DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 21 March 2025.
Claims 1-11 are canceled via preliminary amendment.
Claims 12-23 are currently pending.
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) filed 21 February 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. It is noted EP 3037655 is missing from the IDS.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Examiner suggests changing "Said " to "said" for grammatical purposes.
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 12-23 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 12:
The claim language, "said trailing edge element forming a portion of said profile trailing edge so as to cause said profile trailing edge at said rotor blade tip to extend in a direction of a tip-side end of said rotor blade in a monotonous manner," renders the claim indefinite. The term "monotonous manner" is not defined by the specification, however based on paragraph [0016] the term "monotonous path of the profile trailing edge" means that the path remains consistent or changes in the same direction, for example, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the rotor blade. For example, the path is curved, wherein no direction change of the curvature takes place. In other words, the trailing edge element does not form a profile trailing edge portion with an undulating, spiked or otherwise alternating path." However the claim language requires the trailing edge element to be flexible. Thus the claim requirement of a flexible trailing edge element is in direct contradiction to the claim requirement of trailing edge element being configured to form a portion of the profile trailing edge of the rotor blade wherein a path of the portion of said profile trailing edge is monotonous. For purposes of examination, the claim language pertaining to "monotonous" is interpreted to mean the transition between the trailing edge element and the trailing edge of the rotor blade creates a seamless / smooth profile that merely continues on with the blade shape.
Regarding Claim 23:
The claim language, "wherein a path of the portion of said profile trailing edge is monotonous," renders the claim indefinite. Based on paragraph [0016] the term "monotonous path of the profile trailing edge" means that the path remains consistent or changes in the same direction, for example, with respect to the longitudinal axis of the rotor blade. For example, the path is curved, wherein no direction change of the curvature takes place. In other words, the trailing edge element does not form a profile trailing edge portion with an undulating, spiked or otherwise alternating path." However the claim language requires the trailing edge element to be flexible. Thus the claim requirement of a flexible trailing edge element is in direct contradiction to the claim requirement of trailing edge element being configured to form a portion of the profile trailing edge of the rotor blade wherein a path of the portion of said profile trailing edge is monotonous. For purposes of examination, the claim language pertaining to "monotonous" is interpreted to mean the transition between the trailing edge element and the trailing edge of the rotor blade creates a seamless / smooth profile that merely continues on with the blade shape.
Regarding claims 13-22:
Claims 13-22 are rejected by virtue of dependence on rejected claims.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 12-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madsen et al (US 20090290982), hereafter referred to as Madsen.
Regarding Claim 12, Madsen discloses the following:
A rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) for a wind turbine, the rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) comprising:
a rotor blade main body (2) and a rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) adjoining the rotor blade main body (2);
a suction-side surface (top or bottom of 2, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) defining an outer contour;
a pressure-side surface (top or bottom of 2, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) defining an outer contour;
a profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5);
said suction-side surface (top or bottom of 2, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) and said pressure-side surface (top or bottom of 2, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) having respective downstream edges connected to each other at said profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5);
said rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) having a flexibly configured trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) defining a shape adapted to be flush with the respective outer contours of said suction-side surface (top or bottom of 2, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) and said pressure-side surface (top or bottom of 2, as seen in FIG. 1, 5); and,
said trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) forming a portion of said profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) so as to cause said profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) at said rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) to extend in a direction of a tip-side end of said rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) in a monotonous manner (as seen in FIG. 1, 5, also see [0060]).
Regarding Claim 13, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 12,
wherein said trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) and a remaining rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) conjointly form a seamless transition (as seen in FIG. 1, 5) therebetween along said profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 13,
wherein said seamless transition is a stepless transition (as seen in FIG. 1, 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 12,
wherein said trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) is free from a profile depth expansion at said profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5).
Regarding Claim 16, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 12,
wherein said portion of said profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) is formed by said trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) and said portion has a curvature changing in a monotonous manner (as seen in FIG. 1, 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 12,
wherein said trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) is formed from an elastomer material (see for example claim 51).
Regarding Claim 18, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 12,
wherein said rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) is configured separately (at least a portion of the tip is configured separately) from said rotor blade main body (2) and is connected to said rotor blade main body (2).
Regarding Claim 19, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 12,
wherein said rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) is formed from an electrically conductive material (at least a portion of 3b may comprise a steel metal plate in the spanwise direction, see [0027-28] and for example FIG. 10).
Regarding Claim 20, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 12,
wherein said trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) is secured to said rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) by a positive- locking connection (13, 14; for example FIG. 5; Note: while the connection of the Instant Application is perpendicular to the span, the claims as written do not require such.).
Regarding Claim 21, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 20,
wherein said trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) is secured to said rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) by one of the following: i) a rail system, ii) a tongue and groove connection or iii) a dovetail connection (as seen in for example FIG. 5).
Regarding Claim 22, Madsen discloses the following:
The rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of claim 12,
wherein said profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) of said rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) extends along a longitudinal axis of said rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) starting from a position of maximum profile depth up to said tip-side end in a monotonous manner (as seen in FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 23, Madsen discloses the following:
A rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) for a rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) of a wind turbine, the rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) having a rotor blade main body (2) and the rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) comprising:
Said rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) being configured separately (at least a portion of the tip is configured separately) from a rotor blade main body (2) so as to be connectable to said rotor blade main body (2); and,
a flexibly configured trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) adapted with respect to shape thereof flush with an outer contour of a suction-side surface (top or bottom of 2, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) and an outer contour of a pressure-side surface (top or bottom of 2, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) of said rotor blade tip (end portion of 2, including sub-section 3b at tip; see FIG. 3; [0060]) and said trailing edge element (flexible portion 3, having sub-sections 3a, 3b, FIG. 3) being configured to form a portion of the profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) of the rotor blade (1; FIG. 3) wherein a path of the portion of said profile trailing edge (3, as seen in FIG. 1, 5) is monotonous (as seen in FIG. 3).
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar blade arrangements see Pages 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
