DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 12/31/2025 following the Non-Final Rejection of 10/01/2025. Claims 17, 19-20, 24, 26 and 29-32 were amended; claims 18 and 33 were cancelled; claim 34 is newly added. Claims 17, 19-32 and 34 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to specification objections, claims rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections and/or rejections of 10/01/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 newly found prior art.
Examiner Note: Applicant's point regarding the combination of claim Sanz (US 2017/0089324) in view of Bucknell (US 5046906) to rejection claim 18 was found persuasive. While this combination possessed the structural components in a sense, it would not have been obvious that this combination would teach “wherein said first and second pieces are screwed apart from each other along said connecting bolt by using the thread for preloading said connecting bolt via a screwing force” as it would teach away from disclosure of the modifying reference Bucknell. As such, this action is Non-Final. Additionally, upon further search, new prior art was found which rendered obvious claims previously indicated as containing allowable subject matter. As such, this Office Action is Non-Final.
Applicant's point on page 2 of Remarks that “Bucknell discloses a hydraulic nut used to tension bolts without a connection to any specific technical field. The reference does not relate to wind turbine rotor blades or modular blade connections as in Sanz and the applicant’s disclosure. Consequently, Bucknell belongs to a different technical field and would not be considered pertinent prior art for the problem addressed by Sanz and the present claims. A person skilled in the art to would not look into a document like Bucknell since there is simply no suggestion or motivation to do so” was not found persuasive by Examiner.
In response to applicant's argument that Bucknell is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, While Bucknell is not related to the technical field of wind turbines, it is considered analogous art since it is related to the problem faced by Applicant of pretensioning rods/bolts. As such, Bucknell and other such references, would be considered analogous art and pertinent to the instant invention.
Applicant's point on page 3 of Remarks that “the combination would not be rendered obvious, in particular since the technical solutions of Bucknell and Sanz are mutually exclusive” is not found persuasive by the Examiner.
While the structural details of each of the references are distinct for each of their disclosure, they are both related to pretensioning bolts and their particular arrangements would not prevent utilizing the teachings of one of the references to modify the other. Additionally, in modifying Sanz with a secondary reference, utilizing the bolt pretensioning means disclosed in the secondary reference instead of the one disclosed by Sanz would not be considered teaching away given that they would still achieve the same goal or result of bolt pretensioning.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore:
the features required by claims 21-26 (claims 22-26 depending upon claim 21): which include “wherein said first piece and said second piece of said pretensioning unit are coupled to each other via a thread, and wherein said first and second piece are screwed apart from each other along said connecting bolt by using the thread for preloading said connecting bolt via a screwing force” recited in claim 17 (from which these claims depend upon) and simultaneously “wherein said pretensioning unit is formed as a hydraulic nut unit” as recited in claim 21, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. These two sections appear to be particular to different mutually exclusive embodiments.
The features required by claim 31: which include “wherein said second piece comprises an external thread onto which a lock nut is screwed, and wherein the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are pressed apart from each other, wherein the lock nut is screwed against the first piece, in order to hold the first piece and the second piece in position relative to each other” recited in claim 30 (from which claim 31 depends upon) and simultaneously “wherein the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are coupled to each other via a thread, and wherein, in the step of axially pushing, the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are screwed apart from each other for preloading the connecting bolt” as recited in claim 31, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. These two sections appear to be particular to different mutually exclusive embodiments.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding pr. 75 of the instant specification (see pr. 86 of the instant PGPub), the section reciting “In a further step S6, each corresponding first and pieces 150, 152 are hydraulically pushed apart by the threaded connection 154” is objected to as it appears to be mixing two mutually exclusive embodiments of the instant disclosure. The aspect of “first and [second] pieces 150, 152 are hydraulically pushing apart” appears to be specific to the hydraulic nut unit embodiment where a hydraulic chamber is used to hydraulically push apart the pieces while the push or move “apart by the threaded connection 154” is specific to the embodiment where the pieces 150.152 are connected by a threaded connection 154 which can be adjusted to adjust the axial position of the pieces 150,152 relative to each other. No where in the specification is it described how the pieces are hydraulically push apart by the threaded connection 154.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 lines 30-31, “along the connecting bolts against the respective connection ends, such that the connecting bolt are preloaded” should likely read “along the connecting bolt against the respective connection ends, such that the connecting bolt is preloaded”.
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 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:
“one or more centering devices” in claim 29. “devices” being a generic placeholder; “for centering at least one said first and second pieces along said connecting bolt” being functional language recited in the claim; the claim lacking sufficient structural limitations.
The corresponding structural limitations recited in the specification are: “For example, the centering means is a centering protrusion, a ring-like protrusion or the like” in pr. 29 of the instant PGPub and “The centering means 184 are ring-like protrusions which engage with the respective connection end 136, 138 and the pretensioning unit 144, that is, the first piece 150, in a form fit manner” in pr. 71 of the instant PGPub.
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.
Claims 21-26 and 31 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 21-26, these claims fail the written description requirement since the embodiment related to these claims, “where the pretensioning unit is formed as a hydraulic nut unit” as required by claim 21, is mutually exclusive with the embodiment required by claim 17 an shown in figs 4-5, claim 17 reciting “said first piece and said second piece of said pretensioning unit are coupled to each other via a thread, and wherein said first and second piece are screwed apart from each other along said connecting bolt by using the thread for preloading said connecting bolt via a screwing force”. The embodiment shown in figs. 4-5 present the first and second pieces coupled together via a thread which are screwed apart from each other along said connecting bolt for pretensioning the connecting bolt. This structure is mutually exclusive from the embodiment where the pretensioning unit is formed as a hydraulic nut unit, see figs. 6-7, where the first and second pieces are hydraulically pushed apart. This is further support by pr. 22 of the instant PGPub which states “a hydraulic nut particularly brings about the above-mentioned advantages and functions. In addition, no elements are rotated to each other during pressure apply for moving apart the first and second piece”. The mixing of mutually exclusive embodiments means that claims 21-26 fail the written description requirement and present new matter which is not support by the instant disclosure at the time of filing since it was not previously describe/disclosed.
Regarding Claim 31, the limitation “wherein the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are coupled to each other via a thread, and wherein, in the step of axially pushing, the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are screwed apart from each other for preloading the connecting bolt” causes it to fail the written description requirement since the embodiment related to this claim (where screwing apart the pieces is used to create the preload on the bolt) is mutually exclusive with the embodiment required by claim 30, from which claim 31 depends upon, where hydraulic pressure pushes apart the pieces for preloading the bolt. Claim 30 reciting “wherein said second piece comprises an external thread onto which a lock nut is screwed, and wherein the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are pressed apart from each other, wherein the lock nut is screwed against the first piece, in order to hold the first piece and the second piece in position relative to each other”. The mixing of the mutually exclusive embodiments (see preloading by threaded interface in figs. 4-5 and hydraulic nut unit in figs. 6-7) is not supported by the instant specification in such a way to convey to one skilled in the art that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. These embodiments being mutually exclusive is supported by the section of pr. 22 of the instant PGPub cited above.
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 21-26 and 31 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 21-26, the limitation in claim 21 reciting “wherein said pretensioning unit is formed as a hydraulic nut unit” renders these claims indefinite; claims 22-26 being dependent upon claim 21. Claim 17, from which these claims depend upon requires “wherein said first piece and said second piece of said pretensioning unit are coupled to each other via a thread, and wherein said first and second piece are screwed apart from each other along said connecting bolt by using the thread for preloading said connecting bolt via a screwing force” which relates to the embodiment where the first and second piece are threaded together such that screwing them apart preloads the connecting bolt. This being incompatible with the hydraulic nut unit embodiment as supported by pr. 22 of the instant PGPub which states “a hydraulic nut particularly brings about the above-mentioned advantages and functions. In addition, no elements are rotated to each other during pressure apply for moving apart the first and second piece”. As such, claims 21-26 are considered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 31, the limitation “wherein the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are coupled to each other via a thread, and wherein, in the step of axially pushing, the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are screwed apart from each other for preloading the connecting bolt” renders this claim indefinite. This limitation relating to the mutually exclusive embodiment shown in figs. 4-5. Claim 30, from which claim 31 depends upon, requires “wherein said second piece comprises an external thread onto which a lock nut is screwed, and wherein the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are pressed apart from each other, wherein the lock nut is screwed against the first piece, in order to hold the first piece and the second piece in position relative to each other” which relates to the hydraulic nut unit mutually exclusive embodiment shown in figs. 6-7. It is not clear how the limitations related to these two embodiments can be simultaneously required by the claimed invention given there mutually exclusivity. This mutual exclusivity is supported by at least pr. 22 of the instant PGPub which is cited in the section above.
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) 17 and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0089324, herein referenced as Sanz, in view of US 3749362, herein referenced as O’Connor.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Sanz
Regarding Claim 17, Sanz discloses a wind turbine rotor blade (“bolted joint for a wind turbine blade” title) comprising:
first and second rotor blade segments (see blade modules 1 and 1’ in fig. 7C) having respective connection ends (see respective connection ends in fig. 8A);
a connecting bolt (see bolt 8 fig. 5) threadably engaging into said first and second connection ends (shown in fig. 5; “Screwing all the bolts 8 into the inserts 5 of the first blade module 1; Aligning the inserts of the second blade module 1′ with the bolts 8; Turning the bolts 8 to screw them into the inserts 5 of both the first and second modules 1 and 1’” in pr. 39);
a sleeve-shaped pretensioning unit (see spacer 9 fig. 5) arranged between said first and second rotor blade segments (see fig. 5) and being mounted on said connecting bolt (see figs. 6A-6B);
However, Sanz fails to anticipate said pretensioning unit including first and second pieces, said first and second pieces being sleeves and mutually engaged in a form fit manner by being a least partially inserted into each other;
said first and second pieces being movable relative to each other along said connecting bolt by applying a force in an axial direction of the corresponding bolt; and,
said first and second pieces being configured to be axially moved apart from each other along said connecting bolt against said respective connection ends so as to cause said connecting bolt to be preloaded; and
wherein said first piece and said second piece of said pretensioning unit are coupled to each other via a thread, and wherein said first and second piece are screwed apart from each other along said connecting bolt by using the thread for preloading said connecting bolt via a screwing force.
Sanz is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades. O’Connor is analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant of pre-tensioning bolts (“fastener stretcher” title of O’Connor).
PNG
media_image2.png
455
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of O’Connor
O’Connor teaches of a sleeve-shaped pretensioning unit (see hex nut 68 and lifter member 70 in fig. 5) [being] mounted on said connecting bolt (shown to be mounted onto the bolt 62 by being provided around it in fig. 5) said pretensioning unit including first and second pieces (see hex nut 68 and lifter member 70 in fig. 5), said first and second pieces being sleeves (68 and 70 are shown to be analogous to sleeves in fig. 5) and mutually engaged in a form fit manner by being a least partially inserted into each other (see threaded interface between 68 and 70 as well as 70 being inserted into 68 in fig. 5);
said first and second pieces being movable relative to each other along said connecting bolt by applying a force in an axial direction of the corresponding bolt (“when the lifter member 70 is rotated counter-clockwise or, alternatively, the hex nut 68 is rotated clockwise, the lifter member 70 will be moved axially upwardly, thus creating an upward tensile force upon the bolt 62” col. 8 lines 14-18; this upward tensile force would be analogous to applying an force in the axial direction which would be parallel with the bolt 62); and,
said first and second pieces being configured to be axially moved apart from each other along said connecting bolt against said respective connection ends (“when the lifter member 70 is rotated counter-clockwise or, alternatively, the hex nut 68 is rotated clockwise, the lifter member 70 will be moved axially upwardly, thus creating an upward tensile force upon the bolt 62” col. 8 lines 14-18; see ends that hex nut 68 the lifter member 70 would push against in fig. 5, the end surface of 12 and either the shoulder 72 of head 64 or the spacer washer 74) so as to cause said connecting bolt to be preloaded (“since there is no nut retaining the bolt in stressed position relative to the structural member 12, it should be appreciated that the members 68, 70, and if provided, 74, remain in position following stressing of the bolt, in order to maintain the bolt in its stressed condition” col. 8 lines 18-24); and
wherein said first piece and said second piece of said pretensioning unit are coupled to each other via a thread (see fig. 5; “lifter member 70, which is externally threaded to fit into the hex nut 68” col. 7 lines 61-64), and wherein said first and second piece are screwed apart from each other along said connecting bolt by using the thread for preloading said connecting bolt via a screwing force (“when the lifter member 70 is rotated counter-clockwise or, alternatively, the hex nut 68 is rotated clockwise, the lifter member 70 will be moved axially upwardly, thus creating an upward tensile force upon the bolt 62” col. 8 lines 14-18; “the members 68, 70, and if provided, 74, remain in position following stressing of the bolt, in order to maintain the bolt in its stressed condition” col. 8 lines 21-24). O’Connor further teaches that their bolt stretching device “has a minimum of structural elements, and which can be operated in a simple, reliable and precise manner” col. 2 lines 36-38.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sanz, specifically its bolt pretensioning means made up of spacer parts 9 and mechanical separator 10, to instead utilized the bolt pretensioning means disclosed by O’Connor, so as to obtain the benefit of ‘minimal structural elements as well as being operated in a simple, reliable and precise manner’ as taught by O’Connor.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Sanz and O’Connor comprises the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 17, wherein said first or second piece of said pretensioning unit has a tool engaging section (external configuration, which may have a hexagonal configuration in the same manner as a standard hex nut, of lifter member 70 fig. 5) for an assembly tool (“lifter member 70, in the same [manner] as described with reference to the stretcher nut 26 of FIG. 1, preferably has an external configuration permitting it to be engaged by a wrench or other tool, and may have a hexagonal configuration in the same manner as a standard hex nut” col. 7 line 65 to col. 8 line 3 of O’Connor, as used to modify Sanz).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Sanz and O’Connor comprises the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 27, wherein said tool engaging section includes a hexagonal shaped outer side (“lifter member 70, in the same [manner] as described with reference to the stretcher nut 26 of FIG. 1, preferably has an external configuration permitting it to be engaged by a wrench or other tool, and may have a hexagonal configuration in the same manner as a standard hex nut” col. 7 line 65 to col. 8 line 3, this hexagonal configuration in the same manner as a standard hex nut would mean that the external configuration of lifter member 70 fig. 5 would have a hexagonal shaped outer side) or one or more boreholes for inserting mounting pins or mounting bolts.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Sanz and O’Connor comprises the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 17, wherein at least one of said first and second piece of said pretensioning unit or a screwing piece includes one or more centering devices (see threaded annular projection of lifting member 70 which protrudes from its external configuration in fig. 5 of O’Connor, as used to modify Sanz; this would be ring-like given that it is annular) for centering at least one of said first and second pieces along said connecting bolt (the threaded annular projection of 70 would center the lifting member 70 along the bolt 62 since the bolt 62 is surrounded by this threaded annular projection as shown in fig. 5 of O’Connor, as used to modify Sanz) with respect to another of said first and second piece (see 68 in fig. 5 of O’Connor, as used to modify Sanz) and/or an adjacent connection end.
Claim(s) 30, 32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0089324, herein referenced as Sanz, in view of EP0695883A1, herein referenced as Yamaguchi.
Regarding Claim 30, Sanz discloses a method of joining two rotor blade segments (see blade modules 1 and 1’ in fig. 7C) of a wind turbine rotor blade (“bolted joint for a wind turbine blade” title), the rotor blade segments having respective connection ends (see respective connection ends in fig. 8A), the wind turbine rotor blade including
a connecting bolt (see bolt 8 fig. 5) threadably engaging into said first and second connection ends (shown in fig. 5; “Screwing all the bolts 8 into the inserts 5 of the first blade module 1; Aligning the inserts of the second blade module 1′ with the bolts 8; Turning the bolts 8 to screw them into the inserts 5 of both the first and second modules 1 and 1’” in pr. 39);
a sleeve-shaped pretensioning unit (see spacer 9 fig. 5) arranged between said first and second rotor blade segments (see fig. 5) and being mounted on said connecting bolt (see figs. 6A-6B);
However, Sanz fails to anticipate said pretensioning unit including first and second piece¸ the first and second pieces being sleeves and mutually engaged in a form fit manner by being at least partially inserted into each other;
said first and second pieces being movable relative to each other along said connecting bolt by applying a force in an axial direction of said connecting bolt; and,
said first and second pieces being configured to be axially moved apart from each other along said connecting bolt against said respective connection ends so as to cause said connecting bolt to be preloaded,
the method comprising the steps:
partially screwing the connecting bolt into the first connection end of the first rotor blade segment in such a way that the connecting bolt projects from the first connection end;
mounting the sleeve-shaped pretensioning unit to the connecting bolt to be arranged between the rotor blade segments, wherein the first piece and the second piece can be moved relative to each other along the connecting bolt, and wherein the first piece and the second piece engage each other in a form fit manner;
bringing the second connection end of the second rotor blade segment close to the first connection end of the first rotor blade segment;
partially screwing the connecting bolt into the second connection end; providing an axially directed force between the first piece and second piece of said pretensioning unit;
axially pushing the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit apart from each other along the connecting bolts against the respective connection ends, such that the connecting bolt are preloaded; and
wherein said second piece comprises an external thread onto which a lock nut is screwed, and wherein the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are pressed apart from each other, wherein the lock nut is screwed against the first piece, in order to hold the first piece and the second piece in position relative to each other.
Sanz is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades. Yamaguchi is analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant of pre-tensioning bolts (“bolt tightening device” title of Yamaguchi).
PNG
media_image3.png
852
662
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 10 of Yamaguchi
Yamaguchi teaches of a sleeve-shaped pretensioning unit (see cylinder 1 and piston 2 which are provided around bolt 8, and therefore mounted on it, in fig. 10) [being] mounted on said connecting bolt (bolt 8 fig. 10);
said pretensioning unit including first and second pieces (see cylinder 1 and piston 2, respectively, in fig. 10)¸ the first and second pieces being sleeves (the cylinder 1 and piston are analogous to sleeves as shown in fig. 10) and mutually engaged in a form fit manner by being at least partially inserted into each other (piston 2 shown to be inserted into cylinder 1 in fig. 10);
said first and second pieces being movable relative to each other along said connecting bolt by applying a force in an axial direction of said connecting bolt (the space portion 4 acts as a hydraulic chamber which when filled/pressurized would apply an axial force to press apart the cylinder 1 and piston 2 from each other in fig. 10; this is best shown in comparing fig. 1 and fig. 2); and,
said first and second pieces being configured to be axially moved apart from each other along said connecting bolt against said respective connection ends so as to cause said connecting bolt to be preloaded (filling of space portion 4 would push the piston 2 axially apart from the cylinder 1 and such that they push against the connection ends of the fixed portion side 29 and head 8a in fig. 10; “to force the grease in the hollow portion 6 into the space portion 4. Thus, the piston 2 moves in the bolt-tightening direction in which the bolt 8 is pulled (the upward direction in FIG. 1) by the pressure of the grease” col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 2),
the method comprising the steps:
mounting the sleeve-shaped pretensioning unit to the connecting bolt (see cylinder 1 and piston 2 mounted around the bolt 8 in fig. 10) to be arranged between the [segments] (shown to be between 29 and 8a in fig. 10), wherein the first piece and the second piece can be moved relative to each other along the connecting bolt (cylinder 1 and piston 2 are movable relative to each other and along bolt 8 to function as a piston-cylinder assembly in fig. 10), and wherein the first piece and the second piece engage each other in a form fit manner (cylinder 1 and piston 2 are engaged in a form fit manner as shown in fig. 10 and to form the space portion 4);
providing an axially directed force between the first piece and second piece of said pretensioning unit (filling/pressurizing of space portion 4 would provide an axially directed force between the cylinder 1 and the piston 2 in fig. 10);
axially pushing the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit apart from each other along the connecting bolts against the respective connection ends (filling/pressurizing of space portion 4 would push apart the piston 2 from the cylinder 1 against respective connection ends for the bolt 8 in fig. 10), such that the connecting bolt are preloaded (“to force the grease in the hollow portion 6 into the space portion 4. Thus, the piston 2 moves in the bolt-tightening direction in which the bolt 8 is pulled (the upward direction in FIG. 1) by the pressure of the grease” col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 2); and
wherein said second piece (piston 2 shown to have an external thread in fig. 10) comprises an external thread onto which a lock nut (lock nut 11 fig. 10, shown to be provided onto external threads of piston 2 in said figure) is screwed, and wherein the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are pressed apart from each other (filling of space portion 4 would push/press apart the piston 2 from the cylinder 1 in fig. 10; “to force the grease in the hollow portion 6 into the space portion 4. Thus, the piston 2 moves in the bolt-tightening direction in which the bolt 8 is pulled (the upward direction in FIG. 1) by the pressure of the grease” col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 2), wherein the lock nut is screwed against the first piece, in order to hold the first piece and the second piece in position relative to each (“With the movement of the piston 2 toward the position shown in FIG. 2, the lock nut 11 installed on the piston 2 moves together, thereby to make a gap (not shown) equal to the maximum distance D by the piston can move between the lock nut 11 and the end face of the cylinder 1. Then, the lock nut 11 is rotated so as to close the gap between the lock nut and the cylinder until it touches the aforenoted one end face of the cylinder 1” col. 6 lines 7-14). Yamaguchi further teaches that their “invention seeks to provide a bolt screwing device capable of adjusting a bolt tightening force to the desired value” in col. 2 lines 10-12 while also “reducing the labor involved in tightening the bolt” in col. 2 lines 17-18.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sanz, specifically its bolt pretensioning means made up of spacer parts 9 and mechanical separator 10, to instead utilized the bolt pretensioning means disclosed by Yamaguchi, to obtain the benefit of ‘adjusting a bolt tightening force to a desired value as well as to reduce labor involved in tightening the bolt’ as taught by Yamaguchi.
In the combination of above, the method would comprise the steps:
partially screwing the connecting bolt into the first connection end of the first rotor blade segment in such a way that the connecting bolt projects from the first connection end (see bolt sticking out from the first connection end in fig. 5 of Sanz);
bringing the second connection end of the second rotor blade segment close to the first connection end of the first rotor blade segment (second connection end of the second rotor blade segment shown to be close to the first connection end in fig. 5 of Sanz);
partially screwing the connecting bolt into the second connection end (see bolt 8 sticking out of the second connection end in fig. 5 of Sanz).
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Sanz and Yamaguchi comprises the method of claim 30, wherein said pretensioning unit is formed as a hydraulic nut unit (see cylinder 1, piston 2 and space portion 4 (which functions as a chamber) in fig. 10 of Yamaguchi, as used to modify Sanz), and wherein, in the step of axially pushing, the first piece and the second piece of said pretensioning unit are hydraulically pushed apart from each other for preloading the connecting bolt (“to force the grease in the hollow portion 6 into the space portion 4. Thus, the piston 2 moves in the bolt-tightening direction in which the bolt 8 is pulled (the upward direction in FIG. 1) by the pressure of the grease” col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 2 of Yamaguchi, as used to modify Sanz).
Regarding Claim 34, Sanz discloses a wind turbine rotor blade (“bolted joint for a wind turbine blade” title) comprising:
first and second rotor blade segments (see blade modules 1 and 1’ in fig. 7C) having respective connection ends (see respective connection ends in fig. 8A);
a connecting bolt (see bolt 8 fig. 5) threadably engaging into said first and second connection ends (shown in fig. 5; “Screwing all the bolts 8 into the inserts 5 of the first blade module 1; Aligning the inserts of the second blade module 1′ with the bolts 8; Turning the bolts 8 to screw them into the inserts 5 of both the first and second modules 1 and 1’” in pr. 39);
a sleeve-shaped pretensioning unit (see spacer 9 fig. 5) arranged between said first and second rotor blade segments (see fig. 5) and being mounted on said connecting bolt (see figs. 6A-6B);
However, Sanz fails to anticipate said pretensioning unit including first and second pieces, said first and second pieces being sleeves and mutually engaged in a form fit manner by being at least partially inserted into each other;
said first and second pieces being movable relative to each other along said connecting bolt by applying a force in an axial direction of the corresponding connecting bolt;
said first and second pieces being configured to be axially moved apart from each other along said connecting bolt against said respective connection ends so as to cause said connecting bolt to be preloaded;
said pretensioning unit being formed as a hydraulic nut unit;
said second piece having an external thread onto which a lock nut is screwed;
said first piece and said second piece of said pretensioning unit being pushed apart from each other; and,
wherein said lock nut is screwed against said first piece to hold said first piece and said second piece in position relative to each other.
Sanz is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades. Yamaguchi is analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant of pre-tensioning bolts (“bolt tightening device” title of Yamaguchi).
Yamaguchi teaches of a sleeve-shaped pretensioning unit (see cylinder 1 and piston 2 which are provided around bolt 8, and therefore mounted on it, in fig. 10) [being] mounted on said connecting bolt (bolt 8 fig. 10);
said pretensioning unit including first and second pieces (see cylinder 1 and piston 2, respectively, in fig. 10), said first and second pieces being sleeves (the cylinder 1 and piston are analogous to sleeves as shown in fig. 10) and mutually engaged in a form fit manner (shown in fig. 10) by being at least partially inserted into each other (piston 2 shown to be inserted into cylinder 1 in fig. 10);
said first and second pieces being movable relative to each other along said connecting bolt by applying a force in an axial direction of the corresponding connecting bolt (the space portion 4 acts as a hydraulic chamber which when filled/pressurized would apply an axial force to press apart the cylinder 1 and piston 2 from each other in fig. 10; this is best shown in comparing fig. 1 and fig. 2; “to force the grease in the hollow portion 6 into the space portion 4. Thus, the piston 2 moves in the bolt-tightening direction in which the bolt 8 is pulled (the upward direction in FIG. 1) by the pressure of the grease” col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 2);
said first and second pieces being configured to be axially moved apart from each other along said connecting bolt against said respective connection ends so as to cause said connecting bolt to be preloaded (filling of space portion 4 would push the piston 2 axially apart from the cylinder 1 and such that they push against the connection ends of the fixed portion side 29 and head 8a in fig. 10; “to force the grease in the hollow portion 6 into the space portion 4. Thus, the piston 2 moves in the bolt-tightening direction in which the bolt 8 is pulled (the upward direction in FIG. 1) by the pressure of the grease” col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 2);
said pretensioning unit being formed as a hydraulic nut unit (shown in fig. 10);
said second piece (piston 2 fig. 10) having an external thread onto which a lock nut (lock nut 11 fig. 10, shown to be provided onto external threads of piston 2 in said figure) is screwed;
said first piece and said second piece of said pretensioning unit being pushed apart from each other (filling of space portion 4 would push apart the piston 2 from the cylinder 1 in fig. 10; “to force the grease in the hollow portion 6 into the space portion 4. Thus, the piston 2 moves in the bolt-tightening direction in which the bolt 8 is pulled (the upward direction in FIG. 1) by the pressure of the grease” col. 5 line 58 to col. 6 line 2); and,
wherein said lock nut is screwed against said first piece to hold said first piece and said second piece in position relative to each other (“With the movement of the piston 2 toward the position shown in FIG. 2, the lock nut 11 installed on the piston 2 moves together, thereby to make a gap (not shown) equal to the maximum distance D by the piston can move between the lock nut 11 and the end face of the cylinder 1. Then, the lock nut 11 is rotated so as to close the gap between the lock nut and the cylinder until it touches the aforenoted one end face of the cylinder 1” col. 6 lines 7-14). Yamaguchi further teaches that their “invention seeks to provide a bolt screwing device capable of adjusting a bolt tightening force to the desired value” in col. 2 lines 10-12 while also “reducing the labor involved in tightening the bolt” in col. 2 lines 17-18.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sanz, specifically its bolt pretensioning means made up of spacer parts 9 and mechanical separator 10, to instead utilized the bolt pretensioning means disclosed by Yamaguchi, to obtain the benefit of ‘adjusting a bolt tightening force to a desired value as well as to reduce labor involved in tightening the bolt’ as taught by Yamaguchi.
Examiner Note: Regarding Claims 21-26 and 31, no prior art rejections are being presented for these claims. This is due to the fact that they require aspects from two mutually exclusive embodiments, it does not appear possible to present prior art which would be made up of these mutually exclusive aspects.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner Note: while no prior art rejections were presented for Claims 21-26 and 31, it cannot be stated that they would be allowable if presented in independent form due to the mixing of mutually exclusive embodiments as detailed above in the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 19, it was determined that further modifying the combination of Sanz and O’Connor to have the limitations required by this claim would be non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, “wherein said first piece or said second piece is connected to said connecting bolt in a form fit manner so as to permit a screwing force to be applied to said connecting bolt” in context of all intervening limitations. While the Sanz discloses a spacer part which is connected to the bolt in a form fit manner so as to apply a screwing force to the bolt through the spacer part (see figs. 10A-10F of Sanz), this does not appear to have applicability to the combination of Sanz and O’Connor above and does not appear obvious to have modified one of the hex nut 68 or the lifting member 70 of O’Connor, as used to modify Sanz, such that it would be form fit connected to the bolt such that a screwing force could be applied through it to the bolt. This is further discouraged by O’Connor which states that one benefit of its invention is that “it will be appreciated that there is no need to counter-bore or otherwise mutilate or alter the conventional bolt 10” in col. 6 line 68 to col. 7 line 2. As such, claim 19 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 20, it was determined that further modifying the combination of Sanz and O’Connor to have the limitations required by this claim would be non-obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Specifically, “wherein a screwing piece is located between said pretensioning unit and one of said rotor blade segments, said screwing piece being connected to said connecting bolt in a form fit manner so as to permit a screwing force to be applied to said connecting bolt” in context of all intervening limitations. While the Sanz discloses a spacer part which is connected to the bolt in a form fit manner so as to apply a screwing force to the bolt through the spacer part (see figs. 10A-10F of Sanz); this being similar to the screwing piece of the instant invention. This does not appear to have applicability to the combination of Sanz and O’Connor above and it does not appear obvious to have modified the combination of Sanz and O’Connor such that another component would be provided between the bolt tensioning means and the abutting ends. O’Connor further states that one benefit of its invention is that “it will be appreciated that there is no need to counter-bore or otherwise mutilate or alter the conventional bolt 10” in col. 6 line 68 to col. 7 line 2 which appears to further discouraged such modification. As such, claim 20 is deemed to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 0794781 – discloses a bolt tensioning means similar to O’Connor cited above, a two-piece bolt tensioning sleeve which are threaded with each other to pretension a bolt, one of the pieces of the sleeve pieces is provided with notches to receive a flat key that is connected to the bolt; this being different from the instant invention where the sleeve pieces press against ends through which the bolt is screwed into.
US 5527015 – discloses a bolt tensioning means with a similar structure to the hydraulic embodiment of the instant invention; a locking nut is provided which functions similarly to the instant invention.
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
Prosecution Insights