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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (Claims 1 and 3-4) in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant contends in Page 2 Para 4 that no lack of unity was found in the PCT application and requests the same consideration in the present corresponding national stage. The Examiner respectfully notes that lack of unity findings in PCT applications do not control restriction requirements before the Office.
Applicant further contends in Page 2 Para 5 – Page 3 Para 1 that the Examiner considered only partial recitation of features of Independent Claim 1 and also did not consider any of the other claims which are part of Groups I-IX when making a determination that the common subject matter between the Groups I-IX are not novel. The Examiner respectfully notes that the entirety of Claim 1 was considered under the unity of invention analysis contrary to Applicant’s assertion. Furthermore, Groups I-IX lacked unity of invention because the common technical feature for/between each group is Claim 1, this technical feature not being a special technical feature due to not making a contribution over the prior art, therefore Groups I-IX lacked unity of invention. The subject matter of the remaining claim(s) within each group are additional features which are not part of the common technical features between each group.
Applicant’s arguments in Page 3 Para 52 – Page 5 Para 2 relate to the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “kink” with respect to Enevoldsen et al. The Examiner respectfully notes that this Office Action utilizes WO2013/083130A1 disclosing all of the limitations of Claim 1. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are considered moot.
Applicant’s arguments in Page 5 Para 3 – Page 6 Para 1 are directed to search burden and a criteria for distinctness between combination and subcombinations. This is not deemed to be persuasive because the restriction requirement set forth was based on a unity of invention analysis for a national stage application. The unity of invention requirement is separate from the “independent and distinct” analysis and does not consider search burden in its analysis (See MPEP 1893.03(d)).
Applicant’s arguments in Page 6 Para 2 are not directed to the merits of the restriction requirement and therefore not addressed by the Examiner.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL with Claims 2 and 5-15 withdrawn from further Examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In Line 11, the recitation of, “the second pre-bend region” should recite, “the second longitudinal pre-bend region” to provide formal antecedent basis.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Line 3, the recitation of, “the second pre-bend region” should recite, “the second longitudinal pre-bend region” to provide formal antecedent basis.
In Line 3, the recitation of, “changes” should recite, “changing” to improve clarity.
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 3-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, the recitation of, “A pre-bent wind turbine blade” in Line 1 is unclear if this is the same one previously recited in Claim 1. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean the same one. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to say, “The [[A]] pre-bent wind turbine blade”.
Regarding Claim 4, the recitation of, “A pre-bent wind turbine blade” in Line 1 is unclear if this is the same one previously recited in Claim 1. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean the same one. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to say, “The [[A]] pre-bent wind turbine blade”.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency.
**Any and all claims rejected above under 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gjerløv et al. (WO 2013/083130A1) hereinafter referred to as Gjerløv.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
408
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Gjerløv discloses a pre-bent wind turbine blade (5, figure 2 also reproduced/annotated above) for an upwind wind turbine (1, figure 1), the pre-bent wind turbine blade extending along a longitudinal course from a root (10, figure 2) to a tip (14, figure 2), the wind turbine blade comprising a root region and an airfoil region with the tip (see blade 5 with root and airfoil regions, figure 2), the wind turbine blade comprising a chord line extending between a leading edge and a trailing edge (chord line of blade 5), the wind turbine blade comprising an aerodynamic exterior blade surface including a pressure side and a suction side (see opposing sides of blade 5, figure 2), wherein the airfoil region comprises a plurality of longitudinal pre-bend regions (see annotated figure 2) in which the wind turbine blade is pre-bent in a flapwise direction (see annotated figure 2), wherein a first pre-bend region of the plurality of longitudinal pre-bend regions is arranged closer to the root than a second longitudinal pre-bend region (see annotated figure 2), wherein the longitudinal course in the second pre-bend region comprises a kink (see annotated figure 2).
Regarding Claim 2, Gjerløv discloses that the kink is provided by the second derivative of the prebend displacement changing sign in the second pre-bend region (see change of curvature in the second pre-bend region which corresponds to a second derivative of the prebend displacement changing sign, annotated figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2022/0065218A1 discloses a rotor blade having maximized overall pre-bend via an increased pre-bend in a blade tip segment thereof (see figure 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
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, Nathaniel 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745