mNotice 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 4 of page 6 through paragraph 2 of page 7 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Regarding the new claim 21, please see the action below for any relevant details.
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) 21 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 21 (line 1) recites the limitation “connection points of the three or more wind turbine blades” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same connection points of the three or more wind turbine blades previously identified in claim 1 (e.g. line 8) or a different connection points of the three or more wind turbine blades. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the connection points of the three or more wind turbine blades --.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “[the connection points are] arranged at a distance from the root end which is between 25% and 60% of a length of one wind turbine blade of the three or more wind turbine blades from the root end to the tip end and at a distance from the tip end of a respective wind turbine blade” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what exactly is required for something to be “arranged at a distance from the root end which is [specified]… and at a distance from the tip end”, particularly wherein the “at a distance from the tip end” does not further specify a requirement. As currently written, it appears the connection point may exist at any “distance from the tip end” and clarification is required.
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, 4-5, 7, 10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120051914 A1 (hereinafter Dehlsen) in view of US 20160056621 A1 (hereinafter Patten).
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, Dehlsen discloses:
A wind turbine comprising a tower, a nacelle mounted on the tower, a hub mounted rotatably on the nacelle, and three or more wind turbine blades, wherein each wind turbine blade extends between a root end connected to the hub, and a tip end arranged opposite to the root end (Fig 1 shows all this),
the wind turbine further comprising blade connecting tension members (40, 42, 44, 46, 48; Fig 1),
each blade connecting tension member extending between a connection point at one wind turbine blade of the three or more wind turbine blades and a connection point at a neighbouring wind turbine blade of the three or more wind turbine blades (Fig 1 shows this),
where connection points of the three or more wind turbine blades are arranged at a distance from the root end and at a distance from the tip end of a respective wind turbine blade (Fig 1 shows this),
Dehlsen may not explicitly disclose:
wherein each blade connecting tension member comprises:
a tension member core,
and a surface texture providing layer arranged circumferentially with respect to the tension member core, thereby modifying a surface texture of an outer surface of the blade connecting tension member,
and wherein the surface texture providing layer comprises an inner layer arranged circumferentially with respect to the tension member core and an outer layer arranged circumferentially with respect to the inner layer,
wherein the inner layer defines a higher surface roughness than the outer layer.
However, Patten, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
A cable 500 (Fig 5a, Fig 5b) suitable for use with wind turbine components (title; para 0001) which comprises:
a tension member core (512; Fig 5a),
and a surface texture providing layer (520 combined with 530, 540; Fig 5a; wherein each surface inherently has a texture) arranged circumferentially with respect to the tension member core (Fig 5a shows this), thereby modifying a surface texture (wherein a texture may be “the way that something feels when you touch it” per https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/texture) of an outer surface (the radially outer-most surface of 512, wherein 512 may be Zylon material per para 0092 and 540 may be other materials per para 0125),
and wherein the surface texture providing layer comprises an inner layer (520 combined with 530) arranged circumferentially with respect to the tension member core (Fig 5a shows this) and an outer layer (540; Fig 5a) arranged circumferentially with respect to the inner layer (Fig 5a shows this),
wherein the inner layer defines a higher surface roughness than the outer layer (evident from Figs 5a and 5b, a general roughness across a surface generally defined by the plurality of the conductors 530 and the interstices 580 would be higher/rougher than a general roughness across the radially outer-most surface of jacket 540, both general surface roughnesses obtained in a circumferential direction as identified by the arrows of reference characters A-A in Fig 5a; note that para 0121 identifies via use of the term “may” that fill material 590 is optional. In other words, it is plainly evident from Fig 5a that the surface defined by the plurality of the conductors 530 is rougher than the surface of jacket 540, because the conductors 530 are a grouping of cables which define a bumpy/uneven/irregular surface, and the jacket 540 is obviously shown having a relatively smooth/even/regular surface.),
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 Dehlsen to include Patten’s teachings as described above, having Dehlsen’s blade connecting tension members constructed as Patten’s cable, in order to utilize a design which may for example “reduce a size of the tether, reduce a weight of the tether, reduce a drag on the tether, and/or improve the resistance of the tether to various loads, such as fatigue loads” (para 0004).
where a surface roughness of the outer layer reduces vortex induced vibrations of the blade connecting tension member (functional limitation).
Examiner’s note: Regarding limitations identified as “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 (Patten’s cable also has: a core, and a surface texture providing layer having a rough inner layer and a smooth outer layer) and therefore performs the claimed function (the smooth layer reduces vortices, or, put differently, the surface roughness of the outer layer reduces vortices) 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 outer layer (or the surface roughness of the outer layer) being capable of reducing vortex induced vibrations of the blade connecting tension member. This is true even if the prior art does not specify that the smooth outer layer is explicitly for a purpose of reducing vortices; the smooth outer layer nonetheless reduces vortices (or, put differently, the smooth outer layer has a roughness that nonetheless reduces vortices).
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.
It is also noted that Applicant's specification at the top of page 21 identifies "The surface roughness defined by the outer layer 12, with the braided inner layer underneath, ensures that vortex induced vibrations of the blade connecting tension member 8, as air moves along the blade connecting tension member 8, are reduced." which reinforces that covering a braided (i.e. relatively rough) inner layer with a relatively smooth outer layer has the effect/result of reducing vortices. This completely applies to Patten’s cable, same as it does to Applicant’s cable.
Dehlsen as modified above may not explicitly disclose:
and wherein a thickness of the surface texture providing layer is at most 15% of a cross sectional diameter of the tension member core.
However, courts have established that a change in size/proportion will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather is a practice requiring only ordinary skill and hence is considered a routine expedient and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this particular case, Patten even discloses that the dimension/diameter of rod 512 may be selected/varied based at least in part according to a desired weight, predetermined loading, and may take various different forms (e.g. para 0091-0092). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have Patten’s rod 512 be a size/proportion, chosen to meet any desired weight or loading requirement, that results in a thickness of the surface texture providing layer being at most 15% of a cross sectional diameter of the tension member core. In other words, it is not inventive to merely change Patten’s size/proportion of his surface texture providing layer and/or his tension member core. See MPEP 2144.04(IV). Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s page 11 identifies that the thickness of the surface texture providing layer relative to the cross sectional diameter of the tension member core may have various values, e.g. “at most 15%” and “at most 10%” and “at most 5%”, which indicates that a specific value is not critical to the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Dehlsen, as modified above, discloses:
the outer layer is or comprises a thermoplastic shrink foil, a coating or an extruded layer (Patten para 0125: “jacket 540 may be extruded”).
Regarding claim 5, Dehlsen, as modified above, discloses:
the inner layer is or comprises a woven or braided layer (Patten para 0127 identifies that the cable may include a “braided layer may be located between the plurality of electrical conductors 530 and the jacket 540”).
Regarding claim 7, Dehlsen, as modified above, discloses:
the tension member core is made from a polymer material (Patten 512 may be Zylon material per para 0092).
Regarding claim 10, Dehlsen, as modified above, discloses:
the wind turbine is a pitch controlled wind turbine (Dehlsen abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Dehlsen, as modified above, discloses:
[the] connection points of the three or more wind turbine blades are arranged at a distance from the root end which is between 25% and 60% of a length of one wind turbine blade of the three or more wind turbine blades from the root end to the tip end and at a distance from the tip end of a respective wind turbine blade (see related 112b rejection above; Dehlsen Fig 1 fairly shows that each connection point is located at a span of approximately 25% to 60%, as measured from the blade root/base, it is noted that the connection points are clearly shown to be well clear of the blade roots and also well clear of the blade tips as discussed in Applicant’s paragraphs 2-3 of page 14).
Conclusion
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
