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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 states “a plurality of blades as claimed in claim 1” which should stay consistent with the blade naming of claim 1 and read “a plurality of the wind blades as claimed in claim 1” or something similar. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-10, 13, 15-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobsen (US 20170045032).
Regarding claim 1, Jacobsen discloses A wind blade for a wind turbine; the blade comprising:
a tip (Figure 2); and
a root (Figure 2, item 30),
wherein the blade extends along a first longitudinal axis from the tip to the root (Figure 2);
wherein the root is suitable for attachment being attached to a hub of a wind turbine (Figure 1),
wherein the root has a tubular shape (Figures 2 and 3, item 30) and a base defining a crown, extending transversely around the first longitudinal axis (Figure 3 item 36 shows a crown of the base that extends around the longitudinal axis),
wherein the crown has a plurality of first connection openings that are spaced apart along the crown (Figures 3 and 4 show a plurality of openings in the crown spaced apart),
wherein each first opening extends along a direction substantially parallel to the first longitudinal axis or a direction longitudinal to the extension of the blade (Figures 3 and 4 show the holes extending substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis and in a longitudinal extension direction of the blade), and
each first opening has an inner surface defining a first helical coupling portion, which develops helically to accommodate and allow attaching by screwing a connecting device suitable to attach the root of the blade to the hub (Figures 5-10 show a variety of first openings that have threads internally. These threads are items 181, 281, 381, 480, 481, the inner surface of 482 that fits with 480, 581, 680, and 681 in each of the respective figures. All of these threads engage either a mounting bolt which is described in paragraph 0106 or in the case of Figure 7 a nut 480).
Regarding claim 2, Jacobsen discloses that the first helical coupling portion has a section along a first cutting plane on which the first longitudinal axis lies that is substantially trapezoidal in shape, substantially triangular in shape, or shaped as a sawtooth (Figures 5-10 shows all of the threads being substantially triangular in shape).
Regarding claim 4, Jacobsen discloses that a connecting device for each first connection opening configured to connect the root of the blade to the hub;
wherein each connecting device comprises an elongated body, that extends along a second longitudinal axis (Figure 7, item 480) and each connecting device has:
-a first portion of cylindrical surface portion, which is provided with a second helical coupling portion configured to mate with the first helical coupling portion formed in at least one of the first openings of the blade (Figure 7 shows the outside portion of 480 fits with the internal threads of 482 and 440); and
-a second portion of cylindrical surface portion, on which a third helical coupling portion is formed, configured to mate with a complementary coupling portion of a tie rod (Figure 7 item 481 shows a third thread and paragraph 0109 describes that 481 engages with a mounting bolt. A tie rod is simply a rod used as a connecting member, so the bolt described meets the limitations of the tie rod).
Regarding claim 5, Jacobsen discloses that the elongated body is tubular in shape and extends around the second longitudinal axis (Figure 7, item 480),
wherein the first cylindrical surface portion is external (Figure 7, item 480 shows an external thread described in the rejection of claim 4 above), and
wherein the second cylindrical surface portion is internal (Figure 7, item 481 shows an internal thread).
Regarding claim 7, Jacobsen discloses that the second helical coupling portion is raised relative to the first cylindrical surface portion (Figure 7 shows the peak of the helical coupling portion 480 being raised from the valley of the portion).
Regarding claim 8, Jacobsen discloses that the second helical coupling portion has a section along a second cutting plane on which the second longitudinal axis lies that is substantially trapezoidal in shape, substantially triangular in shape, or shaped as a sawtooth (Figure 7 shows the threads being substantially triangular in shape).
Regarding claim 9, Jacobsen discloses that the second helical coupling portion and the third helical coupling portion are arranged at opposite ends of the elongated body (Figure 7 shows the second and third helical coupling portions being engaged along the entire length of the body. As such, both are engaged at both opposite ends of the body. These limitations do not require either of the coupling portions to end before either end of the elongated body).
Regarding claim 10, Jacobsen discloses that the second helical coupling portion and the third helical coupling portion are arranged at the same end of the elongated body (Figure 7 shows both threads extending along the same length and as such they are arranged at the same end of the body).
Regarding claim 13, Jacobsen discloses A connection method for connecting a blade of a wind turbine to a hub of said wind turbine, the method comprising the steps of:
-providing a wind blade (Figure 1) having a root with a base in the shape of a crown (Figure 2, item 30); and
-making with a tool (Paragraphs 0010-0014 and the material forming requires a tool), a plurality of first openings on a surface of the crown (Figures 3-10),
wherein the plurality of first openings are spaced apart along the crown (Figures 3-4), and
wherein each first opening has an inner surface defining a first helical coupling portion (Figures 5-10 show a variety of first openings that have threads internally. These threads are items 181, 281, 381, 480, 481, the inner surface of 482 that fits with 480, 581, 680, and 681 in each of the respective figures. All of these threads engage either a mounting bolt which is described in paragraph 0106 or in the case of Figure 7 a nut 480).
Regarding claim 15, Jacobsen discloses that each first helical coupling portion has a helical groove (Figures 5-10 show a variety of first openings that have threads internally and externally which all provide helical grooves).
Regarding claim 16, Jacobsen discloses screwing a connecting device comprising an elongated body in each first opening (Figure 7 shows the outside portion of 480 fits with the internal threads of 482 and 440).
Regarding claim 20, Jacobsen discloses completing a fabrication of the root of the blade and subsequently making the first helical coupling portions (Figures 3-10 shows the bushings inserted into the root. As the root must be formed before anything can be inserted into the root, the coupling portions integrated into the root are formed after the fabrication of the blade root).
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US 20170045032) with Hahn (DE 102010012408) provided as evidence.
Regarding claim 3, Jacobsen discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Jacobsen does not teach or disclose the specific pitch of the helical coupling portion. Hahn describes that thread pitch and dimensions can ensure that the element allows for secure support of the engaging portion and support the desired load of the system (Par. 0007). As such, the pitch and dimensions of each thread are a result effective variable with the result being the desired load support requirements of the engagement portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pitch of the first helical coupling of Jacobsen be between 5 mm and 150 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the pitch of the helical coupling portion be between 5 mm and 150 mm for the purpose of providing the optimum load bearing requirements of the engagement threads.
Regarding claim 6, Jacobsen discloses the limitations of claim 4 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Jacobsen does not teach or disclose the specific pitch of the second and third helical coupling portions. Hahn describes that thread pitch and dimensions can ensure that the element allows for secure support of the engaging portion and support the desired load of the system (Par. 0007). As such, the pitch and dimensions of each thread are a result effective variable with the result being the desired load support requirements of the engagement portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the pitch of the second and third helical coupling portions of Jacobsen be different, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the pitch of the second and third helical coupling portions be different for the purpose of providing the optimum load bearing requirements of the engagement threads. As the second and third helical coupling portions of Jacobsen do not engage with each other, it is possible for them to have different pitches without causing problems with the system.
Claim(s) 11-12, 17, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US 20170045032) in view of Samudrala (US 20170002660).
Regarding claim 11, Jacobsen discloses a rotor of a wind turbine (Figure 1), the rotor comprising:
a plurality of blades as claimed in claim 1 (Figure 1, see rejection above); and
the hub (Figure 1, item 8).
However, Jacobsen does not show the hub engagement interface and does not disclose that the hub comprises a connection portion provided with a plurality of second openings coupled to the plurality of connecting devices so as to connect each blade to the hub. Jacobsen and Samudrala are analogous prior art because both describe root engagement portions for wind turbine blades with bushings and bolts. Samudrala teaches the hub comprises a connection portion provided with a plurality of second openings coupled to the plurality of connecting devices so as to connect each blade to the hub (Figure 5 shows a hub portion 125 with a plurality of holes coupled to the connection devices to connect the blades to the hub). As Jacobsen already describes the use of bolts to connect the bushings and thereby the blades to the hubs, Samudrala shows a structure to connect the hub to the bushings and the blade, and bolts normally pass through holes for connecting structures, the hub engagement portion and holes of Samudrala would provide predictable results as the hub engagement structure of Jacobsen. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hub engagement portion and holes of Samudrala as the hub engagement and connection of Jacobsen because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Jacobsen in view of Samudrala teaches a support tower (Jacobsen Figure 1, item 4);
a nacelle supported by the support tower (Figure 1, item 6); and
the rotor as claimed in claim 11 (see rejection above),
wherein the rotor is rotatably coupled to the nacelle (Figure 1 shows the hub and rotor rotatable to the nacelle 6).
Regarding claim 17, Jacobsen discloses the limitations of claim 16 as set forth in the 102 rejection above and arranging the base of the root of the blade in a connection portion of the hub (Figure 1). However, Jacobsen does not describe the specific interface between the root and the hub and a connection portion of the hub provided with second openings so that the first openings are aligned with the second openings;
-inserting a tie rod inside each aligned first opening and second opening; and
-screwing each tie rod onto the elongated body of the respective connecting device to push the root of the blade against the hub of the wind turbine.
Jacobsen and Samudrala are analogous prior art because both describe root engagement portions for wind turbine blades with bushings and bolts. Samudrala teaches a connection portion of the hub provided with second openings so that the first openings are aligned with the second openings (Figure 5 shows a hub portion 125 with a plurality of holes coupled to the connection devices to connect the blades to the hub where the bolt passes through the hub second openings and the first openings of the blade);
-inserting a tie rod inside each aligned first opening and second opening (Figure 5, items 102 show bolts passing through both openings. As described above, the bolts meet the limitations of tie rods); and
-screwing each tie rod onto the elongated body of the respective connecting device to push the root of the blade against the hub of the wind turbine (Figure 5, item 102 shows the two pressing against each other). As Jacobsen already describes the use of bolts to connect the bushings and thereby the blades to the hubs, Samudrala shows a structure to connect the hub to the bushings and the blade, and bolts normally pass through holes for connecting structures, the hub engagement portion and holes of Samudrala would provide predictable results as the hub engagement structure of Jacobsen. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the hub engagement portion and holes of Samudrala as the hub engagement and connection of Jacobsen because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 21, Jacobsen in view of Samudrala teaches that the connecting device comprises an elongated body having a tubular shape (Jacobsen Figure 7, item 480), which has an external first portion of cylindrical surface portion provided with a second helical coupling portion configured to couple with the first helical coupling portion of the respective first opening (Figure 7 shows the outside portion of 480 fits with the internal threads of 482 and 440), and
wherein the connecting device comprises an internal second portion of cylindrical surface portion, on which a third helical coupling portion is formed, configured to mate with a complementary coupling portion of the tie rod (Figure 7 item 481 shows a third thread and paragraph 0109 describes that 481 engages with a mounting bolt. A tie rod is simply a rod used as a connecting member, so the bolt described meets the limitations of the tie rod).
Regarding claim 22, Jacobsen in view of Samudrala teaches that the second helical coupling portion is raised relative to the first portion of the cylindrical surface (Jacobsen Figure 7 shows the peak of the helical coupling portion 480 being raised from the valley of the portion).
Claim(s) 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobsen (US 20170045032) in view of Bech (US 20200263656).
Regarding claim 14, Jacobsen discloses the limitations of claim 13 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Jacobsen does not describe the method of manufacturing the structures and as such does not explicitly disclose that each first helical coupling portion is made by a numerically controlled machine, or by a robot, or manually.
Jacobsen and Bech are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blade connection structures. Bech teaches machining bolt structures (Pars. 0016 and 0065) in order to form the desired shape. As machining is a common process to provide desired component structures and shapes with wind turbine blade components and Bech teaches that such machining can be used for bolts, the machining manufacturing method of Bech would provide predictable results to form the first helical coupling portion of Jacobsen. Further, Jacobsen does not describe how the helical coupling portion is formed so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable method. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the machining method of Bech to form the first helical coupling portion of Jacobsen because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The limitations of the claim cover automatic robotic machining, CNC, and manual machining so the machining operation of Jacobsen in view of Bech meets the limitations as the limitations allow for any form of machining.
Regarding claim 18, Jacobsen discloses the limitations of claim 13 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Jacobsen does not describe the method of manufacturing the structures and as such does not explicitly disclose drilling the base of the blade so as to obtain the plurality of first openings before making the respective first helical coupling portions.
Jacobsen and Bech are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blade connection structures. Bech teaches forming the holes in the blade root to accommodate the bushing with drilling (Par. 0056). As drilling is a common process to provide holes in wind turbine blade components and Bech teaches that the bores are drilled, the drilling method of Bech would provide predictable results to form the bore holes of Jacobsen. Further, Jacobsen does not describe how the bores are formed so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable method. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the drilling method of Bech to form the bore holes of Jacobsen because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As the bores must be made before any of the bore or threads can be engaged or made, the drilling process must happen prior to making the first helical coupling portions.
Regarding claim 19, Jacobsen discloses the limitations of claim 13 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Jacobsen does not describe the method of manufacturing the structures and as such does not explicitly disclose arranging the blade in a drilling and/or tapping station to center the blade with respect to a drilling and/or tapping machine.
Jacobsen and Bech are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blade connection structures. Bech teaches forming the holes in the blade root to accommodate the bushing with drilling (Par. 0056). As drilling is a common process to provide holes in wind turbine blade components and Bech teaches that the bores are drilled, the drilling method of Bech would provide predictable results to form the bore holes of Jacobsen. Further, Jacobsen does not describe how the bores are formed so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable method. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the drilling method of Bech to form the bore holes of Jacobsen because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). As there are no limitations describing the drilling station, any station where the blade is drilled meets the limitations of a drilling station and in order to drill the blade, the blade must be centered with respect to the forming.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights