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 .
Examiner’s note: Please provide future amendments with only black text, no color or greyscale.
37 CFR § 1.52 (b)(1)(i) requires the application to be “presented in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast” to permit “electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition”; see 37 CFR § 1.52(a)(1)(v).
To meet this requirement, the Patent Center guidelines suggest that Applicant submit all text in only black.
In this case, it appears that Applicant may have submitted amendments (i.e., claims containing underlines, strikethroughs, or “track changes”, etc.) with text/font/characters in color or greyscale, rather than only black. This results in issues and delays prosecution because USPTO systems/tools for recognition/conversion do not handle well claims/text which contain color or greyscale.
In the future, please follow Patent Center guidelines and provide claims and all text in only black. Failure to do so may result in a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group 2 (claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10) in the reply filed on 4/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant considers that the claims are not drawn to unrelated inventions. Respectfully, the argument is not persuasive because the invention groups comprise mutually exclusive and structurally unique configurations (e.g. Fig 1, Fig 3).
Applicant asserts the pending claims do not lack unity. The argument is not persuasive because the claims lack unity for the specific reasons provided in the restriction requirement.
Applicant asserts the various invention groups do not present the type of serious search or examination burden required. The argument is not persuasive because the restriction requirement set forth was based on a unity of invention analysis for a national stage application. The unity of invention requirement is separate from the “independent and distinct” analysis and does not consider search burden in its analysis (see MPEP 1893.03(d)).
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner’s note: Upon detailed review and consideration, it is evident that dependent claim 9 is not applicable to Applicant’s elected Invention Group 2 of the restriction requirement which corresponds to the embodiment of Fig 1. Elected Invention Group 2 is directed towards the embodiment of Fig 1, wherein the mass 1 is fixed/bonded to the exterior of the blade and conforms to the exterior. Dependent claim 9 regards “a means (14, 16) of adjusting the position of a leading-edge corrective mass (1)” wherein, per Applicant’s disclosure, e.g. the specification at top of page 12 and the figures, the means is a track 14 and/or a wireless interface 16 which applies to the embodiment of Figs 7, 8, which corresponds to non-elected Invention Group 3, and does not apply to the embodiment of Fig 1. Dependent claim 9 is not applicable to the elected Invention Group/embodiment and thus must by necessity also be non-elected/withdrawn. Examiner consulted a restriction specialist to confirm proper resolution of this issue. Please note that a 112(f) claim interpretation of the claim 9 limitation “a means of adjusting the position of a leading-edge corrective mass” is included below, which involved the determination that claim 9 is not applicable to Applicant’s elected Invention Group/embodiment, but claim 9 is otherwise withdrawn and thus otherwise not examined here.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 9, 11-15 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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because:
Reference characters 20IB and 20OB of Fig 2 do not appear in the specification.
For each of the drawing objections above, corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b), 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to because:
Fig 6 has components labeled with reference character “50” which should each instead be labeled with reference character --30-- (see for example Fig 5).
For each of the drawing objections above, 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:
Claim 1 (end of) recites the limitation “wherein a leading-edge corrective mass arranged within the spanwise section, which leading-edge corrective mass is configured to move the center of mass of the spanwise section towards the leading edge in order to suppress the development of an unstable aeroelastic mode.” which is grammatically incorrect and should be rewritten as -- wherein a leading-edge corrective mass is arranged within the spanwise section, which leading-edge corrective mass is configured to move the center of mass of the spanwise section towards the leading edge in order to suppress the development of an unstable aeroelastic mode.--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: “a means of adjusting the position of a leading-edge corrective mass relative to the center of mass of the spanwise section” in claim 9.
Based on Applicant’s specification top of page 12, the term “a means of adjusting the position of a leading-edge corrective mass relative to the center of mass of the spanwise section” is interpreted to be a track, a wireless interface, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner’s note: This interpretation analysis has identified that dependent claim 9 is directed towards the embodiment of non-elected Invention Group 3 of the restriction requirement, is not applicable to the embodiment of elected Invention Group 2 of the restriction requirement, as identified by Applicant’s specification at the top of page 12.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10 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 3) recites the limitation “the development” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a development --.
Claim 1 (last line) recites the limitation “an unstable aeroelastic mode” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same unstable aeroelastic mode previously identified in claim 1 or a different unstable aeroelastic mode. If the former, then it is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as --the unstable aeroelastic mode --.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the exterior” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- an exterior --.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the shape of the curved leading edge” wherein the underlined terms each lack proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “The wind turbine” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- A wind turbine --.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a number of rotor blades according to claim 1” which renders the claim indefinite because the underlined term lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a plurality of the rotor blade according to claim 1 -- to also require more than 1 blade, wherein “a number” can be 1.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 7-8, 10 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20210363963 A1 (hereinafter Fujita).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita discloses:
A wind turbine rotor blade comprising:
an inboard region (Fig 4 shows this);
an outboard region (Fig 4 shows this) including a spanwise section (Fig 4 shows this) associated with the development of an unstable aeroelastic mode (functional limitation);
wherein a leading-edge corrective mass (protector 30-3; Fig 7) [is] arranged within the spanwise section,
which leading-edge corrective mass is configured to move the center of mass of the spanwise section towards the leading edge (the center of mass of the blade with the protector 30-3 is towards the leading edge, relative to the center of mass of the blade without the protector 30-3) in order to suppress the development of an unstable aeroelastic mode (intended use).
Examiner’s note: Regarding limitations identified as “functional limitation” or “intended use”:
Courts have established that apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does or how a device is intended to be employed. 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 leading-edge corrective mass being capable of being able to suppress the development of an unstable aeroelastic mode, and the prior art’s spanwise section being capable of being associated with the development of an unstable aeroelastic mode.
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.
Regarding claim 2, Fujita discloses:
the leading-edge corrective mass is arranged at [an] exterior of the rotor blade (e.g. Fig 4 shows this).
Regarding claim 4, Fujita discloses:
the leading-edge corrective mass is bonded (e.g. para 0061: “Each of the protector members is fixed to the skin constituting the blade main body 18 via a bonding layer 29”) to an outer surface of the rotor blade (e.g. Fig 7 shows this).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita discloses:
a protective cover (30-2; Fig 7) applied over the leading-edge corrective mass.
Regarding claim 8, Fujita discloses:
the leading-edge corrective mass has a shape corresponding to the shape of the curved leading edge of the rotor blade (e.g. Fig 7 shows this).
Regarding claim 10, Fujita discloses:
The wind turbine comprising a number of rotor blades (Fig 1 shows this) according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Fujita discloses:
the leading-edge corrective mass comprises a material with a density (e.g. para 0052: “Metal materials such as aluminum, iron, copper, stainless steel, or the like, having excellent erosion resistance performance and electrical conductivity can be used”).
Fujita may not explicitly disclose that the density is at least 10 g/cm3.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select a particular material having a particular density such as at least 10 g/cm3, while also having excellent erosion resistance performance and electrical conductivity as required by Fujita, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s specification (paragraph 5 of page 6) identifies:
“A corrective mass can be made of any suitable material or combination of materials in order to achieve a ballast mass of a suitable size and form. In an embodiment, a ballast mass comprises any material with a density of at least 10 g/cm3. For example, a ballast mass may comprise a high-density metal such as lead (Pb), whose density exceeds 11 g/cm3 and/or tungsten (W), whose density exceeds 19 g/cm3. Alternatively, a lighter material may be used, for example clay, granitic rock etc., with a density in the order of 2.2 g/cm3.” which clearly indicates that a particular material, density is not critical to the invention.
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2022008302 A1 - cited for teaching a mass (324; Figs 1-4) an outboard region including a spanwise section associated with the development of an unstable aeroelastic mode (e.g. abstract: “a stall-induced vibration”).
US 20240068438 A1 - cited for teaching a mass (401, 402) on a leading edge
US 20110142678 A1 - cited for teaching a mass (110) on a leading edge
US 20230265828 A1 - cited for teaching a mass (Fig 4) on a leading edge
US 20230115914 A1 - cited for teaching a mass (Fig 4) on a leading edge
US 4895491 A - cited for teaching a mass (Fig 1) on a leading edge
WO 2018157929 A1 - cited for teaching a mass (Fig 4) on a leading edge
WO 2021241385 A1 - cited for teaching a mass (Fig 3) on a leading edge
WO 2018072804 A1 - cited for teaching a mass (Fig 6) on a leading edge
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