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 5/22/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections.
Regarding the prior claim objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome some prior objections.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome some prior rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 4 of page 7 through paragraph 1 of page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that teaching reference Vossler’s variable length joint portion is part of the outboard portion of a rotor blade and therefore cannot be considered "an intermediate portion" between inboard and outboard portions of the rotor blade.
The arguments are not persuasive because Vossler’s portion 118/218/318 (Figs 3, 4) is an intermediate portion located between an inboard portion (150, 250, 350) and an outboard portion (115, 215, 315).
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims 1, 2, 17 are objected to because they include reference characters (e.g. “R”, “r”) which are not enclosed within parentheses. E.g.: claim 1 line 18, claim 2 line 2, claim 17 line 2, claim 17 line 3.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner’s note: For the purposes of examining this application, the term “is the same” (e.g. claim 1 line 13 and line 14) is interpreted to mean that the “the outer dimensions, i.e. the profile, of the outer shell is the same as the outer dimensions, i.e. the profile, of the outer shell” between blade portions (as discussed in the spec at bottom of page 3 and top of page 4). This note was original made in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 2/26/2026.
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) 17 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 17 (last line) recites the limitation “the total blade length R” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- the blade length (R) --.
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, 2, 6, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 102305174 A (Zhang) in view of US 20140056715 A1 (Vossler).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses:
Wind turbine blades (Fig 3) for cable-stayed wind turbine rotors (Fig 3),
each blade extending in a spanwise direction between a blade root (4; Fig 3) for connection to a hub of a cable-stayed rotor, and a blade tip (Fig 3 shows all this),
and each blade having a blade length R defined by a spanwise distance between the blade root and the blade tip (inherent to all blades);
each blade further comprising:
an inboard portion (Annotated Fig 3a) defining the blade root;
an outboard portion (Annotated Fig 3a) defining the blade tip;
and an intermediate portion (Annotated Fig 3a) between the inboard portion and the outboard portion,
the intermediate portion comprising a cable connection point (Annotated Fig 3a) located at a spanwise distance r (inherent) from the blade root;
Zhang may not explicitly disclose:
The wind turbine blades are a family of wind turbine blades
the family (32) comprising a plurality of blades (20) of different lengths,
wherein the inboard portion (30) of each blade is the same as the inboard portions of the other blades in the family (32),
the outboard portion (36) of each blade is the same as the outboard portions of the other blades in the family (32),
and the intermediate portion (38) of each blade has a different spanwise length compared to the intermediate portions of the other blades in the family (32);
and wherein the cable connection point (26) of each blade in the family (32) is located at a different spanwise distance r from the blade root (22) than the connection point (26) of each of the other blades in the family (32),
and wherein the spanwise distance r increases as blade length R increases.
However, Vossler, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
A plurality of modular wind turbine blades (100, 200, 300; Fig 4; may be referred to as a family) of different lengths (Fig 4 shows this),
wherein the inboard portion of each blade is the same as the inboard portions of the other blades in the family (Fig 4 shows this),
the outboard portion of each blade is the same as the outboard portions of the other blades in the family (Fig 4 shows this),
and the intermediate portion of each blade has a different spanwise length compared to the intermediate portions of the other blades in the family (Fig 4 shows this);
and wherein the spanwise distance r increases as blade length R increases (inherent).
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 Zhang to include Vossler’s teachings as described above, having modular wind turbine blades with various sized components as described above, in order to produce a plurality of blade assemblies of various lengths, tailor sized based on the expected amount of wind to help capture the most amount of energy from a given location to improve the efficiency of a given wind turbine, having multiple turbine blades of different lengths without requiring multiple molds (e.g. abstract, para 0004).
This modification results in teaching the limitation:
and wherein the cable connection point of each blade in the family is located at a different spanwise distance r from the blade root than the connection point of each of the other blades in the family (inherent: Zhang’s cable connection point is located on a distal end of the intermediate portion, and each of Vossler’s intermediate portion has a unique length),
PNG
media_image1.png
476
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 3a
Regarding claim 2, Zhang, as modified above, discloses:
the outboard portion of each blade comprises at least 30% of the length R of the blade (Vossler Fig 4 shows at least 30%).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang, as modified above, discloses:
each blade of the family of wind turbine blades has a first chord of the blade at the interface between the inboard portion and the intermediate portion and a second chord of the blade at the interface between the outboard portion and the intermediate portion (all inherent),
wherein for each blade the first chord is rotated with a different twist angle relative to the second chord, and the twist angle increases as blade length R increases (e.g. Vossler para 0019: twisting the blades in generally the chordwise direction and/or the spanwise direction).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang, as modified above, discloses:
the spanwise distance r is between 25% and 60% of the total blade length R (Vossler Fig 4 shows approximately 60%. Insofar as Applicant may disagree, it is noted that courts have established that a change in form, proportions, will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather a form of routine optimization which would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, because the prior art’s value of r would be understood by one of ordinary skill to be a generally similar value contemplated by the claim, any such difference is held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II). It is further noted that Applicant’s own disclosure, e.g. claim 17, identifies that r may comprise various values, which indicates that a particular value of r is not critical to the invention. It is further noted that Vossler explicitly identifies that his inboard portion may be various lengths, e.g. bottom of para 0028, which would have the effect of altering his value of r such that it matches Applicant’s claimed value of r).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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