DETAILED ACTION
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/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation between NICHOLAS J CHIDAC and Jared Dujack (Reg. No. 72646) on 05/18/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-7.
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-7, drawn to a wind turbine blade.
Group II, claim(s) 8, drawn to a mold for manufacturing a wind turbine blade.
Group III, claim(s) 9, drawn to a manufacturing arrangement for manufacturing a wind turbine blade.
Group IV, claim(s) 10-15, drawn to a method of manufacturing a wind turbine blade
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Group II and Group III lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
The Examiner respectfully notes:
Group II requires, “a molding surface for molding, a further electrically conductive element exposed at the molding surface for electrical connection”,
Group III requires, “a manufacturing arrangement for manufacturing a wind turbine blade, comprising a b lade having, a first and second blade component connected with each other in an overlap region by thermal welding, the first blade component having a blade shell,
a resistive element arranged between the first and second blade components in the overlap region as a remnant of the thermal welding, and
an electrically conductive element extending through the blade shell and being electrically connected to the resistive element for supplying power to the resistive element during the thermal welding, wherein the electrically conducive element of the blade shell in electrically connected to the further electrically conductive element of the mold for supplying power to the restive element of the blade for thermal welding.”
As Group II requires a mold and Group III does not require a mold they are not directed to a single inventive concept as required by 37 CFR 1.475 (b).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6 is 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.
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 6 recites the broad recitation “80% or smaller”, and the claim also recites, “70% or smaller, 60% or smaller, 50% or smaller and/or 40% or smaller” 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7 are allowed.
PNG
media_image1.png
530
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Arslaner et al. (WO 2022/101055 A1) discloses a wind turbine blade (5), comprising:
a first (9, 10) and a second (11) blade component connected with other in an overlap region (V, Fig. 4) by thermal welding (abstract), the first blade component having a blade shell (9, 10),
a resistive element (22) arranged between the first and second blade components (Fig. 5) in the overlap region as a remnant of the thermal welding (“As can be seen in Fig. 5, the resistive element 22 is embedded in the surface 21 of the structural element 11.”), and
an electrically conductive element (23, 24).
However; Arslaner et al. nor any of the prior art of record, disclose, teach, or suggest, “an electrically conductive element extending through the blade shell and being electrically connected to the resistive element for supplying power to the resistive element during the thermal welding.”
The Examiner respectfully indicates that (23, 24; Fig. 5) are shown the be connected through 18 which is the flange of the spar and should not be considered to be the “blade shell” as claimed by the Applicant.
Claims 2-5 and 7 are allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
268
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
WO 2018/130257 A1 discloses a method and apparatus for assembling a wind turbine blade having an internal web.
PNG
media_image3.png
454
514
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
604
500
media_image4.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2017/0074238 A1 discloses rotor blades having thermoplastic components and methods for joining rotor blade components.
PNG
media_image5.png
256
396
media_image5.png
Greyscale
CN 102806665 A discloses a manufacturing method joining a web and base.
PNG
media_image6.png
166
534
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB 2009/0148300 A1 discloses a modular wind turbine blades with resistance heated bonds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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 D 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights