbalance” may comprise.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear how an “estimate for a static rotor imbalance” may be “deriv[ed],” including what input(s) is/are used in the “deriving” step and how those input(s) may be manipulated to calculate/“deriv[e]” the “estimate for a static rotor imbalance”.
Regarding claims 3, 12, the limitation “deriving the estimate for a rotor imbalance comprises passing the measurements of the at least one parameter through a low pass filter” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitation “the measurements” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Second, the claim fails to make clear whether the output of the “low pass filter” is the “estimate for a rotor imbalance” or whether “passing the measurements of the at least one parameter through a low pass filter” simply comprises a portion of the “deriving” step.
Regarding claims 4, 13, the limitation “measuring at least one parameter of the wind turbine comprises measuring an edge moment of each of the wind turbine blades” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what an “edge moment of each of the wind turbine blades” may comprise.
Second, and relatedly, the claim fails to make clear how an “edge moment” may actually be “measur[ed]”.
Regarding claims 5, 14, the limitation “deriving the estimate for a rotor imbalance of the wind turbine comprises comparing the edge moment of each wind turbine blade to a mean edge moment of the wind turbine blades” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear how “comparing the edge moment […]” may result in the “estimate for a rotor imbalance”. Said differently, the claim fails to tie the “comparing” step to the “deriving” step.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what the “comparing” step actually comprises—e.g., is this a mathematical “compari[son]” that is performed using either division, subtraction, or other, or is some sort of logic-based “compari[son]”?
Third, the claim fails to make clear whether the “mean edge moment of the wind turbine blades” comprises a separate “mean edge moment” for each “of the wind turbine blades” individually or whether the “mean edge moment of the wind turbine blades” is a “mean edge moment” for all “of the wind turbine blades” together.
Regarding claims 6, 15, the limitation “adjusting the pre-tension applied by each pre-tension wire in such a manner that the difference between the edge moment of each wind turbine blade and the mean edge moment of the wind turbine blades is decreased” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the pre-tension applied […],” “the difference between […]” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the limitation “adjusting […] in such a manner that […]” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what the “manner” is that would allow the stated condition to be satisfied—i.e., that the “difference […]” would be “decreased” as claimed.
Third, the limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “controlling the pre-tension mechanism comprises individually adjusting the pre-tension provided by the respective pre-tension wires” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the pre-tension mechanism,” “the pre-tension […],” “the respective pre-tension wires” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the claim fails to make clear how the “pre-tension provided by the respective pre-tension wires” may be “individually adjust[ed],” including how the “pre-tension [adjustment?] mechanism” may perform this.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “controlling a pitch angle of the wind turbine blades in accordance with the estimated rotor imbalance” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear how the “pitch angle” of the “blades” may be “controll[ed]” specifically “in accordance with the estimated rotor imbalance” as claimed. Neither the claim nor the specification appears to set forth a clear relationship between an “estimated rotor imbalance” and a specific “control[]” of the “pitch angle of the wind turbine blades”.
Regarding claim 10, line 12, the limitation “a controller configured to perform an operation, comprising: measuring […]” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what feature(s) is/are intended to be described as “comprising: measuring […]”. If the “operation” comprises the “measuring,” “deriving,” and “controlling,” such should be made clear. However, unless the term “operation” is required later, it may be simpler to rephrase the limitation as, e.g., —a controller configured to perform steps including: measuring […]—.
Regarding claims 2-9; and claims 11-15; they are dependent on claims 1, 10, respectively, and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
Conclusion
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. See MPEP 2163(II)(A). That is, Applicant should specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for any newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.C. PATEL can be reached at (571) 272-2098. 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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
March 4, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 This feature is discussed on page 9, ll. 21-23, indicating that “[t]he edge moments of the wind turbine blades may” be “measured by measuring strain at the wind turbine blades, using a suitable strain sensor, such as one or more strain gauges or one or more optical fibres”. This passage indicates both i) how the “edge moments” may be measured—“by measuring strain at the wind turbine blades”; and ii) what structure(s) may be used to perform the measurement—using “one or more strain gauges or one or more optical fibres”. Thus, it appears to satisfy the requirements for both written description and enablement for the feature of “measuring at least one parameter,” where “measuring at least one parameter […] comprises measuring an edge moment […]” as set forth in claims 4, 13.