DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the RCE filing of 10/01/2025.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Fuglsang, applied in the rejection of 7/1/2025, fails to anticipate the claims as currently amended.
The examiner respectfully disagrees because Fuglsang discloses a wind turbine blade body having a cylindrical shape at a root, and that region of the blade may be said to have a chord length “equal in all radial directions” (a cylinder may be said to have a chord length that is the diameter of the cylinder), and the wind turbine blade also has another region beyond the root that exhibits an airfoil shape and has a monotonically decreasing chord length (the airfoil shape cross-section of the blade gradually gets smaller in the direction of the tip of the blade), and the blade may be said to have a transition region through which the chord length decreases. It is noted that the claimed “transition region” may be arbitrarily defined as it lacks any further limiting structure.
PNG
media_image1.png
570
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that recitation of “flow enhancing components” is still understood to be invocation of 112(f).
Arguments with respect to the rejection under 103 rely upon the assertion that Fuglsang fails to anticipate claims 1 and 10.
Applicant might consider amending claim language to more accurately capture the structure of the instant disclosure seen in Fig. 6 to overcome a rejection based on Fuglsang alone. If a brief interview would help expedite prosecution, the practitioner is warmly invited to telephone the undersigned.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
In claim 1, the word “of” appears to be missing before “the blade body” in line 12. Claim 10 is equally deficient.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 10, as best as they can be understood, each claim recites a wind turbine blade that has a blade body with a chord length that is “equal in all radial directions along a radial extent of the wind turbine rotor blade”, while also simultaneously reciting that “the chord length of the blade body monotonically decreases from the root region to the tip region, though the transition region”. It is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claim because these two conditions appear to be in direct contradiction to one another. How can the blade have “an equal” chord length and at the same time have a decreasing chord length? Applicant might consider claiming a blade shape by defining specific body regions relative to one another, and for each explicit blade region defining a shape. Further, each of claim 1 and 10 recite “a chord length [of] the blade body is equal in all radial directions along a radial extent of the wind turbine rotor blade”. This language creates indefiniteness because it is unclear what constitutes “all radial directions”. A horizontal axis wind turbine blade has a main, central axis of rotation that is aligned with the direction of wind flow and from which wind turbine blades extend radially. So, to recite that that a blade chord is equal “in all radial directions along a radial extent of the wind turbine rotor blade” creates confusion as to exactly what dimensional limitation is being claimed. Appreciating Applicant’s disclosure, it is assumed that this language is attempting to capture a blade body that has a shape akin to a cylinder along some portion of its entire radial extent or longitudinal length (“longitudinal” with respect to wind turbine blades generally refers to their direction/length from root to tip, which is said to be the blade’s longitudinal axis, which is notably distinct from the wind turbine’s main axis of rotation from which blades extend radially). The examiner suggests amending claim language to more clearly define blade regions or radial extents of specific chord-based limitations. If a brief interview would help expedite prosecution, the practitioner is warmly invited to telephone the undersigned.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuglsang et al. in US Patent Application Publication 2010/0209258 (hereinafter “Fuglsang”).
Regarding claim 1, Fuglsang discloses a wind turbine rotor blade comprising: a blade body having a shape that generates a lift when impacted by an incident airflow (abstract), wherein the blade body comprises a pressure side 52 and a suction side 54 joining at a leading edge 56, and a trailing edge 58 (Fig. 3), the blade body longitudinally extending from a root region 30 beginning from a proximal end of the blade body and extending up to a predetermined first length of the blade body, to a tip region beginning from a distal end of the blade body and extending up to a predetermined second length of the blade body, through a transition region 32 extending between and joining the root region and the tip region (see Fig. 2); and wherein the blade body comprises a substantially cylindrical or circular or elliptical or eccentric body of revolution airfoil cross-section 30 beginning from the root region up to a predetermined length of the blade body in the direction of the tip region, wherein a chord length of the blade body is equal in all radial directions along a radial extent of the wind turbine rotor blade (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0048]; root section is circular, thus having “equal chord length” in a direction radial to the longitudinal axis of the blade, and has some radial extent), and further wherein the chord length of the blade body monotonically decreases from the root region to the tip region (see Fig. 2; the blade of Fuglsang has a linearly decreasing chord length along a section that is radially outboard of the transition region; Applicant might consider further refining language to capture the inventive concept and distinguish over Fuglsang alone); a plurality of flow enhancing components (this language is an invocation of 112(f)) physically coupled to the blade body and configured to enhance a plurality of aerodynamic flow characteristics of the blade body (as understood from Applicant’s specification [0016], flow enhancing components “may include slats, flaps, and boundary layer control devices. The boundary layer control components may include ventilation holes, ventilation slots, vortex generators, and Gurney flaps. The surface mounted elements include leading edge elements and surface mounted flaps.”) See Fuglsang Fig. 4-8 showing various different flow enhancing components including vent holes and slots, vortex generators, leading edge multi-element airfoils or slats/flaps, and gurney flaps which all control boundary layer flow; paragraphs [0051]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 1, wherein the blade body comprises a substantially linear profile that monotonically tapers down from the root region to the tip region, through the transition region (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 1, wherein the flow enhancing components comprise multi-element airfoils, and surface mounted elements (Fig. 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 5, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 4, wherein the multi-element airfoils comprise slats, and flaps (Fig. 7 and 8).
Regarding claim 6, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 4, wherein the multi-element airfoils comprise boundary layer control components (Fig. 7, the leading edge slat itself is a boundary layer control component; also note Fuglsang discloses using all of these features together in paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 7, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 6, wherein the boundary layer control components comprise ventilation holes, ventilation slots, vortex generators, and Gurney flaps (Fig. 4-8).
Regarding claim 8, Fuglsang discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 4, wherein the surface mounted elements comprise leading edge elements and surface mounted flaps (Fig. 7-8).
Regarding claims 10 and 12-17, manufacture of the structure of Fuglsang applied above against claims 1-8 meets all of the limitations required of these claims identically. The rejection will not be repeated verbatim so as to not unnecessarily belabor the record.
Regarding claim 19, Fuglsang discloses a wind turbine rotor blade comprising the blade body and the plurality of flow enhancing components of claim 1 (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Fuglsang discloses a wind turbine comprising one or more turbine blades, the one or more wind turbine blades comprising the blade body and the plurality of flow enhancing components of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
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) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuglsang as applied above in view of Eyb in US Patent Application publication 2007/0253824 (hereinafter “Eyb”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Fuglsang does not explicitly disclose plural modular segments axially joined with each other to form the wind turbine rotor blade required of claim 1 or 10. Eyb teaches an analogous wind turbine blade. Specifically, Eyb teaches that it known to segment wind turbine rotor blades into modular segments that are axially joined together for facilitation of their production, transport, and assembly (see Fig. 7 and 8 and paragraphs [0002]-[0004]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wind turbine blade of Fuglsang by making it out of modular segments that are axially joined together because it makes production, transport, and assembly of a large blade easier, as taught by Eyb.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDON T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3263. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ELDON T BROCKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799