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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Invention Group 3 (claims 1, 7, 14-16, 19, 26) in the reply filed on 12/02/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant’s reply did not explicitly identify whether the election is made without traverse or with traverse. As such, and because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The election/restriction requirement is made FINAL.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8-13, 17, 18, 20-25 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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: “a pitch mechanism” in claim 1 ; blade connecting member(s) in claim 1 ; “a reinforcing member” in claim 1 ; “a connector” in claim 14.
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(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) 1, 7, 14-16, 19, 26 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 1 (line 6) recites the limitation “each blade connecting member extending from a connection point on one wind turbine blade towards a connection point on a neighbouring wind turbine blade” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how each (i.e. every existing) blade connecting member can possibly extend from a single connection point on one wind turbine blade towards a single connection point on a neighbouring wind turbine blade.
Claim 1 (line 7) recites the limitation “the connecting points” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 (two locations, line 11 & line 12), also Claim 7 (line 3), each recite the limitation “the connection point” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the connection point on one wind turbine blade previously identified in claim 1 or the connection point on a neighbouring wind turbine blade previously identified in claim 1 or some other point.
Claim 1 (last line) recites the limitation “the respective connecting member” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 (line 9) recites the limitation “a blade spanwise outboard direction” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what exactly is a spanwise outboard direction. How does a spanwise outboard direction differ from a spanwise direction, wherein a spanwise direction is something one having ordinary skill in the art would understand?
Claim 7 (line 3) recites the limitation “increases outboard from the connection point up to an inboard edge” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what it means for the width to “increase outboard”. Does this have something to do with the “spanwise outboard direction”? Is this meant to refer to some “outboard” direction extending “from the connection point” and “to an inboard edge” (in Fig 7, with respect to the blade, the connection point 7 appears to be located outboard relative to the inboard edge 32a, so this maybe is not the case)? This is unclear. Also because it is unclear if the width is required to increase within a region defined to exist “from the connection point” “to an inboard edge” or something else.
Claim 26 (line 3) recites the limitation “so as to correspondingly adapt the thickness of the reinforcing member” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what it means for a thickness to “adapt” a thickness. Is this meant to define that the thickness of the core material is equal to the thickness of the reinforcing member? If so, this is not clear.
Claim 16 (line 1) recites the limitation “the thickness” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 16 (line 2) recites the limitation “in thickness” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same thickness previously identified in claim 16 or a different thickness.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the thickness” in two locations, each of which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding each of the following limitations:
“a pitch mechanism” in claim 1,
“reinforcing member” in claims 1, 7, 14, 15, 26,
“a connector” in claim 14 (Specification top of page 14: “the connector 40 of the connection point 7, may include a bearing structure 42”, but “a bearing structure” is also just a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function).
The claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For each of the above, Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) 7, 14-16, 19, 26 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, 7, 14-16, 19, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 104612896 A (hereinafter Wang) in view of US 20190152168 A1 (hereinafter Tobin) and US 20120051914 A1 (hereinafter Dehlsen).
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, Wang discloses:
A pitch controlled wind turbine comprising
a hub (hub 1; Fig 1),
and at least three wind turbine blades (blade 2; Fig 1),
wherein each wind turbine blade extends between a root end connected to the hub, and a tip end (Fig 1 shows this);
the wind turbine further comprising at least three blade connecting members (4; Fig 1),
each blade connecting member extending from a connection point on one wind turbine blade towards a connection point on a neighbouring wind turbine blade (Fig 1 shows this),
the connecting points each located at a connection region of a respective blade (Fig 1 shows this);
and a reinforcing member (sleeve 2; Fig 2) having an anchor end (radially inner end of sleeve 2) and a connection end (radially outer end of sleeve 2),
the connection end having the connection point (Figs 1 and 2 show this),
the reinforcing member extending continuously from the connection point to the anchor end (Fig 2 shows this).
Wang may not explicitly disclose:
a tower,
a nacelle mounted on the tower,
a hub mounted rotatably on the nacelle,
However, Tobin, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
a tower, a nacelle mounted on the tower, a hub mounted rotatably on the nacelle (Fig 1 shows all 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 Wang to include Tobin’s teachings as described above, having typical wind turbine components, in order to at all use Wang’s rotor system with a wind turbine having typical wind turbine components. The claim is essentially directed to the environment of use, wherein the rotor system is used with typical wind turbine components, and Tobin teaches a wind turbine with typical wind turbine components which also uses a rotor system.
Wang may also not explicitly disclose:
and each wind turbine blade comprising a spar cap extending in a blade spanwise outboard direction between the root end and the tip end,
the anchor end overlaps a portion of the spar cap.
However, Tobin also teaches at Fig 3 that various portions of spar caps 48, 50, 51, 53 exist throughout the entire spanwise length of a blade 16, in order to provide structural integrity to the 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 Wang to include Tobin’s teachings as described above, having spar caps throughout the entire spanwise length of the blade, in order to provide structural integrity to the blade.
This modification would result in the limitations directly above.
Regarding the limitation “so as to transfer load between the spar cap and the respective connecting member”, this is identified as a functional limitation.
Examiner’s note: Regarding limitations identified as a “functional limitation”:
Courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. See MPEP 2114(II).
It has also been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
In this case, the device in the prior art reference has all the necessary structure and therefore performs the claimed function in the same manner as Applicant’s device. Since the prior art discloses all of the same structural elements which Applicant claims, the prior art structure would be expected to perform the same as Applicant’s structure, the prior art’s anchor end and spar cap and connecting member being configured as claimed.
A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114(II).
A recitation of the intended use, or intended result, of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Wang as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
the root end connected to the hub via a pitch mechanism.
However, Dehlsen, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
In the abstract that “pitch motors are located at the hub assembly and dependently or independently pitch the” blades, and, in para 0015-0016, that blade pitch motors are located at the hub in order to provide pitch control and minimize stress on the rotor.
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 Wang as modified above to include Dehlsen’s teachings as described above, having the root end connected to the hub via a pitch mechanism, in order to provide pitch control, to have the blades interact with the wind optimally, and minimize stress on the rotor (para 0015-0016).
Regarding claim 7, Wang, as modified above, discloses:
a width of the reinforcing member in a chordwise direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the blade increases outboard from the connection point up to an inboard edge of the anchor end (Annotated Fig 2a shows that this width increases between the width at Location A and the width at Location B).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 2a
Regarding claim 14, Wang, as modified above, discloses:
each connection point comprises a connector (Fig 2 shows a structure on sleeve 2 connecting cable 4), and the connector is embedded in the reinforcing member (Fig 2 shows this).
Regarding claim 15, Wang, as modified above, discloses:
the reinforcing member includes a core material (inherent to all physical structures).
Regarding claim 16, Wang, as modified above, discloses:
the thickness of the core material tapers away from the connection end so as to reduce in thickness towards the anchor end (Annotated Fig 2b highlights an arbitrary core material wherein a thickness at Location C, corresponding to the anchor end, is reduced relative to a thickness at Location D, corresponding to the connection end).
PNG
media_image2.png
587
387
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 2b
Regarding claim 26, Wang, as modified above, discloses:
the thickness of the core material changes between the connection end and the anchor end (Annotated Fig 2b shows this) so as to correspondingly adapt the thickness of the reinforcing member (Fig 2 shows this wherein the thickness of the reinforcing member, just outside of the core material highlighted in Annotated Fig 2b, adapts to the thickness of the core material; see related 112b rejection above).
Regarding claim 19, Wang, as modified above, discloses:
the wind turbine is an upwind wind turbine (Wang’s entire disclosure is applicable to and commensurate with an upwind wind turbine, as one having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand, armed with Wang’s disclosure; for example, para 0012 discusses wind acting on the blade commensurate with an upwind wind turbine, or a downwind wind turbine).
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 201810482 - cited for teaching wind turbine blades comprising a connection point for cables.
WO 8602701 A1- cited for teaching wind turbine blades comprising a connection point for cables.
CN 106089573 A- cited for teaching wind turbine blades comprising a connection point for cables.
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 8:30-5:00.
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 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
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745