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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, II, III in the reply filed on 5/11/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the new amended language obviates the examiner’s basis for asserting lack of unity of invention. This is found persuasive.
The requirement is withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end and the at least a first inflection point and a second inflection point between the root end and the tip end of the blade” of claim 1, 16, and 22 is not shown together. The examiner is interpreting this feature in the drawing below,
PNG
media_image1.png
258
1056
media_image1.png
Greyscale
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 12-14, 16, 18, 20, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the curve” in line 7. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a curve” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 2 recites “the inner half” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an inner half” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 5 recites “the outer half” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an outer half” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 8 is the same as the subject matter recited in claim 1 and should be deleted.
Claim 12 recites “the upwind side” in line 4. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an upwind side” since it is the first recitation of the limitation or depend the claim from claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “the downwind side” in line 6. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a downwind side” since it is the first recitation of the limitation or depend the claim from claim 11.
Claim 12 recites “the upwind side” in line 8. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an upwind side” since it is the first recitation of the limitation or depend the claim from claim 11.
Claim 13 recites “the upwind side” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an upwind side” since it is the first recitation of the limitation or depend the claim from claim 11.
Claim 14 recites “the downwind side” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a downwind side” since it is the first recitation of the limitation or depend the claim from claim 11 through claim 13.
Claim 16 recites “the curve” in line 11. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a curve” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 18 recites “the inner half” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an inner half” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 20 recites “the outer half” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “an outer half” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 22 recites “the curve” in line 11. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a curve” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, 19, 21 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 3 recites the term “about” twice in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the term “about” twice in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 recites the term “about” twice in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the term “about” twice in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 9 recites the phrase "preferably" and it renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 19 recites the term “about” twice in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 21 recites the term “about” twice in line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koegler et al. US 20110142672.
Regarding claim 1, Koegler discloses: A wind turbine blade for a wind turbine (Fig 2: 40), comprising:
an elongate body (44) defining a root end (24), a tip end (42), a leading edge (Front edge of 40), and a trailing edge (End edge of 40), the elongate body further defining a pitch axis (Axis extending from the root; as seen in the clip below) and a blade centre line axis extending along a length of the blade (Solid line extending down the center of the blade; as seen in the clip below),
the blade centre line axis defining a pre-bend in the blade and the blade centre line axis does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end (As seen in the clip below),
wherein the curve that defines the blade centre line axis of the elongate body includes at least a first inflection point (11) and a second inflection point (12) between the root end and the tip end of the blade (I1 and I2; Tip of the blade curves back after I2; as seen in the clip below).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Koegler discloses:
wherein the second inflection point (12) in the blade centre line axis is located in the outer half of the blade length (R) (Fig 2: I2 is located in the outer half of the blade length; as seen in the clip in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Koegler discloses:
wherein the blade centre line axis (64) does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end (Fig 2:axis does not cross the hypothetical straight line; as seen in the clip in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, Koegler discloses:
wherein the pre-bend defined by the blade centre line axis increases monotonically from the root end to the tip end, preferably strictly monotonically from the root end to the tip end (Fig 2: the bend of 40 increases monotonically from the root to the tip).
Regarding claim 10, Koegler discloses: A wind turbine (Fig 1: 10), comprising:
a tower (12);
a nacelle (16) connected to the tower (16 is connected to 12); and
a rotor (20) connected to the nacelle (20 is connected to 16),
the rotor including a hub and at least one wind turbine blade (Blades are connected to the rotor hub).
Regarding claim 11, Koegler discloses:
wherein when the rotor faces an oncoming wind and the at least one blade is in an operative position, the at least one blade defines an upwind side and a downwind side (20 faces wind and the blade has an upwind side and downwind side naturally).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 16-17, 20, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koegler et al. US 20110142672 in view of Jorgensen et al. US 20240271596.
Regarding claim 16, Koegler discloses: a wind turbine blade (Fig 2: 40) having a root end (24), a tip end (42), and an outer shell (44), comprising:
the outer shell of the blade defines a pitch axis (Axis extending from the root; as seen in the clip below) and a blade centre line axis (Solid line extending down the center of the blade; as seen in the clip below) extending along a length of the blade,
the blade centre line axis defining a pre-bend in the blade and the blade centre line axis does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end (As seen in the clip below), and
wherein the curve that defines the blade centre line axis of the blade includes at least a first inflection point (1i) and a second inflection point (12) between the root end and the tip end of the blade (I1 and I2; Tip of the blade curves back after I2; as seen in the clip below).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Koegler is silent as to:
providing a first mould half having a first mould cavity;
providing a second mould half having a second mould cavity;
moulding the outer shell of the blade using the first and second mould halves,
wherein the first mould cavity and the second mould cavity are contoured.
From the same field of endeavor, Jorgensen teaches:
providing a first mould half having a first mould cavity (Fig 6);
providing a second mould half having a second mould cavity (Par 3: Both halves are manufactured in a mould);
moulding the outer shell of the blade using the first and second mould halves (Par 3),
wherein the first mould cavity and the second mould cavity are contoured 70 are contoured to the designed blade).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Koegler to be moulded with two moulds as taught by Jorgensen to allow for a sufficiently strong adhesion between parts (Par 8).
Regarding claim 17, Koegler as modified by Jorgensen in the rejection of claim 16, where Doyle teaches:
wherein moulding the outer shell of the blade using the first and second mould halves further comprises: moulding a first blade shell in the first mould cavity (Par 3: moulding both shell halves); moulding a second blade shell in the second mould cavity (Par 3: moulding both shell halves); arranging the first mould half and the second mould half one over top the other; and coupling the first blade shell to the second blade shell to form the outer shell of the wind turbine blade (Par 3: Shell halves are assembled and resin infused together).
Regarding claim 20, Koegler as modified by Jorgensen in the rejection of claim 16, where Koegler disclsoes:
wherein the second inflection point (12) in the blade centre line axis is located in the outer half of the blade length (R) (Fig 2: I2 is located in the outer half of the blade length; as seen in the clip in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 22, Koegler discloses: a wind turbine blade (Fig 2: 40) having a root end (24), a tip end (42), and an outer shell (44), comprising:
the outer shell of the blade defines a pitch axis (Axis extending from the root; as seen in the clip below) and a blade centre line axis (Solid line extending down the center of the blade; as seen in the clip below) extending along a length of the blade,
the blade centre line axis defining a pre-bend in the blade and the blade centre line axis does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end (As seen in the clip below), and
wherein the curve that defines the blade centre line axis of the blade includes at least a first inflection point (1i) and a second inflection point (12) between the root end and the tip end of the blade (I1 and I2; Tip of the blade curves back after I2; as seen in the clip below).
PNG
media_image2.png
638
468
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Koegler is silent as to:
a first mould half having a first mould cavity;
a second mould half having a second mould cavity,
wherein the first mould half and the second mould half are arrangeable to form the outer shell of the blade;
wherein the first mould cavity and the second mould cavity are contoured.
From the same field of endeavor, Jorgensen teaches:
a first mould half having a first mould cavity (Fig 6);
a second mould half having a second mould cavity (Par 3: Both halves are manufactured in a mould);
wherein the first mould half and the second mould half are arrangeable to form the outer shell of the blade(Par 3),
wherein the first mould cavity and the second mould cavity are contoured 70 are contoured to the designed blade).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Koegler to be moulded with two moulds as taught by Jorgensen to allow for a sufficiently strong adhesion between parts (Par 8).
Regarding claim 23, Koegler as modified by Jorgensen in the rejection of claim 22, where Doyle teaches:
wherein the first mould half is configured for forming a first blade shell in the first mould cavity (Par 3: moulding both shell halves), wherein the second mould half is configured for forming a second blade shell in the second mould cavity separately from the moulding of the first blade shell (Par 3: moulding both shell halves), wherein the first mould half and the second mould half are arrangeable one over top the other to connect the first blade shell and the second blade shell to form the outer shell of the blade (Par 3: Shell halves are assembled and resin infused together).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-7, 12-15, 18-19, and 21 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “wherein the first inflection point (11) in the blade centre line axis is located in the inner half of the blade length (R)” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of Hjort WO 2018215037 teaches this limitation in fig 9, however in combination with the limitation of “the blade centre line axis does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end” the geometry of Hjort does not teach this. Koegler et al. US 20110142672 is the closest prior art to teach the blade centre line axis not crossing a hypothetical straight line, however, does not have motivation to modify or be modified into one another. This limitation essentially defines the blade geometry of Fig 7 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3-4 and 18-19, these claims distinguish themselves in the same manner as in claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “wherein the second inflection point (12) in the blade centre line axis is located between about 55% and about 75% of the blade length (R) ” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of Hjort WO 2018215037 teaches this limitation in fig 9, however in combination with the limitation of “the blade centre line axis does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end” the geometry of Hjort does not teach this. Koegler et al. US 20110142672 is the closest prior art to teach the blade centre line axis not crossing a hypothetical straight line, however, does not have motivation to modify or be modified into one another. This limitation essentially defines the blade geometry of Fig 7 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 7 and 21, these claims distinguish themselves in the same manner as in claim 6.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “wherein the blade centre line axis includes: a first portion between the root end and the first inflection point (1i) having a centre of curvature (C1) on the upwind side of the blade; a second portion between the first inflection point (1i) and the second inflection point (12) having a centre of curvature (C2) on the downwind side of the blade; and a third portion between the second inflection point (12) and the tip end having a centre of curvature (Cs) on the upwind side of the blade” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of Hjort WO 2018215037 teaches this limitation in fig 9, however in combination with the limitation of “the blade centre line axis does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end” the geometry of Hjort does not teach this. Koegler et al. US 20110142672 is the closest prior art to teach the blade centre line axis not crossing a hypothetical straight line, however, does not have motivation to modify or be modified into one another. This limitation essentially defines the blade geometry of Fig 11 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites “wherein the at least one blade includes a centre of gravity (CoG), and wherein: the centre of gravity (CoG) is on the upwind side of the pitch axis of the at least one blade in an aerodynamically unloaded state” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of Hjort WO 2018215037 teaches this limitation in fig 9, however in combination with the limitation of “the blade centre line axis does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end” the geometry of Hjort does not teach this. Koegler et al. US 20110142672 is the closest prior art to teach the blade centre line axis not crossing a hypothetical straight line, however, does not have motivation to modify or be modified into one another. This limitation essentially defines the blade geometry of Fig 8 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 14, this claim depends from an allowable claim, therefore also allowable.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the tip end of the blade points in an upwind direction away from the tower” and is considered allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of Hjort WO 2018215037 teaches this limitation in fig 9, however in combination with the limitation of “the blade centre line axis does not cross a hypothetical straight line drawn between the root end and the tip end” the geometry of Hjort does not teach this. Koegler et al. US 20110142672 is the closest prior art to teach the blade centre line axis not crossing a hypothetical straight line, however, does not have motivation to modify or be modified into one another. This limitation essentially defines the blade geometry of Fig 7 of the instant application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Randall et al. US 20230235721 discloses two inflection points but not the hypothetical line as present by applicant in this application. Nielsen US 20210348594 discloses a similar mold manufacturing method as applicants. Vuillaume et al. US 20160369770 and Garcia US 20100104444 discloses a blade with one inflection point. Nagler US 20140234108 discloses a multiple curved blade but not with two inflection points. Gerber et al. US 8317483 discloses a blade with the tip pointed away from the tower similar to applicants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights