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
The arguments presented by the applicant in the remarks filed 05/04/2026 with regards to the restriction requirement filed 03/03/2026 are found to be convincing and the restriction requirement has been withdrawn. All claims directed towards the previously non-elected claims were canceled so no claims need to be rejoined. Claims 3-19 will be examined.
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 12 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.
Claim 12 includes multiple recitations of the terms “preferably” and “e.g. around” which make it unclear if these limitations are optional or required by the claim limitations. As preferably is both optional and describing that it is desired it makes the limitation indefinite and it unclear if the structure is required. Further, the exemplary amounts raise the same issue as to if those exemplary amounts are required or not.
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.
Claim(s) 3-8, 10-11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh (US 20150292522).
Regarding claim 3, Singh discloses A wind turbine blade (Figure 2), wherein the blade has a profiled contour including a pressure side and a suction side (Figure 3 item 52 shows a pressure side and 54 shows a suction side), and a leading edge and a trailing edge with a chord having a chord length extending therebetween in a chordwise direction (Figure 3, items 56, 58, and 60), the wind turbine blade extending in a spanwise direction between a root end and a tip end (Figure 2), wherein the blade comprises a surface-mounted device arranged on an exterior surface of the blade (figures 4-6 show a surface mounted device 72 and 172),
wherein the surface-mounted device comprises a base part, the base part providing a step in height from the exterior surface of the blade in the chordwise direction from a first side of the base part (Figure 6 shows the base part being the peak in height 178 of the surface-mounted device), and
wherein the blade further comprises a chamfer section configured to provide a multi-slope transition from the step in height of the base part to the exterior surface (Figure 5b shows two items 180 and 176 that can both be interpreted as the chamfer section and both are shown to have multiple slopes in the curved sections).
Regarding claim 4, Singh discloses that a maximum width chamfer section varies in the spanwise direction of the wind turbine blade (Par. 0060, with hmax being the maximum width).
Regarding claim 5, Singh discloses that the chamfer section is configured to provide a curvilinear multi-slope transition from the step in height of the base part to the exterior surface. Figure 5b items 180 and 176 both show curvilinear multi-slope transitions where the slopes begin with low angles at the interface with the blade outer surface, have a maximum slope in a middle portion, and then end with low angles as they approach the base part 178.
Regarding claim 6, Singh discloses that the chamfer section comprises a first concave portion proximal to the first side of the base part and a second convex portion distal to the first side of the base part (Figure 5b shows a concave portion as the chamfer approaches 178 and a convex portion distal to the 178).
Regarding claim 7, Singh discloses that the chamfer section comprises a tapered section, wherein the tapered section tapers in thickness away from the first side of the base part (as described in the rejections above, 180 and 176 taper in thickness away from 178) and comprises:
a first tapered section proximal to the first side of the base part and having a first average taper angle; and
a second tapered section distal to the first side of the base part and having a second average taper angle different from the first taper angle (Figure 5b shows 180 and 176 having a variety of angles. As an example, the angle at 174b can be the first average taper angle and the angle in the middle adjacent 180 can be the second average taper angle, where the two are shown to be different. However, other interpretations are possible within the limitations).
Regarding claim 8, Singh discloses that the chamfer section comprises a tapered section, wherein the tapered section tapers in thickness away from the first side of the base part and comprises:
a first tapered section proximal to the first side of the base part and having a first average taper angle;
a third tapered section distal to the first side of the base part and having a third average taper angle; and
a second tapered section between the first tapered section and the third tapered section and having a second average taper angle,
wherein the second average taper angle Y is greater than both the first average taper angle X and the third average taper angle Z. Figure 5b items 180 and 176 both show curvilinear multi-slope transitions where the slopes begin with low angles at the interface with the blade outer surface, have a maximum slope in a middle portion, and then end with low angles as they approach the base part 178. As such, the average angle in the middle portion is the second average taper angle with the average angles at the proximal and distal ends to 178 being the first and third angles and both being shown to be lower than the second angle.
Regarding claim 10, Singh discloses that the chamfer section substantially abuts the base part of the surface-mounted device and extends substantially flush from the first side of the base part, and/or
wherein the chamfer section substantially abuts the exterior surface of the blade and transitions curvilinearly into the exterior surface of the blade (Figure 6 shows the chamfer sections both extending flush from the first side of the base part and transitioning into the exterior surface of the blade).
Regarding claim 11, Singh discloses that the chamfer section is integrally formed with the surface mounted device (Figure 5b shows that the chamfer section and base part are a single piece), or wherein the chamfer section is a section arranged on the exterior surface of the blade in contact with the first side of the base part.
Regarding claim 13, Singh discloses that the chamfer section comprises a top cover. Figure 6 shows that the surface mounted device covers the surface of the blade and as such it serves as a top cover.
Regarding claim 14, Singh discloses that the surface-mounted device is one of the following: a leading edge panel; a clip-on leading edge panel; a vortex generator panel; a spoiler panel; a serration panel; a trailing edge serration panel. Figure 6 shows the device being a spoiler panel as it reduces unwanted turbulence as described in paragraph 0037.
Regarding claim 15, Singh discloses A method of manufacturing of a wind turbine blade, the method comprising:
arranging a surface-mounted device on an exterior surface of the blade (Figure 6, item 172), wherein a base part of the surface-mounted device provides a step in height from the exterior surface of the blade in the chordwise direction from a first side of the base part (Figure 6 shows the base part being the peak in height 178 of the surface-mounted device); and
arranging a chamfer section configured to provide a multi-slope transition from the step in height of the base part to the exterior surface.
Regarding claim 16, Singh discloses that arranging the chamfer section comprises providing a chamfer section with a varying width in a spanwise direction of the wind turbine blade (Par. 0060, with hmax being the width).
Claim(s) 3, 5-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramanujam (US 20220154685).
Regarding claim 3, Ramanujam discloses A wind turbine blade (Par. 0003), wherein the blade has a profiled contour including a pressure side and a suction side (Par. 0013), and a leading edge and a trailing edge with a chord having a chord length extending therebetween in a chordwise direction (Par. 0003)), the wind turbine blade extending in a spanwise direction between a root end and a tip end (all wind turbine blades must have a root to connect to the rotor and a tip at the other end), wherein the blade comprises a surface-mounted device arranged on an exterior surface of the blade (Figures 2-3 show a surface mounted device including 3, 4, F, S, S1, and L),
wherein the surface-mounted device comprises a base part, the base part providing a step in height from the exterior surface of the blade in the chordwise direction from a first side of the base part (Figures 2-3, items 3 and 4 show the base part that provides a step in height), and
wherein the blade further comprises a chamfer section configured to provide a multi-slope transition from the step in height of the base part to the exterior surface (Figures 2 and 3 show two separate chamfer sections S1 and L that both have multi-slope transitions from the surface of the blade to the height of the base part).
Regarding claim 5, Ramanujam discloses that the chamfer section is configured to provide a curvilinear multi-slope transition from the step in height of the base part to the exterior surface. Figures 2 and 3 show curvilinear multi-slope transitions from the exterior surface to the base part
Regarding claim 6, Ramanujam discloses that the chamfer section comprises a first concave portion proximal to the first side of the base part and a second convex portion distal to the first side of the base part (Figure 2 shows a concave portion at the peak height h and a convex portion located adjacent to J2 where the chamfer transitions into the exterior surface).
Regarding claim 7, Ramanujam discloses that the chamfer section comprises a tapered section, wherein the tapered section tapers in thickness away from the first side of the base part (Figure 2 shows the tapered section tapering in thickness away from the first end at J1) and comprises:
a first tapered section proximal to the first side of the base part and having a first average taper angle; and
a second tapered section distal to the first side of the base part and having a second average taper angle different from the first taper angle (Figure 2 shows the average taper angle at J1 being different than the average taper angle along S1 leading into it or Figure 3 shows multiple average angles along the length L).
Regarding claim 8, Ramanujam discloses that the chamfer section comprises a tapered section, wherein the tapered section tapers in thickness away from the first side of the base part and comprises:
a first tapered section proximal to the first side of the base part and having a first average taper angle;
a third tapered section distal to the first side of the base part and having a third average taper angle; and
a second tapered section between the first tapered section and the third tapered section and having a second average taper angle,
wherein the second average taper angle Y is greater than both the first average taper angle X and the third average taper angle Z. See annotated Figure 2 below. As the first tapered section shows the height being about equal from the start to the finish, the first average angle is close to zero. Annotated Figure 2 shows that the second tapered section has a higher average angle than the other two.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Regarding claim 9, Ramanujam discloses that the first side of the base part of the surface-mounted device is rectilinear, and wherein the first tapered section has a first rectilinear side adjacent to the first rectilinear side of the base part. Figures 2 and 3 both show item 3 being rectilinear at the interface with the tapered section.
Regarding claim 10, Ramanujam discloses that the chamfer section substantially abuts the base part of the surface-mounted device and extends substantially flush from the first side of the base part, and/or
wherein the chamfer section substantially abuts the exterior surface of the blade and transitions curvilinearly into the exterior surface of the blade (Figure 2 shows the chamfer sections both extending flush from the first side of the base part and transitioning into the exterior surface of the blade).
Regarding claim 11, Ramanujam discloses that the chamfer section is integrally formed with the surface mounted device or wherein the chamfer section is a section arranged on the exterior surface of the blade in contact with the first side of the base part. (Figures 2 and 3 show that the chamfer section is arranged on an exterior surface of the blade in contact with the first side of the base).
Regarding claim 13, Ramanujam discloses that the chamfer section comprises a top cover. Figures 2 and 3 show that the surface mounted device covers the surface of the blade and as such it serves as a top cover.
Regarding claim 14, Ramanujam discloses that the surface-mounted device is one of the following: a leading edge panel; a clip-on leading edge panel; a vortex generator panel; a spoiler panel; a serration panel; a trailing edge serration panel. Figures 2 and 3 show the device being a leading edge panel.
Regarding claim 15, Ramanujam discloses A method of manufacturing of a wind turbine blade, the method comprising:
arranging a surface-mounted device on an exterior surface of the blade (Figures 2-3 show a surface mounted device including 3, 4, F, S, S1, and L), wherein a base part of the surface-mounted device provides a step in height from the exterior surface of the blade in the chordwise direction from a first side of the base part (Figures 2-3, items 3 and 4 show the base part that provides a step in height); and
arranging a chamfer section configured to provide a multi-slope transition from the step in height of the base part to the exterior surface (Figures 2 and 3 show two separate chamfer sections S1 and L that both have multi-slope transitions from the surface of the blade to the height of the base part).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam (US 20220154685).
Regarding claim 12, Ramanujam teaches that the chamfer section has a height to width ratio in the range 1:2 to 1:60, preferably in the range 1:10 to 1:30, e.g. around 1:20 (Paragraph 0015 describes that the ratio of δ to t is between 4:1 to 100:1. As δ is equivalent to the width and t is equivalent to the height, this provides a height to width ratio range of 1:4 to 1:100), and/or
wherein the width of the chamfer section is between 3 mm and 20 mm, preferably between 5 mm and 15 mm, e.g. around 12 mm, and/or
wherein the length of the chamfer section is between 10 mm and 5000 mm (Par. 0015 describes the length being between 5 mm and 150 mm), preferably between 30 mm and 2000 mm, e.g. around 700 mm, or e.g., around 500 mm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As such, the ranges in the claim are obvious with regards to the prior art presented. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US 20150292522) in view of Kamruzzaman (US 20220186705).
Regarding claim 17, Singh discloses the limitations of claim 15 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Singh does not explicitly disclose that the method further comprises using a 3-D printing step, and/or a 5-axis printing step and/or a 5-axis milling step to provide the chamfer section.
Singh and Kamruzzaman are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blade attachments. Kamruzzaman teaches forming the module with an additive manufacturing process (Par. 0047). Singh already describes that the wedge element can be incorporated into blade manufacturing steps or attached separately (Par. 0122) so the use of the additive manufacturing process described in Kamruzzaman would provide predictable results for forming the wedge of Singh because additive manufacturing is a known manufacturing method for wind turbine blades. Further, additive manufacturing allows for precise processing and forming of a detailed design. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the additive manufacturing technique of Kamruzzaman to form the wedge of Singh because additive manufacturing allows for precise processing and forming of a detailed design and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam (US 20220154685) in view of Kamruzzaman (US 20220186705).
Regarding claim 17, Ramanujam discloses the limitations of claim 15 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Ramanujam does not explicitly disclose that the method further comprises using a 3-D printing step, and/or a 5-axis printing step and/or a 5-axis milling step to provide the chamfer section.
Ramanujam and Kamruzzaman are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blade attachments. Kamruzzaman teaches forming the module with an additive manufacturing process (Par. 0047). Ramanujam already describes the chamfer section being formed with sealant from a toothed spatula (Pars. 0038-0040). As both Ramanujam and Kamruzzaman provide additional structures on the exterior of wind turbine blades and additive manufacturing is known to make parts for wind turbines, the additive manufacturing method of Kamruzzaman would provide predictable results for manufacturing the attachment of Ramanujam. Further, additive manufacturing allows for precise processing and forming of a detailed design. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the additive manufacturing technique of Kamruzzaman to form the attachment of Ramanujam because additive manufacturing allows for precise processing and forming of a detailed design and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramanujam (US 20220154685) in view of Fujioka (US 20200011300).
Regarding claim 18, Ramanujam discloses the limitations of claim 3 as set forth in the above 102 rejection and that the surface-mounted device is a leading edge protection panel attached to the leading edge of the wind turbine blade (Figures 1-5), the leading edge protection panel extending in the spanwise direction (Figures 4-5) and comprising:
a first section extending from the leading edge and along a part of the pressure side of the wind turbine blade to a first transverse end at a first position on the pressure side of the wind turbine blade, the first section having a first extent from the leading edge of the wind turbine blade to the first position on the pressure side of the wind turbine blade (Figures 4 and 5 show the device extending around both sides of the leading edge and as such having extents on both the pressure and suction sides. this is further described in paragraph 0070); and
a second section extending from the leading edge and along a part of the suction side of the wind turbine blade to a second transverse end at a second position on the suction side of the wind turbine blade, the second section having a second extent from the leading edge of the wind turbine blade to the second position on the suction side of the wind turbine blade (Figures 4 and 5 show the device extending around both sides of the leading edge and as such having extents on both the pressure and suction sides. this is further described in paragraph 0070).
However, Ramanujam does not explicitly disclose that the first extent and the second extent have varying lengths in the spanwise direction, and wherein a ratio between the second extent and the first extent varies in the spanwise direction.
Ramanujam and Fujioka are analogous prior art because both describe leading edge covers for wind turbine blades. Fujioka teaches that the first extent and the second extent have varying lengths in the spanwise direction (Figures 6, 8, and 9 show multiple variations of the lengths on the pressure and suction sides where each of B, B’, D, and E each vary both the first and second extents along the span), and wherein a ratio between the second extent and the first extent varies in the spanwise direction (Figures 6, 8, and 9 show the ratios varying along the extent along the length). Fujioka describes that the system allows for protection from erosion while keeping costs down and fully achieving the merit of FRP while covering the minimum possible area (Par. 0003-0004). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the leading edge cover distribution of Fujioka for the leading edge cover of Ramanujam because it allows for protection from erosion while keeping costs down and fully achieving the merit of FRP while covering the minimum possible area (Par. 0003-0004).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While Fujioka Figures 6, 8, and 9 all show the varying of lengths on the pressure and suction sides, none show the ratio ever going above 1:1 and most show the ratio having a higher length of the first extent than the second extent. As described above, Fujioka desires the leading edge protection to be only available in necessary areas in order to save costs and efficiency. Fujioka also describes (Pars. 0003 and 0008-0009) that the leading edge protection extent is intentionally shifted towards the pressure side to adapt to the highest erosion areas and as such providing such a shift to the suction side which would produce a ratio of higher than 1:1 would not have been obvious with the design of Fujioka. While it might have been obvious to vary the ratios to provide an exact protection, it would not have been obvious to provide one that fits within the ratios required by claim 9. Behmer (WO 2021228851) shows systems with a higher percentage of the cover on the suction side but does not meet the publication date requirements as eligible prior art due to the common assignee ownership and shared inventors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights