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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains grammatical errors.
The last sentence in particular is incomplete or at least grammatically incorrect and contains an open parenthesis without a corresponding close parenthesis. The phrase “Adding and adapter” appears as if it should instead recite --Adding an adapter--.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 14-16 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 13 recites “characterized in that once the blade has been separated from the rotor hub and descended to the ground, comrpising”, which is an improper sentence structure.
Claim 14, line 13 also recites “comrpising”, but should be amended to recite --comprising--.
Claim 15 recites “turns up” in line 2. This phrasing is unconventional and potentially unclear. It is understood that the transverse cutting reveals a beveled area.
Claim 16 recites “turns up” in line 2. This phrasing is unconventional and potentially unclear. It is understood that the smooth cutting reveals a beveled area.
Claim 21 recites “wherein in the machining of the long bore is approximately 300mm”, which is grammatically incorrect.
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 14-26 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.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the root" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the rotor hub" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Line 5 recites “removing all the bolts”. However, it is unclear from what the bolts are removed. For example, the state of the bolts following the preamble is unclear.
Line 7 recites “cleaning up”. However, this is a colloquial term and it is not necessarily clear what is meant by “clean up”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the area" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "their corresponding holes" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Line 9 recites “infusing the laminate”, though it is unclear what specifically is meant by “infusing”.
The term “long” in line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “short” in line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the radial axis" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Line 12 recites “its entire surface”. It is unclear to what “its” refers, i.e. the adapter or ring.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "its ends" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Line 13 recites “one” and “another”. It is not necessarily clear what “one” and “another” refer to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the bushing part" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the end" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the barrel" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the nut" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " its corresponding washer" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15:
Line 2 recites “a section of the blade”. It is unclear if this is the same section as in line 6 of claim 14 or a different one.
Lines 2-3 recite “to be cleaned and laminated with fabrics that increase in thickness and that subsequently are cured”. It is unclear if these are positively recited method steps.
Claim 16:
Line 2 recites “a section of the blade”. It is unclear if this is the same section as in line 6 of claim 14 or a different one.
The term “smooth” in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Lines 2-3 recite “to be cleaned and laminated with fabrics that increase in thickness and that subsequently are cured”. It is unclear if these are positively recited method steps.
Claim 17:
Line 2 recites “it”. It is unclear to what “it” refers.
Claim 18:
Line 2 recites “it”. It is unclear to what “it” refers.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the external surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21:
Claim 21 recites “approximately 300mm”. The term “approximately” makes the scope of the associated value unclear.
Claim 22:
Claim 22 recites “an approximate length of 0.5m”. The term “approximately” makes the scope of the associated value unclear.
Lines 2-3 recite “the adapter is metallic with an approximate length of 0.5m, for longer lengths it is made of composite material”. The claim is generally unclear as written, since it positively establishes a material and length of the adapter only to offer an alternative. It appears that it is attempting to recite a conditional limitation wherein the adapter is metallic for lengths of “approximately 0.5m” or else the adapter is composite for lengths longer than 0.5m.
Claim 24:
Lines 2-3 recite “conventional flat washer”. The scope of “conventional” is unclear as many styles of flat washer exist and which are considered “conventional” is unclear. It appears that it would suffice to simply recite --flat washer--.
Claim 25:
Claim 25 recites the limitation " the cut area" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that this should recite --the cut section--.
Line 2 recites “the adapter is longer than the cut area, increasing the diameter of the turbine rotor and the AEP”. The limitation is generally unclear. It appears that it is attempting to recite that the diameter of the turbine rotor and the AEP are increased as a result of the adapter being longer than the cut area.
Claim 25 recites the acronym “AEP” without defining it in the claim. Given that a cursory search reveals many possibilities for the acronym AEP, it is not necessarily clear what it means. It is presumed to refer to Annual Energy Production per the specification (page 4, line 4).
Claim 26:
Claim 26 recites “wherein once the blade has been separated from the bushing and is deposited on the ground using the Bladerunner® crane-free lowering system”, which is an incomplete sentence and consequently indefinite as it is unclear if a method step is being recited.
Claim 26 contains the trademark/trade name “Bladerunner®”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a crane-free lowering system and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Any claims not specifically discussed are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As best understood in spite of the numerous informalities discussed above, the prior art generally fails to disclose or teach a method as recited in claim 14. As noted in the International Preliminary report on patentability filed 10/4/2024, the references of the IDS, while generally relating to various aspects of wind turbine blade repair, fail to adequately disclose or teach the claimed method.
EP2623771 teaches a method of repairing a turbine blade involving excavating a cracked section of the attachment part around the end section of the bolt hole to form an enlarged diameter end section, but fails to cure the above deficiencies.
U.S. PGPubs 2021/0180572, 2020/0102938, 2019/0264660, and 2002/0194733 are U.S. equivalent documents to IDS references WO2019110068, EP3628477, EP3508718, and EP1270141, respectively.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights