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 with traverse of Invention Group 1 (claims 1-3, 6, 17) in the reply filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Dawson does not include an “Annotated Figure 6a”, rather includes a Figure 6. This is not found persuasive because the written term “Annotated Fig 6a” is merely a caption/label written by Examiner in order to uniquely reference that particular drawing in the written text of the office action. The “Annotated Fig 6a” includes an image, which has been annotated by Examiner in order to clearly identify certain elements, of the blade shown in Dawson’s Fig 6 (Applicant has correctly identified that the image in “Annotated Fig 6a” includes an image of the blade shown in Dawson’s Fig 6), wherein Dawson’s Fig 6 illustrates certain disclosures of Dawson’s.
Dawson does not show or teach a "Blade A" and a "Blade B" of different sizes. This is not persuasive because "Blade A" and "Blade B" are each merely labels written by Examiner in order to reference certain portions of “Annotated Fig 6a” in the written text of the office action.
“Dawson does not teach that the rotor blade in Figure 6 can have varying sizes, as suggested by "Blade A" and "Blade B" in the Restriction Requirement. See Restriction Requirement at p. 7. Dawson teaches that the length of the rotor blade can be adjusted by extending or retracting an end portion (18) of the rotor blade using a cable. Dawson at 4:37-64. Dawson, however, does not teach or suggest that the overall size of the blade can be varied, and certainly not in a way that produces different distances from a blade root to a cable connection point, as suggested by "Blade A" and "Blade B" in the Restriction Requirement.”
This is not persuasive because a length is a measurement of a size, and if the length can be or is adjusted then it logically follows that the size can be or is adjusted, wherein an adjustment of the size is a variation of the size. Also, Dawson discloses that “distances from a blade root to a cable connection point” can be varied, as shown by “r” in “Annotated Fig 6a” of the restriction requirement and as discussed/addressed within the related written portions of the restriction requirement.
The election/restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-16 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.
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 winglet” identified in claim 3.
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 Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims 1, 2, 6, 17 are objected to because they include reference characters (e.g. “R”, “r”) which are not enclosed within parentheses.
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).
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) 2, 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “at least 30%”, and the claim also recites “preferably 35% to 70%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “between 25% and 60%”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 40% and 50%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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, preferably 35% to 70% 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%, preferably between 40% and 50%, 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).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20060216153 A1 (hereinafter Wobben).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang, as modified above, discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
the outboard portion of each blade comprises a winglet.
However, Wobben, in the same field of endeavor, wind power plants, teaches:
A winglet on a blade (e.g. para 0002; Fig 6-7) in order to minimize edge vortices and noise (e.g. para 0048).
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 as modified above to include Wobben’s teachings as described above, having the outboard portion of each blade comprise a winglet, in order to minimize edge vortices and noise (e.g. para 0048).
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6923622 B1 - cited for teaching and extendable blade in Fig 2 having an inboard portion, an outboard portion, an intermediate portion which may be varied.
US 6972498 B2 - cited for teaching and extendable blade in Fig 2 having an inboard portion, an outboard portion, an intermediate portion which may be varied.
US 20110255974 A1- cited for teaching a winglet on a wind turbine blade.
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