DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 08 January 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 08 January 2026 addressing the previous prior art rejections in light of the amendments have been fully considered. The amendments are considered to overcome the previous prior art rejections.
After further search and consideration, new 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, prior art rejections, and double-patenting rejections are presented below. Since at least one of these rejections is/are not necessitated by the amendments, finality of this Office action is withheld. The Office regrets any inconvenience to Applicant.
Specification
In the Abstract, line 1, “Described herein is a” should be changed to --A-- (note: the language of the Abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc - see MPEP 608.01(b)).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 3, --the-- should be added before “used”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “deinstalling the hub from the nacelle” and/or “installing the hub… to the nacelle” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163.03 (V), an original claim may lack written description support when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. Alternatively/additionally, according to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The originally filed disclosure indicates that rotor hub 18 is separate/distinct from nacelle 14 - i.e., rotor hub 18 is rotational and nacelle 14 is stationary and, thus, rotor hub 18 is never in a state in which it is “installed” to the nacelle 18, thereby precluding “deiinstalling the hub from the nacelle” and/or “installing the hub… to the nacelle”.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “the used blades are supported only at roots of the used blades during operation of the wind turbine” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, operation of the wind turbine with used blades necessarily refers to a state prior to the claimed invention characterized as “A method of repowering a… wind turbine”, thereby rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of the instant claim. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests deleting “during operation of the wind turbine”.
In claim 6, the limitation recited as “a system for powering the linear actuators which is integrated with a blade pitch system of the hub by a shared system for powering the linear actuators” renders the claim indefinite since it is semantically/grammatically unclear - i.e., “a shared system for powering the linear actuators” appears to be redundant and/or duplicative of “a system for powering the linear actuators which is integrated with a blade pitch system”.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “deinstalling the hub from the nacelle” and/or “installing the hub… to the nacelle” renders the claim indefinite. The originally filed disclosure indicates that rotor hub 18 is separate/distinct from nacelle 14 - i.e., rotor hub 18 is rotational and nacelle 14 is stationary and, thus, rotor hub 18 is never in a state in which it is “installed” to the nacelle 18. Accordingly, the meaning of “deiinstalling the hub from the nacelle” and/or “installing the hub… to the nacelle” is/are unclear.
In claim 10, the limitation recited as “the maximum tip speed during operation of the wind turbine with used blades” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “operation of the wind turbine with used blades” necessarily refers to a state prior to the claimed invention characterized as “A method of repowering a… wind turbine”, thereby rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of the instant claim.
In claim 11, the limitation recited as “the maximum hub angular rotation speed during operation of the wind turbine with the used blades” renders the claim indefinite. According to MPEP 2173.04, a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. In this instance, “operation of the wind turbine with used blades” necessarily refers to a state prior to the claimed invention characterized as “A method of repowering a… wind turbine”, thereby rendering indefinite the metes and bounds of the instant claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ravnsbaek-Toft et al. (US 2025/0314232 - hereafter referred to as Ravnsbaek-Toft).
In reference to claim 15
Ravnsbaek-Toft discloses:
A horizontal-axis wind turbine (10), comprising:
a tower (12);
a nacelle (14) disposed rotatably at an apex of the tower; and
a rotor (16) having a central hub (40)
at least three repower blades (20)(note: there is no structural limitation imbued by the term repower) mounted to the central hub and configured for repowering the wind turbine (note: the clause configured for repowering the wind turbine is a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus), each repower blade extending between a root and a tip and comprising a connection point (26) located between the root and the tip;
a plurality of blade connectinq members (28), each blade connectinq member being connected between the correspondinq connection points of a pair of the repower blades; and
a tensioning system (32) configured to adjust a tension in each blade connectinq member.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet et al. (US 7,517,194 - hereafter referred to as Doorenspleet) in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft, and wherein Dehlsen (US 2012/0051914; previously cited) is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 1
Doorenspleet discloses:
A method of repowering (see col.1:ll.52-59) a horizontal-axis wind turbine comprising a tower (10), a nacelle (20) located rotatably at an apex of the tower, and a rotor (30 & 40) having a hub (30) and at least three used blades (40) mounted pitchably (see col.1:ll.55-56) to the hub and extending radially therefrom, the method comprising:
- uninstallinq (necessary to permit installation of larger rotor blades - col.1:ll.55-57) the at least three used blades from the hub,
- installing (see col.1:ll.55-57) at least three repower blades to the hub, each repower blade extending between a root and a tip, and each repower blade further comprising a connection point located between the root and the tip.
Doorenspleet does not disclose:
- installing a plurality of blade connecting members, each blade connecting member being connected between the corresponding connection points of a pair of the repower blades; and
- installinq a tensioning system with the hub, the tensioning system being configured to adjust a tension in each blade connecting member.
Ravnsbaek-Toft discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a bracing system, the bracing system comprising a plurality of blade connecting members (28) attached to points on the blades, respectively, and a tensioning system (32) attached to the hub for adjusting tension of the blade connecting members.
Dehlsen teaches (see e.g. pars. [0009] through [0011]) that it is known to provide a wind turbine blade bracing system (see e.g. Figure 1) that accounts for the increased structural requirements of larger blades.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet to include a bracing system, as disclosed by Ravnsbaek-Toft, for the purpose of accounting for the increased structural requirements of the larger blades.
In reference to claim 3
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the tensioning system (Ravnsbaek-Toft - 32) comprises a plurality of linear actuators (34 - Ravnsbaek-Toft), each linear actuator being coupled (see Ravnsbaek-Toft Figure 1) between the hub and a blade connecting member (Ravnsbaek-Toft - 28) of the plurality of blade connecting members.
In reference to claim 5
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the tensioninq system (Ravnsbaek-Toft - 32) comprises a plurality of linear actuators (Ravnsbaek-Toft - 34), wherein the tensioning system is attached near (see Ravnsbaek Figure 1) the front of the hub, the tensioning system comprising a system (40 - Ravnsbaek-Toft) for powering the plurality of linear actuators.
In reference to claim 6 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the tensioning system (Ravnsbaek-Toft - 32) comprises a plurality of linear actuators (34 - Ravnsbaek-Toft) and a system (40 - Ravnsbaek-Toft) for powering the linear actuators which is integrated (se Ravnsbaek-Toft par. [0033]) with a blade pitch system of the hub by a shared system for powering the linear actuators.
In reference to claim 10 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising operating the wind turbine, wherein the maximum tip speed during operation of the wind turbine generator with used blades is the same as the maximum tip speed during operation of the wind turbine with the repower blades (note: the scope established by the claimed A method of repowering is exclusive of operational parameters of the wind turbine prior to repowering - accordingly, the instant limitations are not further limiting; alternatively/additionally, the instant recitation can be considered as a mere statement of intended use since maximum tip speed is a conceptual limit, not an operating state).
In reference to claim 11 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprisinq operating the wind turbine, wherein the maximum hub angular rotation speed during operation of the wind turbine with the used blades is the same as the maximum hub angular rotation speed during operation of the wind turbine generator with the repower blades (note: the scope established by the claimed A method of repowering is exclusive of operational parameters of the wind turbine prior to repowering - accordingly, the instant limitations are not further limiting; alternatively/additionally, the instant recitation can be considered as a mere statement of intended use since maximum hub angular rotation speed is a conceptual limit, not an operating state).
Claims 1, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Zeng et al. (CN 102536683 A - hereafter referred to as Zeng; cited in an IDS), and wherein Dehlsen is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 1
Doorenspleet discloses:
A method of repowering (see col.1:ll.52-59) a horizontal-axis wind turbine comprising a tower (10), a nacelle (20) located rotatably at an apex of the tower, and a rotor (30 & 40) having a hub (30) and at least three used blades (40) mounted pitchably (see col.1:ll.55-56) to the hub and extending radially therefrom, the method comprising:
- uninstallinq (necessary to permit installation of larger rotor blades - col.1:ll.55-57) the at least three used blades from the hub,
- installing (see col.1:ll.55-57) at least three repower blades to the hub, each repower blade extending between a root and a tip, and each repower blade further comprising a connection point located between the root and the tip.
Doorenspleet does not disclose:
- installing a plurality of blade connecting members, each blade connecting member being connected between the corresponding connection points of a pair of the repower blades; and
- installinq a tensioning system with the hub, the tensioning system being configured to adjust a tension in each blade connecting member.
Zeng discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a rotor having a hub (2), blades (1), and a bracing system, the bracing system comprising a plurality of blade connecting members (6) attached to points on the blades, respectively, and a tensioning system (16 and/or 19) attached to the hub for adjusting tension in the blade connecting members.
Dehlsen teaches (see e.g. pars. [0009] through [0011]) that it is known to provide a wind turbine blade bracing system (see e.g. Figure 1) that accounts for the increased structural requirements of larger blades.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet to include a bracing system, as disclosed by Zeng, for the purpose of accounting for the increased structural requirements of the larger blades.
In reference to claim 10 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng addresses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising operating the wind turbine, wherein the maximum tip speed during operation of the wind turbine generator with used blades is the same as the maximum tip speed during operation of the wind turbine with the repower blades (note: the scope established by the claimed A method of repowering is exclusive of operational parameters of the wind turbine prior to repowering - accordingly, the instant limitations are not further limiting; alternatively/additionally, the instant recitation can be considered as a mere statement of intended use since maximum tip speed is a conceptual limit, not an operating state).
In reference to claim 11 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng addresses:
The method according to claim 1, further comprisinq operating the wind turbine, wherein the maximum hub angular rotation speed during operation of the wind turbine with the used blades is the same as the maximum hub angular rotation speed during operation of the wind turbine generator with the repower blades (note: the scope established by the claimed A method of repowering is exclusive of operational parameters of the wind turbine prior to repowering - accordingly, the instant limitations are not further limiting; alternatively/additionally, the instant recitation can be considered as a mere statement of intended use since maximum hub angular rotation speed is a conceptual limit, not an operating state).
In reference to claim 15
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng, as combined in the rejection of claim 1, addresses:
A horizontal-axis wind turbine (Doorenspleet - 100), comprising:
a tower (Doorenspleet - 10);
a nacelle (Doorenspleet - 20) disposed rotatably at an apex of the tower; and
a rotor (Doorenspleet - 30 & 40) having a central hub (Doorenspleet - 30)
at least three repower blades (Doorenspleet - 40)(note: there is no structural limitation imbued by the term repower) mounted to the central hub and configured for repowering the wind turbine (note: the clause configured for repowering the wind turbine is a statement of intended use/result that does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus), each repower blade extending between a root and a tip and comprising a connection point () located between the root and the tip;
a plurality of blade connectinq members (Zeng - 6), each blade connectinq member being connected between the correspondinq connection points of a pair of the repower blades; and
a tensioning system (Zeng - 16 and/or 19) configured to adjust a tension in each blade connectinq member.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft and Barton et al. (US 10,927,809 - hereafter referred to as Barton).
In reference to claim 2 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1, roots (400 - Doorenspleet Figure 2) of the used blades
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft does not address:
the used blades are supported only at the roots of the used blades during operation of the wind turbine.
Barton discloses:
a wind turbine comprising blades (18) that are supported only at roots thereof (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft to configure the used blades to be supported only at roots thereof during their operation, as disclosed by Barton, for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary weight.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Zeng and Barton.
In reference to claim 2 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng addresses:
The method according to claim 1, roots (400 - Doorenspleet Figure 2) of the used blades
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng does not address:
the used blades are supported only at the roots of the used blades during operation of the wind turbine.
Barton discloses:
a wind turbine comprising blades (18) that are supported only at roots thereof (see Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet in view of Zeng to configure the used blades to be supported only at roots thereof during their operation, as disclosed by Barton, for the purpose of avoiding unnecessary weight.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft and Trede et al. (US 8,997,350 - hereafter referred to as Trede).
In reference to claim 8
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft does not address:
replacing a component of the wind turbine selected from a group consisting of main bearing, a gearbox, a generator, a blade bearing, a pitch system component, a yaw system component, a main shaft, and a base frame.
Trede discloses:
a method of replacing a blade bearing of a wind turbine (see col.5:ll.58-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft to include replacing a blade bearing, as disclosed by Trede, for the purpose of ensuring safe operation of the wind turbine.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Zeng and Trede.
In reference to claim 8
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng addresses:
The method according to claim 1
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng does not address:
replacing a component of the wind turbine selected from a group consisting of main bearing, a gearbox, a generator, a blade bearing, a pitch system component, a yaw system component, a main shaft, and a base frame.
Trede discloses:
a method of replacing a blade bearing of a wind turbine (see col.5:ll.58-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet in view of Zeng to include replacing a blade bearing, as disclosed by Trede, for the purpose of ensuring safe operation of the wind turbine.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft and an engineering expedient rationale.
In reference to claim 9
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft does not address:
the repower blades are at least 20% longer than the used blades.
According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimal or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and it is noted that Doorenspleet discloses the general conditions of a larger blade.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the claimed relative sizes of blades.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft to include the relative blade sizes for the purpose of achieving a desired amount of energy production.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Zeng and an engineering expedient rationale.
In reference to claim 9
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng addresses:
The method according to claim 1
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng does not address:
the repower blades are at least 20% longer than the used blades.
According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimal or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and it is noted that Doorenspleet discloses the general conditions of a larger blade.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the claimed relative sizes of blades.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet in view of Zeng to include the relative blade sizes for the purpose of achieving a desired amount of energy production.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft and Guntur et al. (US 2023/0400010 - hereafter referred to as Guntur).
In reference to claim 12
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft addresses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the tensioning system comprises a plurality of linear actuators (34 - Ravnsbaek-Toft).
Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft does not address:
the method further comprises installing control software adapted to control the plurality of linear actuators.
Guntur discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a controller having control software (see par. [0058]) adapted to control actuators (see par. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet in view of Ravnsbaek-Toft to include a controller having software adapted to control the actuators, as disclosed by Guntur, for the purpose of allowing automated control of the actuators.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doorenspleet in view of Zeng and Guntur.
In reference to claim 12
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng addresses:
The method according to claim 1,wherein the tensioning system comprises a plurality of linear actuators (34 - Ravnsbaek-Toft).
Doorenspleet in view of Zeng does not address:
the method further comprises comprising installing control software adapted to control the plurality of linear actuators.
Guntur discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a controller having control software (see par. [0058]) adapted to control actuators (see par. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Doorenspleet in view of Zeng to include a controller having software adapted to control the actuators, as disclosed by Guntur, for the purpose of allowing automated control of the actuators.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting of claim 10, 10, 10, and 1, respectively, of co-pending Application No.18/865,273 (hereafter referred to as Ravnsbaek-Toft) in view of Doorenspleet. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
In reference to claim 1
Although claim 1 of the instant application is not identical to Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 1 is broader in at least one aspect and recites additional features not claimed in Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claim 1, the following comparison between Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 and the application claim 1 underlines (see underlined features in Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of application claim 1.
Application claim 1
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10
A method of repowering a horizontal-axis wind turbine comprising a tower, a nacelle located rotatably at an apex of the tower, and a rotor having a hub and at least three used blades mounted pitchably to the hub and extending radially therefrom, the method comprising:
- uninstallinq the at least three used blades from the hub,
- installing at least three repower blades to the hub, each repower blade extending between a root and a tip,
and each repower blade further comprising a connection point located between the root and the tip.
- installing a plurality of blade connecting members, each blade connecting member being connected between the corresponding connection points of a pair of the repower blades; and
- installinq a tensioning system with the hub, the tensioning system being configured to adjust a tension in each blade connecting member.
A method of operating a wind turbine, the wind turbine comprising:
a tower; a nacelle mounted on the tower;
a rotor mounted to the nacelle, the rotor comprising a hub and at least three wind turbine blades, each blade extending between a root and a tip, and each blade further comprising a connection point located between the root and the tip;
a plurality of blade connecting members, each blade connecting member being connected between corresponding connection points of a pair of wind turbine blades; and
a tensioning system comprising a plurality of linear actuators, each linear actuator being coupled between the hub and a respective blade connecting member;
the method comprising: adjusting each linear actuator in dependence on the tension in the respective blade connecting member to thereby adjust the tension in the blade connecting member, wherein each linear actuator has an adjustable length, and wherein adjustinq each linear actuator comprises adjusting the length of the respective linear actuator to thereby adjust the tension in the blade connectinq member; wherein the linear actuators are hydraulic actuators or pneumatic actuators, and wherein, in use, the linear actuators extend and retract as a result of pressure, without any active electronic control input;wherein each linear actuator comprises a piston, and wherein the tensioning system further comprises a plurality of stiffness-response systems, each respective stiffness-response system of the stiffness-responses systems associated with a respective linear actuator of the plurality of linear actuators and comprisinq a source of high pressure fluid beinq selectively coupled to a first side of the piston of the respective linear actuator and a source of low pressure fluid beinq selectively coupled to a second side of the piston of the respective linear actuator.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 includes features that are not in application claim 1. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrow invention, applicant may not then obtain a patent for a second invention with a claim for a generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 1 is anticipated by Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 1 is obvious over Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 with respect to the broadening aspect.
With respect to the additional features recited (see the highlighted features above) in application claim 1, Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 fails to recite:
uninstallinq the at least three used blades from the hub,
installing at least three repower blades to the hub, each repower blade extending between a root and a tip,
Doorenspleet discloses:
replacing blades of a wind turbine with larger blades in order to allow increased energy production (see col.1:ll.55-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 to include replacing the blades with larger blades, as disclosed by Doorenspleet, for the purpose of increasing energy production.
In reference to claim 3
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet addresses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the tensioning system comprises a plurality of linear actuators (see Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10), each linear actuator being coupled (see Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10) between the hub and a blade connecting member of the plurality of blade connecting members.
In reference to claim 5
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet addresses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the tensioning system comprises a plurality of linear actuators (see Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10), the tensioning system is attached near (note: the term near is broad/non-specific) the front of the hub, the tensioning system comprising a system (i.e., “stiffness control system” - Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10) for powering the plurality of linear actuators.
In reference to claim 15
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 1 in view of Doorenspleet addresses application claim 15 in a manner similar to that described above with respect to application claim 1.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting of Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet and Trede. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
In reference to claim 8
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet addresses:
The method according to claim 1
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet does not address:
replacing a component of the wind turbine selected from a group consisting of main bearing, a gearbox, a generator, a blade bearing, a pitch system component, a yaw system component, a main shaft, and a base frame.
Trede discloses:
a method of replacing a blade bearing of a wind turbine (see col.5:ll.58-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet to include replacing a blade bearing, as disclosed by Trede, for the purpose of ensuring safe operation of the wind turbine.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting of Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet and an engineering expedient rationale. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
In reference to claim 9
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet addresses:
The method according to claim 1
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet does not address:
the repower blades are at least 20% longer than the used blades.
According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimal or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and it is noted that Doorenspleet discloses the general conditions of a larger blade.
Furthermore, Applicant has not demonstrated any criticality to the claimed relative sizes of blades.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet to include the relative blade sizes for the purpose of achieving a desired amount of energy production.
Claim 12 is provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting of Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet and Guntur. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
In reference to claim 12
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet addresses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the tensioning system comprises a plurality of linear actuators (see Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10).
Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet does not address:
the method further comprises installing control software adapted to control the plurality of linear actuators.
Guntur discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a controller having control software (see par. [0058]) adapted to control actuators (see par. [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ravnsbaek-Toft claim 10 in view of Doorenspleet to include a controller having software adapted to control the actuators, as disclosed by Guntur, for the purpose of allowing automated control of the actuators.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711