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 .
Claim Interpretation under 112(f)
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a tensioning system” in Claims 1-3, 11-12 15-16, and 18.
“tensioning element(s)” in Claims 4, 6-12, 14, and 17.
“anchoring element” in Claim 6.
“fixing element” in Claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structure in the specification being:
"tensioning system” - at least one tensioning element with two ends;
- at least an anchoring element configured to receive at least one of the two ends of said tensioning element; and
- at least one fixing element configured to fix the at least one of the two ends of the tensioning element to the at least one anchoring element (Page 7, Para 2).
“tensioning element(s)” – at least one strand (i.e. a tendon or a cable), having preferably the at least one strand two ends attached to the at least one anchoring element (Page 11, Para 3)
“anchoring element(s)” - … a groove for receiving the tensioning elements (Page 6, Para 3)
-anchoring element comprises at least two holes configured to allocate the two ends of a tensioning element (Page 12, Para 2)
“fixing element” – No specific structure described in the specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The recitation of “fixing element” in Claim 6 has been interpreted under 112(f) (see above) to which the specification fails to provide structure associated with the term, and consequently weighs against possession of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 11-12 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the recitation of, “the at least one tensioning element” in Line 2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “
Regarding Claim 12, the recitation of, “the at least one tensioning element” in Line 2 lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean, “
**Any and all claims rejected above under 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1-6,11-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNichols et al (US 2018/0258997 A1) hereinafter referred to as McNichols.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
330
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, McNichols discloses a wind turbine comprising:
- a hub (rotor hub, Para 34 Lines 5);
- at least one blade (blades, Para 34 Line 5); and
- at least one pitch bearing (blade pitch bearing, Para 34 Line 4) to connect the at least one blade to the hub (implicit from blade pitch bearing arrangement, Para 34 Lines 3-5), the at least one pitch bearing comprising at least an inner ring (16, figure 1A also reproduced above) and an outer ring (12, figure 1A also reproduced above), wherein the wind turbine further comprises at least a tensioning system (see tensioning system formed by strap, mount plate 104, and nut, figure 6 also reproduced/annotated above) disposed at least partially on the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing (see figure 6) exerting a radial compression force to at least a part of the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing (recitation considered as functional language where the disclosure is capable of performing the recited function, see figure 6 configuration, and Para 20 Lines 7-12 i.e. tension in the strap(s) introduces compressive forces towards rotational center of the bearing ring);
wherein the outer ring comprises a flat surface proximate to the at least one blade (see blade side, figure 6) and a flat surface proximate to the hub (see hub side opposite to blade side, figure 6);
wherein at least 50% of a force generated by the tensioning system is applied closer to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub (recitation considered as functional language where the disclosure is capable of performing the recited function, see annotated strap which is part of the considered tensioning system above generating the tensioning force through the adjustment of the opposite end nut, Note: only the blade side strap is relied upon for part of the recited tensioning system).
Regarding Claim 2, McNichols discloses that at least 70% of the force generated by the tensioning system is applied closer to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub (functional language limitation, where the disclosure is capable of performing the recited function, see discussion in Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 3, McNichols discloses that at least 90% of the force generated by the tensioning system is applied closer to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub (functional language limitation, where the disclosure is capable of performing the recited function, see discussion in Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 4, McNichols discloses that the tensioning system comprises at least one tensioning element (see strap, annotated figure 6) with two ends (see annotated figure 6).
Regarding Claim 5, McNichols discloses that the at least one tensioning element with two ends comprises at least one strand (see strap formed of strands, annotated figure 6).
Regarding Claim 6, McNichols discloses that
- at least one anchoring element (104, figure 6) configured to receive at least one of the two ends of said tensioning element (see annotated figure 6); and
- at least one fixing element part (see nut on one end of strap, annotated figure 6) configured to fix the at least one of the two ends of the tensioning element to the at least one anchoring element (see figure 6).
Regarding Claim 11, McNichols discloses that the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing comprises a perimeter (see figure 6) and the at least one tensioning element generating more than 50% of the force generated by the tensioning system and applied closer to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub comprises a length that completely covers the perimeter of the outer ring (see another embodiment where strap 108 covers the entire perimeter of outer ring 102, figure 9).
Regarding Claim 12, McNichols discloses that the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing comprises a perimeter (see figure 6) and the at least one tensioning element generating more than 50% of the force generated by the tensioning system and applied closer to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub comprises a length that partially covers the perimeter of the outer ring (partial cover of the perimeter of the outer ring best seen from figure 7).
Regarding Claim 14, McNichols discloses a wind turbine comprising:
- a hub (rotor hub, Para 34 Lines 5);
- at least one blade (blades, Para 34 Line 5); and
- at least one pitch bearing (blade pitch bearing, Para 34 Line 4) to connect the at least one blade to the hub (implicit from blade pitch bearing arrangement, Para 34 Lines 3-5), the at least one pitch bearing comprising at least an inner ring (16, figure 1A also reproduced above) and an outer ring (12, figure 1A or 102, figure 4 also reproduced above), wherein the wind turbine further comprises at least a tensioning system (see tensioning system formed by strap, mount plate 104, and nut 112, figure 6 also reproduced/annotated above) disposed at least partially on the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing (see figure 6),
wherein the outer ring comprises a flat surface proximate to the at least one blade (see blade side, figure 6) and a flat surface proximate to the hub (see hub side opposite to blade side, figure 6);
wherein the tensioning system comprises at least one tensioning element (see strap, annotated figure 6) at least partially surrounding the outer ring (best seen from figure 7);
wherein at least 50% of the at least one tensioning element is located more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub (see entirety of strap located proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub, annotated figure 6).
Regarding Claim 15, McNichols discloses a wind turbine comprising:
- a hub (rotor hub, Para 34 Lines 5);
- at least one blade (blades, Para 34 Line 5); and
- at least one pitch bearing (blade pitch bearing, Para 34 Line 4) to connect the at least one blade to the hub (implicit from blade pitch bearing arrangement, Para 34 Lines 3-5), the at least one pitch bearing comprising at least an inner ring (16, figure 1A also reproduced above) and an outer ring (12, figure 1A or 102, figure 4 also reproduced above), wherein the wind turbine further comprises at least a tensioning system (see tensioning system formed by strap, mount plate 104, and nut 112, figure 6 also reproduced/annotated above) disposed at least partially on the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing (see figure 6),
wherein the outer ring comprises a flat surface proximate to the at least one blade (see blade side, figure 6) and a flat surface proximate to the hub (see hub side opposite to blade side, figure 6);
wherein at least 50% of the height of the outer ring covered by the tensioning system is located more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub (see strap located more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub, annotated figure 6).
Regarding Claim 16, McNichols discloses a wind turbine comprising:
- a hub (rotor hub, Para 34 Lines 5);
- at least one blade (blades, Para 34 Line 5); and
- at least one pitch bearing (blade pitch bearing, Para 34 Line 4) to connect the at least one blade to the hub (implicit from blade pitch bearing arrangement, Para 34 Lines 3-5), the at least one pitch bearing comprising at least an inner ring (16, figure 1A also reproduced above) and an outer ring (12, figure 1A or 102, figure 4 also reproduced above), wherein the wind turbine further comprises at least a tensioning system (see tensioning system formed by strap, mount plate 104, and nut 112, figure 6 also reproduced/annotated above) disposed at least partially on the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing (see figure 6)
wherein the outer ring comprises a flat surface proximate to the at least one blade (see blade side, figure 6) and a flat surface proximate to the hub (see hub side opposite to blade side, figure 6);
wherein an area of the lateral surface of the outer ring covered by at least 50% of the tensioning system is located closer to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub (see strap located more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub, annotated figure 6).
Regarding Claim 17, McNichols discloses a wind turbine comprising:
- a hub (rotor hub, Para 34 Lines 5);
- at least one blade (blades, Para 34 Line 5); and
- at least one pitch bearing (blade pitch bearing, Para 34 Line 4) to connect the at least one blade to the hub (implicit from blade pitch bearing arrangement, Para 34 Lines 3-5), the at least one pitch bearing comprising at least an inner ring (16, figure 1A also reproduced above) and an outer ring (12, figure 1A or 102, figure 4 also reproduced above), wherein the wind turbine further comprises at least a tensioning system (see tensioning system formed by strap(s), mount plate 104, and nut(s) 112, figure 6 also reproduced/annotated above) disposed at least partially on the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing (see figure 6)
exerting a radial compression force to at least a part of the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing (recitation considered as functional language where the disclosure is capable of performing the recited function, see figure 6 configuration, and Para 20 Lines 7-12 i.e. tension in the strap(s) introduces compressive forces towards rotational center of the bearing ring);
wherein the outer ring comprises a flat surface proximate to the at least one blade (see blade side, figure 6) and a flat surface proximate to the hub (see hub side opposite to blade side, figure 6);
wherein tensioning elements (see strap(s) 108, figure 6) are located along at least 20% of the height (H, annotated figure 6) of the outer ring (see annotated figure 6).
Regarding Claim 18, McNichols discloses a wind turbine comprising:
- a hub (rotor hub, Para 34 Lines 5);
- at least one blade (blades, Para 34 Line 5); and
- at least one pitch bearing (blade pitch bearing, Para 34 Line 4) to connect the at least one blade to the hub (implicit from blade pitch bearing arrangement, Para 34 Lines 3-5), the at least one pitch bearing comprising at least an inner ring (16, figure 1A also reproduced above) and an outer ring (12, figure 1A or 102, figure 4 also reproduced above), wherein the wind turbine further comprises at least a tensioning system (see tensioning system formed by strap(s), mount plate 104, and nut(s) 112, figure 6 also reproduced/annotated above) disposed at least partially on the outer ring of the at least one pitch bearing (see figure 6),
wherein the outer ring comprises a flat surface proximate to the at least one blade (see blade side, figure 6) and a flat surface proximate to the hub (see hub side opposite to blade side, figure 6);
wherein the tensioning system covers at least 50% of the outer surface of the outer ring that is more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the blade than to the flat surface proximate to the hub (see annotated figure 6).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNichols in view of and Larson et al (US 8,322,928 B2) hereinafter referred to Larson.
Regarding Claim 13, McNichols discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above but does not disclose the at least one pitch bearing comprises at least two rolling races comprising a first rolling race more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the blade and a second rolling race more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the hub.
Larson relates to pitch bearings for a wind turbine which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and teaches of a pitch bearing arrangement comprises at least two rolling races (see 19, figure 2 also reproduced below), comprising a first rolling race more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the blade and a second rolling race more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the hub (see figure 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
449
387
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one pitch bearing of McNichols with the two rolling races arrangement taught by Larson, and thereby have the at least one pitch bearing comprises at least two rolling races comprising a first rolling race more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the blade and a second rolling race more proximate to the flat surface proximate to the hub. Doing so provides the benefit of increasing load capacity of the pitch bearing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150086359 A1 discloses a wind turbine blade comprising a pitch bearing assembly (see 50, figure 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 11am-7pm.
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, David Sosnowski can be reached on (571) 270-7944. 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.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745