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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 3/02/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, in paragraph 2 of page 9 through paragraph 1 of page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the objections should be withdrawn because the drawings in combination with the description provide a clear understanding of the limitation’s requirements and exact dimensions claimed do not have to be shown. Respectfully, the arguments are not persuasive because MPEP 2125 identifies that drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest and in this case the drawings appear to disclose/suggest that the claim 8 limitation “a distance from the base (53) to a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (23, 25) is equal to a distance from each of the fasteners of the third set of fasteners (63) to the mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (23, 25)” appears not possible. Applicant is requested to explain exactly how it is physically possible, given that the drawings (e.g. Fig 6) fairly show that that the apertures 73 (i.e. the third set of fasteners 63) exist on a curved plane, that the following distances are equal for every fastener 63:
a distance from the base (53) to a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (23, 25),
and a distance from each of the fasteners (63) to that mid-plane.
According to the drawings which must be relied upon to provide a clear understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented, this requirement appears impossible let alone clear. The related objections are therefore maintained for the reasons above.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 3 of page 10 through paragraph 3 of page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that one would not look to replace Hynum’s joint 50 with Dehlsen’s collar 9 and fairing (not numbered) because such a modification would completely destroy a key focus of Hynum, i.e., maintaining the aerodynamic contour along the joint between wind turbine blade segments.
Respectfully, the arguments are not persuasive because the rejection did not rely on replacing Hynum’s joint 50. The rejection of claim 4, for example, continued pointing to Hynum’s Fig 4, because the claim 1 rejection did not remove/replace Hynum’s joint 50. The modification identified in claim 1 added Dehlsen’s teaching of having connection points and stability lateral stays at the joints to connect neighboring blades in order to provide further stability.
In paragraph 1 of page 14 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are further directed to that one would not modify Hynum with Dehlsen’s arrangement on the basis of providing blade pitching. Respectfully, the arguments are not persuasive because (1) Applicant has not provided any specific reason supporting the conclusory statement that one would not modify Hynum with Dehlsen’s arrangement on the basis of providing blade pitching and (2) one would modify Hynum with Dehlsen’s blade pitching teaching of blade pitch motors located at the hub in order “to capture wind across the entire structure” (Dehlsen para 0016). It is further noted that Applicant has stated on the record that “Blade pitching is well known in the wind turbine industry” (Applicant’s remarks 3/2/2026 para 1 of page 14) thus no prior art reference must be relied upon in order to teach a claimed element which is already obvious to everyone in the art.
In paragraph 2 of page 14 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant remarks that “Applicant can see no rationale why one of ordinary skill would modify the joint (50) in Hynum with that of Dehlsen.” Respectfully, it is noted that this remark is not an argument and motivation for modifying Hynum with Dehlsen’s teachings were identified in the respective prior art rejections.
Regarding the new claims, please see the action below for any relevant details.
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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a distance from the base (53) to a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (23, 25) is equal to a distance from each of the fasteners of the third set of fasteners (63) to the mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (23, 25)” identified in claim 8. Note that this seems not possible according to the figures. Figs 5, 6 clearly shows that the apertures 73, associated with the third set of fasteners 63, exist on a curved plane. If Applicant were to clearly identify a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions in, for example, Fig 9, then, clearly, each of the fasteners (63) would not have the same distance to the mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions.
“a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions” as identified in claims 5 and 8. In order to clarify the issue above.
Discussion from response to arguments copied here: MPEP 2125 identifies that drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest and in this case the drawings appear to disclose/suggest that the claim 8 limitation “a distance from the base (53) to a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (23, 25) is equal to a distance from each of the fasteners of the third set of fasteners (63) to the mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (23, 25)” appears not possible. Applicant is requested to explain exactly how it is physically possible, given that the drawings (e.g. Fig 6) fairly show that that the apertures 73 (i.e. the third set of fasteners 63) exist on a curved plane, that the following distances are equal for every fastener 63:
a distance from the base (53) to a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (23, 25),
and a distance from each of the fasteners (63) to that mid-plane.
According to the drawings which must be relied upon to provide a clear understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented, this requirement appears impossible let alone clear. The related objections are therefore maintained for the reasons above.
Note that 35 U.S.C. 113 identifies the requirement for drawings to be generally provided (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented.”) and 37 CFR 1.83(a) identifies requirements for what those drawings must show (“The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box)”).
No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/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 19 recites the limitation “each of the at least three wind turbine connecting members is independently moveable in two orthogonal directions at each of the first connection point and the second connection point” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what it means for each connecting member to be movable at each first connection point and the second connection point, wherein each connecting member is not connected or even associated with each first connection point and the second connection point.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120141287 A1 (hereinafter Hynum) in view of US 20120051914 A1 (hereinafter Dehlsen) and US 20190152168 A1 (hereinafter Tobin).
Examiner’s note: All mapping below (references made to reference characters, figures, paragraphs, etc.) is with regard to the base reference (the first reference identified above) unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Hynum discloses:
A pitch controlled wind turbine comprising a tower, a nacelle mounted on the tower, a hub mounted rotatably on the nacelle, and at least three wind turbine blades, wherein each of the at least three wind turbine blades extends between a root end connected to the hub, and a tip end (Fig 1 indicates all this),
wherein each of the at least three wind turbine blades comprises:
a first blade portion (54; Fig 2) having a shell that defines a suction side, a pressure side, a leading edge, a trailing edge (Fig 2 shows all this),
the first blade portion further including a first blade portion end surface (Annotated Fig 4a) at one end of the first blade portion;
a second blade portion (52; Fig 2) having a shell that defines a suction side, a pressure side, a leading edge, a trailing edge (Fig 2 shows all this),
the second blade portion further including a second blade portion end surface (Annotated Fig 4a) at one end of the second blade portion,
wherein the first blade portion and the second blade portion are configured to be coupled together at the first and second blade portion end surfaces (Fig 4 shows this);
and a connection joint (region shown in Fig 4 is a joint) for coupling the first and second blade portions together,
wherein the connection joint includes a connector (50; Figs 2-4, 8) for connecting to the first blade portion end surface and to the second blade portion end surface,
Hynum may not explicitly disclose:
each wind turbine blade extends between a root end connected to the hub via a pitch mechanism,
the connector defining a first connection point and a second connection point,
and wherein the pitch controlled wind turbine further comprises at least three blade connecting members,
wherein for each of the at least three wind turbine blades, a respective one of the at least three blade connecting members extends from the first connection point to the second connection point of another of the at least three wind turbine blades.
However, Dehlsen, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
In para 0016 that blade pitch motors are located at the hub in order “to capture wind across the entire structure.”
Dehlsen also teaches:
a connector (9; Fig 4) defining a first connection point (64, which appears to be connected to cable 40 in Fig 4) and a second connection point (68, which appears to be connected to cable 48 in Fig 4),
and wherein the pitch controlled wind turbine further comprises at least three blade connecting members (stability lateral stays 40, 42, 44, 46, 48; Fig 3; para 0014 identified these are cables),
wherein for each of the at least three wind turbine blades, a respective one of the at least three blade connecting members extends from the first connection point to the second connection point of another of the at least three wind turbine blades (Figs 3 and 4 show this).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hynum to include Dehlsen’s teachings as described above, having a pitch mechanism, in order “to capture wind across the entire structure” (para 0016) and incorporating Dehlsen’s first connection point and second connection point into Hynum’s connector and associated blade connecting members as described above in order to provide “further stability” (para 0030).
Hynum as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
a first spar cap portion
a second spar cap portion
However, Tobin, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
At Fig 3 that various portions of spar caps 48, 50, 51, 53 exist throughout various joined blade segments 20, 21, 22, in order to provide structural integrity to the blade segments and whole blade.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hynum to include Tobin’s teachings as described above, having a first spar cap portion, a second spar cap portion, in order to provide structural integrity to the blade segments and whole blade.
PNG
media_image1.png
383
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 4a
Regarding claim 17, the claim is identical to claim 1 (thus the claimed elements are all disclosed by the prior art references as discussed in claim 1) but claim 17 adds only the following limitation:
each of the first connection point and the second connection point being adjacent the leading edge defined by the first blade portion and second blade portion, respectively.
Hynum as modified above for claim 1 inherently discloses this limitation because a broadest reasonable interpretation of “adjacent” may be “not distant; nearby” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent and connection points on Hynum’s connector thus meet the requirement.
Regarding claim 4, Hynum as modified above discloses:
for each of the at least three wind turbine blades the connector includes a generally U-shaped connector portion (80; Fig 4) having
a first side wall (generally at 86; Fig 4) adjacent the first blade portion end surface,
a second side wall (generally at 84; Fig 4) adjacent the second blade portion end surface,
and a base (generally at 82; Fig 4) extending between the first and second side walls;
wherein the connection joint further comprises
a first set of fasteners (represented by, for example, the lower left bolt 102 in Fig 4) connecting the first side wall to the first blade portion end surface,
a second set of fasteners (represented by, for example, the lower right bolt 102 in Fig 4) connecting the second side wall to the second blade portion end surface,
and a third set of fasteners (represented by, for example, both upper bolts 102 in Fig 4) extending across the generally U-shaped connector portion (Fig 4 shows each bolt head of each fastener extending across at least a portion of the generally U-shaped connector portion) and attached to the first and second side walls (Fig 4 shows that this set of fasteners, as a collective set, is attached to the first and second side walls).
Regarding claim 5, Hynum as modified above discloses:
the base is below a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (the base 82 shown at the lower portion of Fig 4 is below a midplane of spar caps),
and the third set of fasteners is above the mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (Fig 4 shows the third set of fasteners is above a midplane of spar caps).
Regarding claim 6, Hynum as modified above discloses:
the first set of fasteners and the second set of fasteners are each between the base and the third set of fasteners (Annotated Fig 8a shows that the sets of fasteners may alternate, around the entirety of the connector, such that this limitation is disclosed, with respect to a direction that may be “vertical” as shown in Fig 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
388
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8a
Regarding claim 7, Hynum as modified above discloses:
the connector is a unitary component (Fig 8 shows this) having a first row of apertures (the row may be, for example, an imaginary line connecting any two apertures 100 in Fig 8 which correspond to two respective bolts 102 of the first set of fasteners) for receiving the first set of fasteners, a second row of apertures (the row may be, for example, an imaginary line connecting any two apertures 100 in Fig 8 which correspond to two respective bolts 102 of the second set of fasteners) for receiving the second set of fasteners, and one or more third rows of apertures (the row may be, for example, an imaginary line connecting any two apertures 100 in Fig 8 which correspond to two respective bolts 102 of the third set of fasteners) for receiving the third set of fasteners.
Wherein a “row” may be “a number of objects arranged in a usually straight line” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/row.
Regarding claim 8, Hynum as modified above discloses:
a distance from the base to a mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions is equal to a distance from each of the fasteners of the third set of fasteners to the mid-plane of the first and second spar cap portions (Annotated Fig 4b).
PNG
media_image3.png
474
647
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 4b
Regarding claim 9, Hynum as modified above discloses:
the first blade portion comprises a first set of inserts (106; Fig 4; para 0036) embedded in the first spar cap portion, and the second blade portion comprises a second set of inserts (106; Fig 4; para 0036) embedded in the second spar cap portion;
wherein the first set of fasteners connect the first side wall to the first set of inserts (Fig 4 shows this) and the second set of fasteners connect the second side wall to the second set of inserts (Fig 4 shows this).
Regarding claim 11, Hynum as modified above discloses:
the connector includes a first branch (shown at the upper portion of each of Figs 4, 3) for connecting the suction side of the first and second blade portions (evident from Fig 3) and a second branch (shown at the lower portion of each of Figs 4, 3) for connecting the pressure side of the first and second blade portions (evident from Fig 3), wherein each of the first and second branches has the generally U-shaped connector portion with the first, second, and third sets of fasteners (Figs 3 and 4, for example, show all this).
Regarding claim 19, Hynum as modified above discloses:
each of the at least three wind turbine connecting members is independently moveable in two orthogonal directions at each of the first connection point and the second connection point (Dehlsen’s stays are individual cables which are movable in various directions at a connection point).
Regarding claim 20, Hynum as modified above discloses:
each of the at least three wind turbine blades includes a pitch axis about which the blade is rotated by the pitch mechanism relative to the hub (inherent to all blades that pitch as described by Dehlsen; also Dehlsen Fig 4 indicates this), and wherein when the blade is in an unloaded state, the pitch axis is located aft of the leading edge (Dehlsen Fig 4 indicates this to be the case for all states loaded or unloaded).
Regarding claim 21, Hynum as modified above discloses:
for each of the at least three wind turbine blades, the connector extends across only a portion of a chord defined at the first blade portion end surface and the second blade portion end surface of the first blade portion and the second blade portion, respectively (Hynum Fig 3 shows a hole defined by annular surface 64 wherein no material of the connector extends across such a chord, thus the connector extends across only a portion of the chord).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hynum in view of Dehlsen and Tobin as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of non-patent literature “Washers & Bushings” (hereinafter Bellrubber).
Regarding claim 10, Hynum as modified above discloses all claim limitations (see above) except:
a set of bushings extending across the generally U-shaped connector portion between the first side wall and the second side wall, wherein each fastener of the third set of fasteners extends through a respective one of the set of bushings bushing.
However, Bellrubber, in the same field of endeavor, bolted attachments, teaches:
A general teaching that bolt bushings may be provided at bolts of bolted connections in order to prevent metal to metal contact, to avoid any vibration from being transmitted through the bolted connection, to provide an overall degree of vibration isolation (see for example para 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hynum to include Bellrubber’s teachings as described above, having bolt bushings at the bolts of the bolted connections, in order to prevent metal to metal contact, to avoid any vibration from being transmitted through the bolted connection, to provide an overall degree of vibration isolation (see for example para 1 and 2).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above, wherein the set of bushings, as a set, extend across the connector between the first side wall and the second side wall.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 18 is/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.
Regarding claim 18, Hynum as modified above discloses:
for each of the at least three wind turbine blades, each of the first connection point and the second connection point is forward of the leading edge defined at the first blade portion end surface and the second blade portion end surface of the first blade portion and second blade portion, respectively (No – Dehlsen’s Fig 4 does not show connection points forward of the leading edge and Hynum’s Fig 3 does not explicitly show any reason for connection points to be located at or limited to specifically forward of the leading edge. One would not be motivated to further modify Hynum’s design or Dehlsen’s teachings such that the resulting configuration would read on Applicant’s claim, without improper hindsight from Applicant’s disclosure).
At this time, the prior art of record does not fairly disclose, teach, or suggest the missing limitation(s) as described above such that a modification would be possible in order to arrive at the claimed invention. The claim is therefore deemed to be allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights