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 .
Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 15-16 are currently pending. Claims 1-4, 8-13, and 15-16 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5 of the remarks, filed October 03, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The rejections of Claims 10-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5 of the remarks, filed with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hubert et al. (GB 950,177 A).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Applicant argues that the art of record, Christiansen et al. (US 2020/0355164 A1) in view of Bondeson (US 2,116,776 A) do not expressly teach a cut-out extending longitudinally inwards as reflected in the claim. This argument is found to be persuasive, as Bondeson is not illustrated to extend longitudinally. However, a similar concept has been known to be applicable in the longitudinal direction of objects as well as evidenced by Hubert. This will be further detailed in the rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 9, Line 2 recites “50 mm2”. This appears to be a typographical error from the superscript not being properly reflected as in the last version of the claims. See Claim 9 of the claims of January 15, 2025 reciting “50 mm2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the “means” is not modified by functional language. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 15, Line 2, “temporary holding means”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen et al. (US 2020/0355164 A1), hereinafter Christiansen, in view of Harris et al. (GB 950,177 A), hereinafter Harris.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 2-4 Christiansen teaches two embodiments of a lightning receptor assembly (9) for a wind turbine rotor blade (1), comprising a receptor unit comprising a receptor base (18) for installation in the rotor blade interior and a receptor (25, 26, 27, or 28) for placement at an outer surface of the rotor blade (1); a threaded connector (21 or 22, note not all connectors of associated receptors are shown) to form a mechanical connection between the receptor (25, 26, 27, or 28) and the receptor base (18); and a conductive band (12, 13, or 31) adapted to extend over the outer surface of the rotor blade (1). Paragraphs [0045-0055] describe the embodiment in Figures 2-3. Paragraphs [0056-0058] describe the embodiment of Figure 4.
Christiansen does not expressly teach a cut-out extending longitudinally inwards from an edge of an outer end of the conductive band and shaped to longitudinally receive a shaft of the threaded connector to form an electrical connection to the receptor unit without requiring removal of the receptor from the receptor base as claimed. However, such a cut-out would have been obvious in view of Harris.
Figures 1-3 of Harris teach an assembly with a threaded connector (9) and an arm (2). The arm (2) contains a cut-out (18, top one, or 19) extending longitudinally inwards from an edge of an outer end (17) of the arm (2) and shaped to longitudinally receive a shaft of the threaded connector (9) to form a connection without requiring removal from the base (7, 13). The cut-out (18 or 19) allows for the threaded connector (9) to remain in the base (7, 13) while the arm (2) and base (7, 13) is inserted. Attachment may be done by merely tightening by screwing the connector (9) without unscrewing (Pg. 2, Lines 44-56). Although the teachings of Harris are not related to a wind turbine, they are considered analogous art since they are reasonably pertinent to the problem of facilitating installation/removal of fastener assemblies faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly taught by Christiansen with a cut-out extending longitudinally inwards from an edge of an outer end of the conductive band and shaped to longitudinally receive a shaft of the threaded connector to form an electrical connection to the receptor unit without requiring removal of the receptor from the receptor base as suggested by Harris, to provide the benefit of facilitating attachment of the band by simply tightening the connector rather than removal of the connector. Note the physical connection (of 12, 13 or 31 with 18 / 25-28) provides an electrical connection (Christiansen, [0052-0053]).
Regarding Claim 2, Christiansen and Harris teach the lighting receptor assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Harris results wherein the cut-out is shaped to fit about a shaft of the threaded connector in place between the receptor and the receptor base. Figures 1-3 of Harris exemplify this with cut-out (18 or 19) shaped to fit around the shaft of connector (9).
Regarding Claim 3, Christiansen and Harris teach the lighting receptor assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Harris results wherein the inner end of the cut-out is formed to abut the threaded connector. Figures 1-3 of Harris exemplify a cut-out (18 or 19) with an inner end (leftmost end of 18 or 19). The inner end is a physical structure adjacent connector (9) when assembled (see Figure 3), thus it is capable of abutting connector (9).
Regarding Claim 4, Christiansen and Harris teach the lighting receptor assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Harris results wherein the cut-out is formed as an elongate slit in the body of the conductive band, as exemplified by the cut-out (18 or 19) being an elongated slit in Figure 1-2 of Harris.
Regarding Claim 8, Christiansen and Harris teach the lighting receptor assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 2-4 of Christiansen teach wherein the conductive band (12, 13, or 21) comprises a metal band [0048]. The modification in Claim 1 by Harris results in a slotted metal band, as exemplified by slot (18 or 19) formed in Figures 1-2 of Harris being applied to Christiansen.
Regarding Claim 10, Christiansen and Harris teach the lighting receptor assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Christiansen teach a wind turbine (2) comprising a number of rotor blades (1), and wherein the rotor blade (1) is equipped with a lightning receptor assembly (9) [0045-0047].
Regarding Claim 12, Christiansen and Harris teach the lighting receptor assembly as set forth in Claim 10.
The embodiment in Figure 4 of Christiansen teaches the lighting receptor assembly of a rotor blade (1) comprises a first receptor unit (25) on the pressure side and a second receptor unit (26) on the suction side, and wherein the conductive band (31) of that lighting receptor assembly extends between those receptor units [0056-0057].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen and Harris as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Dahl et al. (US 2019/0390656 A1), hereinafter Dahl.
Regarding Claim 9, Christiansen and Harris teach the lightning receptor assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Christiansen does not expressly teach wherein the conductive band has a cross-sectional area in the order of 50 mm2 as claimed. However, such an area would have been obvious in view of Dahl.
Figure 2 of Dahl teaches a lightning receptor assembly with a conductor (2). Dahl contemplates the conductor to be a particular cross-sectional area, such as a cross-sectional area in the order of at least 50 mm2. The area is needed so that the conductor (2) can safely carry the high current of the lightning strike [0043]. Thus, Dahl provides evidence that the cross-sectional area is a results-effective variable, to which one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize such that the conductor is capable of safely carrying the lighting strike (see MPEP 2144.05, II regarding routine optimization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lightning receptor assembly taught by Christiansen-Harris such that the conductive band has a cross-sectional area in the order of 50 mm2 as evidenced by Dalh, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the cross-sectional area of conductors to an area that can safely carry lightning strikes.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen and Harris as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Naka et al. (US 2011/0182731 A1), hereinafter Naka.
Regarding Claim 11, Christiansen and Harris teach the wind turbine as set forth in Claim 10.
Christiansen does not expressly teach wherein the lightning receptor assembly of the rotor blade comprises two adjacent receptor units and wherein the conductive band of that lightning receptor assembly extends between those receptor units as claimed. However, having adjacent receptors would have been obvious in view of Naka.
Figure 2A of Naka teaches a wind turbine with a lightning receptor assembly comprising two adjacent receptor units (any two of 13 that are next to each other) and wherein the conductive band (14) of that lightning receptor assembly extends between those receptor units (13). Naka explains the lightning capture rate depends upon the size and number of receptors in a given area of the blade. Therefore, having more receptors, compared to the one of Christiansen, in an area helps improve the lightning capture rate [0030-0031].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the wind turbine taught by Christiansen-Harris such that the lightning receptor assembly of the rotor blade comprises two adjacent receptor units and wherein the conductive band of that lightning receptor assembly extends between those receptor units as suggested by Naka, to provide the benefit of improving the lightning capture rate in the area of the receptor units compared to only using one receptor unit.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen and Harris as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Mieritz et al. (US 2017/0321661 A1), hereinafter Mieritz.
Regarding Claim 13, Christiansen and Harris teach the wind turbine as set forth in Claim 10.
Christiansen does not expressly teach a method of performing a maintenance procedure on a lightning receptor assembly of a rotor blade of a wind turbine as claimed. However, a maintenance procedure would have been obvious in view of Mieritz.
Figure 1 of Mieritz teaches its own lightning receptor assembly (1). Mieritz notes that replacement of part of the lightning receptor assembly occurs, particularly that the parts can be damaged or destroyed by experiencing too many or too severe lightning strikes [0021]. Thus, Mieritz evidences that maintenance procedure on lightning receptor assemblies is required and that the fix of a broken part is to replace it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Christiansen-Harris with a method of performing a maintenance procedure on a lightning receptor assembly of a rotor blade of a wind turbine as suggested by Mieritz, to provide the benefit of replacing damaged parts due to lightning strikes. The modification results in the claimed steps of loosening the connector of a receptor unit; removing the conductive band from under the receptor of that receptor unit; inserting a replacement conductive band under the receptor of that receptor unit; tightening the connector of the receptor unit, as claimed to replace the conductive band. Figures 3-4 of Christiansen show conductor bands (12, 13, or 31) connected under receptor units (25 or 26) by connectors (21 or 22) in a method of assembly [0053]. Thus, the method of disassembly is the reverse, i.e. loosening then removing. Inserting the replacement conductive band follows the same method of assembly set forth. Note that due to the modification of Harris, loosening and tightening of the connector is all that is required to remove or fasten, as exemplified in Figures 1-3 by the attachment of the arm (2) via the cut-out (18 or 19) and connector (9) (Pg. 2, Lines 44-56).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen, Harris, and Mieritz as applied to Claim 13 above, and further in view of Hamamura et al. (US 2024/0191698 A1), hereinafter Hamamura.
Regarding Claim 15, Christiansen, Harris, and Mieritz teach the method as set forth in Claim 13.
Christiansen does not expressly teach a preparatory step of attaching a temporary holding means to the replacement conductive band prior to its insertion under the receptor unit, and a final step of detaching the temporary holding means from the replacement conductive band as claimed. However, a temporary holding means would have been obvious in view of Hamamura.
Figure 1G, 2 of Hamamura teach a method for a wind turbine with a preparatory step of attaching a temporary holding means (20, via 200) to the device (100) prior to its mounting, and a final step of detaching the temporary holding means (20, 200) from the device (100). The temporary holding means (20, 200) help move the device (100) to a desired spot until device (100) is attached and released from means (20, 200), since the means would no longer be needed [0200-0205]. The temporary holding means (20, 200) also act as a lifeline, which prevents the device (100) from falling down [0215]. Thus, although the device is not specifically a conductive band, Hamamura exemplifies the benefits of having a temporary holding means for components that are intended to be fixed to rotor blades of wind turbines.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Christiansen-Harris-Mieritz with a preparatory step of attaching a temporary holding means to the replacement conductive band prior to its insertion under the receptor unit, and a final step of detaching the temporary holding means from the replacement conductive band as suggested by Hamamura, to provide the benefits of helping guide the conductive band to a desired spot on the rotor blade, and provide a lifeline that prevents falling of the conductive band.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen and Harris as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Mieritz and Cornelius (US 1,086,442 A), hereinafter Cornelius.
Regarding Claim 16, Christiansen and Harris teach the wind turbine as set forth in Claim 10.
Christiansen does not expressly teach a method of performing a maintenance procedure on a lightning receptor assembly of a rotor blade of a wind turbine as claimed. However, a maintenance procedure would have been obvious in view of Mieritz.
Figure 1 of Mieritz teaches its own lightning receptor assembly (1). Mieritz notes that replacement of part of the lightning receptor assembly occurs, particularly that the parts can be damaged or destroyed by experiencing too many or too severe lightning strikes [0021]. Thus, Mieritz evidences that maintenance procedure on lightning receptor assemblies is required and that the fix of a broken part is to replace it.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Christiansen-Harris with a method of performing a maintenance procedure on a lightning receptor assembly of a rotor blade of a wind turbine as suggested by Mieritz, to provide the benefit of replacing damaged parts due to lightning strikes. The modification results in the claimed steps of loosening the connector of a receptor unit; removing the conductive band from under the receptor of that receptor unit; installing a replacement conductive band; inserting the replacement conductive band under the receptor of that receptor unit; tightening the connector of the receptor unit, as claimed to replace the conductive band. Figures 3-4 of Christiansen show conductor bands (12, 13, or 31) connected under receptor units (25 or 26) by connectors (21 or 22) in a method of assembly [0053]. Thus, the method of disassembly is the reverse, i.e. loosening then removing. Inserting the replacement conductive band follows the same method of assembly set forth. Note that due to the modification of Harris, loosening and tightening of the connector is all that is required to remove or fasten, as exemplified in Figures 1-3 by the attachment of the arm (2) via the cut-out (18 or 19) and connector (9) (Pg. 2, Lines 44-56).
Christiansen does not expressly teach the replacement conductive band having a plurality of holes spaced apart at longitudinal distances corresponding to preset desired installation lengths of the replacement conductive band: selecting an appropriate hole corresponding to a desired installation length; laterally cutting the replacement conductive band at a desired position spaced longitudinally away from the appropriate hole in an outboard direction to define the outer end as claimed. However, such a step would have been obvious in view of Cornelius.
Figures 1-2 of Cornelius teach a band having a plurality of holes (5) spaced apart at longitudinal distances corresponding to preset desired installation lengths of the band (horizontally extending band in Figure 1): selecting an appropriate hole (5, see hole 5 with unlabeled fastener in Figure 2) corresponding to a desired installation length; laterally cutting (see direction of extension of the end of the band in Figure 2 and Lines 17-19 discussing cutting) the band at a desired position spaced longitudinally away from the appropriate hole in an outboard direction to define the outer end. This allows for the band to be easily produced for market and then cut to various lengths that are required for its application (Lines 12-19). While discussing other holes (2), Lines 49-58 of Cornelius note the repetitive nature allows the band to be made to fit around any pipe or cable as required. As such, Cornelius evidences the known convenience of having a band with a plurality of holes that are usable rather than just a single hole. While not of a wind turbine, the teachings of Cornelius are considered analogous art since they are reasonable pertinent to the problem of manufacturability faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Christiansen-Harris-Mieritz with the steps of the replacement conductive band having a plurality of holes spaced apart at longitudinal distances corresponding to preset desired installation lengths of the replacement conductive band: selecting an appropriate hole corresponding to a desired installation length; laterally cutting the replacement conductive band at a desired position spaced longitudinally away from the appropriate hole in an outboard direction to define the outer end as suggested by Cornelius, to provide the benefit of using a band that is easily adjustable to the specific length requirements of different situations.
The modification by Harris in Claim 1 results in the step of cutting an elongate slit in the body of the conductive band extending from the outer end to the hole to form a cut-out, as evidenced by the shape of the cut-out (18 or 19) formed in the arm (2) in Figures 1-2 of Harris.
Christiansen does not expressly teach cutting the slit being immediately prior to inserting the replacement conductive band under the receptor of the receptor unit as claimed. However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, C). The modification in Claim 1 by Harris results in the step of forming the slit, as exemplified by the slit (18 or 19) in Figures 1-3 of Harris. This is done prior to inserting (Harris, Pg. 2, Lines 44-52). The record does not indicate the presence of any new or unexpected results for cutting immediately prior compared to simply prior, thus being immediately prior is prima facie obvious, since not having any other steps in between is merely a change in order of process steps.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745