Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (Figure 3c) in the reply filed on 22 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 June 2026.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response filed on 22 June 2026.
Claim 14 is canceled by the Applicant.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15 are being considered.
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(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the examiner.
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 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) 1-3 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by March Nomen (US 20220243704), hereafter referred to as March Nomen.
Regarding Claim 1, March Nomen discloses the following:
A wind turbine blade comprising:
an anti-icing system (20) comprising
an electrothermal heating arrangement (21; [0021]) configured to provide heat to an external surface of the blade,
wherein the electrothermal heating arrangement (21; [0021]) is connected to a power supply interface of the wind turbine blade by way of a power supply conductor (see [0021]) and an earth conductor (27 in combination with 28; FIG. 5; see [0029]),
a lightning protection system (10) having a lightning strike protection device (11, 13; [0020, 22; FIG. 2) associated with an electrothermal heating element of the heating arrangement (21; [0021]),
the lightning strike protection device (11, 13; [0020, 22; FIG. 2) being connected to a lightning down conductor (12; [0020]) of the lightning protection system (10) leading to a current transfer unit (synonymous with ground terminal through the hub, see [0020]) configured to transfer lightning current to a rotor hub, in use, and
a transient current limiting device (15; FIG. 5; [0028]) connected in a conductive path (synonymous with the circuit, see for example [0029]) between the lightning down conductor (12; [0020]) of the lightning protection system (10) and the earth conductor (27 in combination with 28; FIG. 5; see [0029]) of the anti-icing system (20), thereby permitting induced parasitic currents in the lightning down conductor (12; [0020]) to earth (via 26, see [0029]) through the anti-icing system (20).
Regarding Claim 2, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 1,
wherein the lightning strike protection device (11, 13; [0020, 22; FIG. 2) is spaced from the electrothermal heating element so as to form a capacitive coupling (via 15; Paragraph [0029] discloses MOV, thus a capacitive coupling is disclosed in as much as the Instant Application.).
Regarding Claim 3, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 1,
wherein the transient current limiting device (15; FIG. 5; [0028]) has a relatively low impedance value at a first electrical frequency range associated with the anti-icing system (20), and a relatively high impedance value at a second electrical frequency range associated with a lightning strike (see [0029]).
Regarding Claim 8, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of any one of Claim 1,
wherein the transient current limiting device (15; FIG. 5; [0028]) includes a switch device (see [0029]) in the conductive path (synonymous with the circuit, see for example [0029]).
Regarding Claim 9, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 8,
wherein the switch device (see [0029]) is operable into a closed position (see [0029]) when the anti-icing system (20) is in operation.
Regarding Claim 10, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 8,
wherein the switch device (see [0029]) is operable into an open position (see [0029]) when a lightning condition is detected and/or anticipated.
Regarding Claim 11, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 8,
wherein the transient current limiting device (15; FIG. 5; [0028]) includes an inductor in the conductive path (synonymous with the circuit, see for example [0029]).
Regarding Claim 12, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of any of Claim 8,
wherein the inductor is on the high voltage side of the switch device (see [0029]).
Regarding Claim 13, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 8,
wherein the transient current limiting device (15; FIG. 5; [0028]) include a surge protection device in parallel with the switch device (see [0029]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over March Nomen (US 20220243704), hereafter referred to as March Nomen.
Regarding Claim 4-6, March Nomen discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 3,
March Nomen does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the first electrical frequency range is less than 100 Hz (claim 4); wherein the second electrical frequency range is greater than 10kHz (claim 5); wherein the ratio between the relative low impedance value and the relatively high impedance value is at least 1:100 (claim 6);
However the Examiner notes the following:
March Nomen discloses a wind turbine blade having a transient current limiting device, but is silent on the frequency range and relative impedance values. In other words, March Nomen discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the first electrical frequency range is less than 100 Hz (claim 4); wherein the second electrical frequency range is greater than 10kHz (claim 5); wherein the ratio between the relative low impedance value and the relatively high impedance value is at least 1:100 (claim 6); provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any transient current limiting device could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears March Nomen would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have held that, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device,” 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 transient current limiting device, as disclosed by March Nomen, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully specifically providing frequency ranges and relative impedance values. (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over March Nomen (US 20220243704), hereafter referred to as March Nomen, in view of Brilliant (US 20220228571), hereafter referred to as Brilliant.
Regarding Claim 15, March Nomen discloses the following:
At least one wind turbine blade (1) for a wind turbine ([0002]);
wherein at least one wind turbine blade (1) comprises:
an anti-icing system (20) comprising an electrothermal heating arrangement (21; [0021]) configured to provide heat to an external surface of the at least one wind turbine blade,
wherein the electrothermal heating arrangement (21; [0021]) is connected to a power supply interface of the at least one wind turbine blade (1) by way of a power supply conductor (see [0021]) and an earth conductor (27 in combination with 28; FIG. 5; see [0029]);
a lightning protection system (10) having a lightning strike protection device (11, 13; [0020, 22; FIG. 2) associated with an electrothermal heating element of the electrothermal heating arrangement (21; [0021]),
the lightning strike protection device (11, 13; [0020, 22; FIG. 2) being connected to a lightning down conductor (12; [0020]) of the lightning protection system (10) leading to a current transfer unit (synonymous with ground terminal through the hub, see [0020]) configured to transfer lightning current to the rotor hub, in use; and
a transient current limiting device (15; FIG. 5; [0028]) connected in a conductive path (synonymous with the circuit, see for example [0029]) between the lightning down conductor (12; [0020]) of the lightning protection system (10) and the earth conductor (27 in combination with 28; FIG. 5; see [0029]) of the anti-icing system (20), thereby permitting induced parasitic currents in the lightning down conductor (12; [0020]) to earth through the anti-icing system (20).
March Nomen does not explicitly disclose the following:
a tower;
a nacelle disposed on the tower;
a rotor extending from the nacelle;
a rotor hub attached to a distal end of the rotor;
at least one wind turbine blade attached to the rotor hub;
However Brilliant teaches the following:
A wind turbine (100), comprising:
a tower (102);
a nacelle (104) disposed on the tower (102);
a rotor (106) extending from the nacelle (104);
a rotor hub (110) attached to a distal end of the rotor (106);
at least one wind turbine blade (108) attached to the rotor hub (110).
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 wind turbine, as disclosed by March Nomen, wherein the wind turbine comprises a tower, nacelle, rotor, rotor hub, and at least one blade attached to the rotor hub, as taught by Brilliant, with the reasonable expectation of successfully generating electricity from wind energy (see for example Brilliant [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 would appear to be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 11:
wherein the transient current limiting device includes an inductor in the conductive path;
Regarding Claim 12:
wherein the inductor is on the high voltage side of the switch device;
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to March Nomen (US 20220243704) and Brilliant (US 20220228571).
The Examiner notes March Nomen is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 wind turbine blade arrangements see Page 1.
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
Prosecution Insights