DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is Christopher.Legendre@uspto.gov.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 14 May 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 strikethrough references referred to therein have not been considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the Abstract, lines 1-2, “According to a first aspect of the present invention there is provided a” should be changed to --A-- (note: the language of the Abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "This disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "This disclosure describes," etc - see MPEP 608.01(b)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “ )” should be deleted.
In claim 1, line 5, “(c)” should be deleted.
In claim 3, “(16a)” (both instances), “(R)”, “(42)” should be deleted.
In claim 5, line 2, “(48)” should be deleted.
In claim 16, “the” (before “rated” (line 4), “rated” (line 5), “pitch” (line 6), “maximum” (line 6, “stop” (line 8)) should be changed to --a-- (to imbue proper antecedent basis practice).
In claim 16, last line, --a-- should be added before “load”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) except as otherwise indicated in this 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) except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
There are no limitations deemed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 5, the limitation recited as “a used first blade shell” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is intended to refer to the antecedent limitation “used first wind turbine blade” or introducing a new limitation. If the former, then the instant limitation “at least part of the inboard shell section is formed of at least part of an inboard portion of a used first blade shell” and/or “at least part of the outboard shell section is formed of at least part of an outboard portion of a used first blade shell” renders the claim indefinite since it/they is/are contradictory to the antecedent limitation “exchanging each used first wind turbine blade for a second wind turbine blade” (claim 2) - i.e., the antecedent limitation implies that “used first wind turbine blade” is separate/distinct from “second wind turbine blade”, and whereas the instant limitation indicates that “second wind turbine blade” is made from “used first wind turbine blade”. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 6.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically, claim 17 is a product-by-process claim and, thus, does not require all the limitations of the process of claim 1 - i.e., the structure of the product can be arrived by a different process. To overcome this rejection, the Office suggests rewriting this claim in independent form. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 18.
As the Federal Circuit treats non-compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as a patentability issue, it is considered more appropriate to treat a claim that does not comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) by rejecting the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rather than by objecting to such claim under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as provided for in MPEP 608.01(n)(II). See Pfizer Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 12, 14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nielsen et al. (US 2025/0376972 - hereafter referred to as Nielsen).
In reference to claim 1
Nielsen discloses:
A method of repowering a horizontal-axis wind turbine, the wind turbine comprising a rotor (16) rotatably mounted to a nacelle (14) ), the rotor comprising a plurality of used first wind turbine blades (see par. [0016]) connected to a hub (18), each blade comprising a blade shell (i.e., an exterior), and each blade extending in a radial direction from a blade root to a blade tip and in a chordwise direction (c) between a leading edge and a trailing edge, and the rotor defining a rotor axis and a first rotor diameter, the method comprising:
Increasing (see par. [0016]) the rotor diameter such that the rotor defines a second rotor diameter that is greater than the first rotor diameter;
attaching a connecting fixture (26) to each blade, each connecting fixture defining a connection point for connecting a blade connecting member to the blade; and
connecting a blade connecting member (28) between corresponding connection points of a pair of wind turbine blades such that each blade is connected to at least one other blade by a blade connecting member.
In reference to claim 2
Nielsen discloses:
The method of Claim 1 wherein increasing the rotor diameter comprises:
a) ; (note: strike-through text is ignored due to or establishing it as optional) or
b) providing (see par. [0016]) a plurality of second wind turbine blades and exchanging each used first wind turbine blade for a second wind turbine blade, wherein each second wind turbine blade is longer (see par. [0016]) than each first wind turbine blade in the radial direction.
In reference to claim 8
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the connecting fixture is a retrofitted connecting fixture (note: the term retrofitted does not require and/or imply a particular structural or process limitation).
In reference to claim 12
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein each connecting fixture (26) is attached to a respective blade such that the connection point is located at a radial distance of between 0.25R to 0.55R from the rotor axis (see Figure 2), where R represents half of the second rotor diameter.
In reference to claim 14
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising detaching (see par. [0005]) each used first wind turbine blade from the hub (18) before increasing the rotor diameter.
In reference to claim 17
Nielsen discloses all the limitations of the instant claim (note: all claim limitations are duplicative of limitations in claim 1).
In reference to claim 18
Nielsen discloses:
The horizontal-axis wind turbine according to Claim 17, wherein the connecting fixture (26) is a retrofitted connecting fixture (note: the term retrofitted does not require and/or imply a particular structural limitation).
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 of this title, 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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Busbey et al. (US 2013/0219718 - hereafter referred to as Busbey).
In reference to claims 3 and 4
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 2.
Nielsen does not disclose:
extending each used first wind turbine blade (16a) in the radial direction (r) comprises attaching a tip extension (42) to each first wind turbine blade (16a). (claim 3)
extending each used first wind turbine blade comprises attaching a root extension to the blade root of each first blade. (claim 4)
Busbey discloses:
increasing a wind turbine rotor diameter and/or blade length by attaching a tip extension (see par. [0073]) or a root extension (see par. [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen to include extending the used first wind turbine blades by attaching a tip extension or a root extension, as disclosed by Busbey, for the purpose of allowing re-use of a blade in order to reduce cost.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Fugisang et al. (US 2012/0070281 - hereafter referred to as Fugisang).
In reference to claims 5 (as far as it is clear and definite) and 6
Nielsen discloses:
The method of Claim 2, wherein each second blade comprises a second blade shell (i.e., the exterior of the second blade) comprising an inboard shell section (48)(i.e., a relatively inboard section of the second blade shell) and an outboard shell section (i.e., a relatively outboard section of the second blade shell) connected together, and
Nielsen does not disclose:
at least part of the inboard shell section is formed of at least part of an inboard portion of a used first blade shell, and/or
at least part of the outboard shell section is formed of at least part of an outboard portion of a used first blade shell.
Fugisang discloses:
a wind turbine blade made from pre-existing blade sections (see par. [0238]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen to include making the second blade shell from a pre-existing blade (i.e., either the shell of first blade or a different blade), as disclosed by Fugisang, for the purpose of reducing cost.
In reference to claim 6
Nielsen in view of Fugisang addresses:
The method of Claim 5, wherein attaching the connecting fixture to each blade comprises attaching the connecting fixture to both the inboard shell section and the outboard shell section of the respective second blade shell (note: the boundary and/or imaginary line separating inboard shell section and outboard shell section can be considered as coinciding with the connecting fixture, in which case the connecting fixture straddles inboard shell section and outboard shell section).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Dalton (GB 2517935; see attached copy)
In reference to claim 7
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1.
Nielsen does not disclose:
increasing the rotor diameter comprises providing a hub extender between the hub and each blade root.
Dalton discloses:
increasing a wind turbine rotor diameter by including a hub extender (10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen to include increasing the rotor diameter by at least including a hub extender, as disclosed by Dalton, for the purpose of limiting the blade weight (in order to limit loading at the blade root).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Wang et al. (CN 105673326 A - hereafter referred to as Wang; see attached copy and translation).
In reference to claim 9
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1.
Nielsen does not disclose:
the connecting fixture extends over a radial extent of between 0.5C and 1.5C, where C represents the chord length of the blade at the connection point.
Wang discloses:
a wind turbine rotor comprising a bracing system, wherein the bracing system includes connecting fixtures (2) attached to the blades that couple with connecting members (3) extending between the blades, wherein the connecting fixtures (2) extend over a radial extent of between 0.5C and 1.5C (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen to include embodying the connecting fixture as in Wang for the purpose of ensuring a secure and reliable attachment (due to use of a known structure for this particular purpose).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Jensen (US 8,807,953).
In reference to claims 10 and 13
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1.
Nielsen does not disclose:
attaching a connecting fixture to each blade comprises bonding a connecting fixture to each blade using adhesive. (claim 10)
attaching the connecting fixture to a blade comprises overlaminating an inboard edge of the connecting fixture and/or overlaminating an outboard edge of the connecting fixture. (claim 13)
Jensen discloses:
a connection fixture (42) for connecting a wire/cable to a wind turbine blade, the connection fixture being attached to the blade via an adhesive (see col.5:ll.12-15) or overlamination (see col.13:ll.32-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen to include either adhesive bonding or overlamination for attaching the connecting fixture to the blade, as disclosed by Jensen, for the purpose of ensuring a secure attachment.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Fritz (US 8,803,488).
In reference to claim 11
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1.
Nielsen does not disclose:
attaching a connecting fixture to each blade comprises attaching the connecting fixture to the blade using a plurality of fixing members that extend into the blade shell.
Fritz discloses:
a wind turbine blade (see Figure 3) comprising an accessory element (110) that is attached via fixing members (132) that extend in to the blade shell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen to include embodying the connecting fixture as an accessory that is attached to the blade via fixing members that extend into the blade, as disclosed by Fritz, for the purpose of ensuring secure attachment.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Liu et al. (CN 113107759 - hereafter referred to as Liu; see attached copy and translation).
In reference to claim 15
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1.
Nielsen does not disclose:
further comprising arranging one or more shim angle adjustment members between the root of each blade and the hub to change an in-plane inclination and/or out-of-plane inclination of each blade.
Liu discloses:
a wind turbine comprising angle adjustment members (7, 3, and 6 - Figure 1) between the blade roots and the hub in order to change the inclination of the blade for purpose of avoiding blade-tower strikes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen to angle adjustment members between each blade and the hub, as disclosed by Liu, for the purpose of decreasing the risk of a blade-tower strike.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen in view of Hald et al. (US 10,865,774 - hereafter referred to as Hald).
In reference to claim 16
Nielsen discloses:
The method of claim 1.
Nielsen does not disclose:
the wind turbine comprises a controller, and wherein the method further comprises upgrading the controller with one or more revised control functions to effect at least one of the following:
a) reduce the rated rotational speed of the rotor;
b) reduce the rated power of the wind turbine;
c) modify the pitch control to limit the maximum thrust on the wind turbine and/or to limit flapwise blade loads;
d) reduce the stop wind speed;
e) modify pitch control by introducing or modifying cyclic and/or individual pitch control as load reduction feature.
Hald discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a wind turbine controller (52), wherein the controller is updated to include reduced rated power settings to avoid a power output that exceeds the maximum limit of a transmission line (see col.11:ll.47-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen to include a wind turbine controller, as disclosed by Hald, for the purpose of allowing active monitoring/control of the wind turbine, and to include reduced rated power settings in the controller, as further disclosed by Hald, for the purpose of avoiding a power output that exceeds the maximum limit of a transmission line.
Claims 1-4, 8, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbey in view of Ke et al. (CN 107143463 A - hereafter referred to as Ke; see attached copy and translation), and wherein Dehlsen (US 2012/0051914; cited in an IDS) is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 1
Busbey discloses:
A method of repowering a horizontal-axis wind turbine (see par. [0003]), the wind turbine comprising a rotor (18 & 16 - Figure 1) rotatably mounted to a nacelle (14 - Figure 1), the rotor comprising a plurality of used first wind turbine blades (16) connected to a hub (18), each blade comprising a blade shell (see Figure 7 and/or par. [0031]), and each blade extending in a radial direction from a blade root to a blade tip and in a chordwise direction (c) between a leading edge and a trailing edge, and the rotor defining a rotor axis and a first rotor diameter, the method comprising:
increasing the rotor diameter (via either a blade insert 106, a root extension, or a tip extension - see Figure 3 and pars. [0041], [0073]) such that the rotor defines a second rotor diameter that is greater than the first rotor diameter.
Busbey does not disclose:
attaching a connecting fixture to each blade, each connecting fixture defining a connection point for connecting a blade connecting member to the blade; and
connecting a blade connecting member between corresponding connection points of a pair of wind turbine blades such that each blade is connected to at least one other blade by a blade connecting member.
Ke discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a bracing system (see Figures 1(a) and 1(b)) having a plurality of cables (4) attached to the blades (1) via a connecting fixture (not disclosed but inherent to achieve the attachment), wherein each cable extends between adjacent blades.
Dehlsen teaches (see e.g. pars. [0009] through [0011]) that it is known to provide a wind turbine blade bracing system (see e.g. Figure 1) that accounts for the increased structural requirements of larger blades.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbey to include a bracing system, as disclosed by Ke, for the purpose of accounting for the increased structural requirements of the larger blades.
In reference to claim 2
Busbey in view of Ke addresses:
The method of Claim 1 wherein increasing the rotor diameter comprises:
a) extending (Busbey) each used first wind turbine blade in the radial direction; or
b) providing a plurality of second wind turbine blades and exchanging each used first wind turbine blade for a second wind turbine blade, wherein each second wind turbine blade is longer than each first wind turbine blade in the radial direction.
In reference to claim 3
Busbey in view of Ke addresses:
The method of Claim 2, wherein extending each used first wind turbine blade (16a) in the radial direction (r) comprises attaching a tip extension (Busbey - see par. [0073]) (42) to each first wind turbine blade (16a).
In reference to claim 4
Busbey in view of Ke addresses:
The method of Claim 2, wherein extending each used first wind turbine blade comprises attaching a root extension (Busbey - see par. [0073]) to the blade root of each first blade.
In reference to claim 8
Busbey in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the connecting fixture is a retrofitted connecting fixture (note: the term retrofitted does not require and/or imply a particular structural or process limitation).
In reference to claim 12
Busbey in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1, wherein each connecting fixture (i.e., the inboard bracing system shown in Ke Figure 1(b)) is attached to a respective blade such that the connection point is located at a radial distance of between 0.25R to 0.55R from the rotor axis (see Ke Figure 1(b)), where R represents half of the second rotor diameter.
In reference to claim 17
Busbey in view of Ke, as combined in the rejection of claim 1, addresses all the limitations of the instant claim (note: all claim limitations are duplicative of limitations in claim 1).
In reference to claim 18
Busbey in view of Ke addresses:
The horizontal-axis wind turbine according to Claim 17, wherein the connecting fixture is a retrofitted connecting fixture (note: the term retrofitted does not require and/or imply a particular structural limitation).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbey in view of Ke and Merzhaeuser et al. (US 10,900,469 - hereafter referred to as Merzhaeuser).
In reference to claim 14
Busbey in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1.
Busbey in view of Ke does not address:
further comprising detaching each used first wind turbine blade from the hub before increasing the rotor diameter.
Merzhaeuser discloses:
a method of retrofitting wind turbine blades, wherein the blades are detached from the hub in order to allow for processing of the blades in a down-tower position or at an off-site location (see col.2:ll.58-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbey in view of Ke to include detaching the blades from the hub before performing the retrofit (i.e., increasing the blade length), as disclosed by Merzhaeuser, for the purpose of allowing processing of the blades in a down-tower position or an off-site location (in order to simplify and/or ensure successful completion of the processing).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalton in view of Ke, and wherein Dehlsen is cited on an evidentiary basis.
In reference to claim 1
Dalton discloses:
A method of repowering a horizontal-axis wind turbine (see Figure 1), the wind turbine comprising a rotor (6 & 7 - Figure 1) rotatably mounted to a nacelle (3 - Figure 1), the rotor comprising a plurality of used first wind turbine blades (7) connected to a hub (6), each blade comprising a blade shell (i.e., an exterior), and each blade extending in a radial direction from a blade root to a blade tip and in a chordwise direction (c) between a leading edge and a trailing edge, and the rotor defining a rotor axis and a first rotor diameter, the method comprising:
increasing (see Abstract) the rotor diameter (via hub extender 10) such that the rotor defines a second rotor diameter that is greater than the first rotor diameter.
Dalton does not disclose:
attaching a connecting fixture to each blade, each connecting fixture defining a connection point for connecting a blade connecting member to the blade; and
connecting a blade connecting member between corresponding connection points of a pair of wind turbine blades such that each blade is connected to at least one other blade by a blade connecting member.
Ke discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a bracing system (see Figures 1(a) and 1(b)) having a plurality of cables (4) attached to the blades (1) via a connecting fixture (not disclosed but inherent), wherein each cable extends between adjacent blades.
Dehlsen teaches (see e.g. pars. [0009] through [0011]) that it is known to provide a wind turbine blade bracing system (see e.g. Figure 1) that accounts for the increased structural requirements of larger blades.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Dalton to include a bracing system, as disclosed by Ke, for the purpose of accounting for the increased structural requirements of the larger blades.
In reference to claim 2
Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of Claim 1 wherein increasing the rotor diameter comprises:
a) extending (Dalton) each used first wind turbine blade in the radial direction; or
b) providing a plurality of second wind turbine blades and exchanging each used first wind turbine blade for a second wind turbine blade, wherein each second wind turbine blade is longer than each first wind turbine blade in the radial direction.
In reference to claim 7
Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1, wherein increasing the rotor diameter comprises providing a hub extender (Dalton - 10) between the hub and each blade root.
In reference to claim 8
Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the connecting fixture is a retrofitted connecting fixture (note: the term retrofitted does not require and/or imply a particular structural or process limitation).
In reference to claim 12
Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1, wherein each connecting fixture (i.e., the inboard bracing system shown in Ke Figure 1(b)) is attached to a respective blade such that the connection point is located at a radial distance of between 0.25R to 0.55R from the rotor axis (see Ke Figure 1(b)), where R represents half of the second rotor diameter.
In reference to claim 17
Dalton in view of Ke, as combined in the rejection of claim 1, addresses all the limitations of the instant claim (note: all claim limitations are duplicative of limitations in claim 1).
In reference to claim 18
Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The horizontal-axis wind turbine according to Claim 17, wherein the connecting fixture is a retrofitted connecting fixture (note: the term retrofitted does not require and/or imply a particular structural limitation).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke and Fugisang.
In reference to claim 5 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of Claim 2, wherein each second blade comprises a second blade shell (i.e., the exterior of the second blade) comprising an inboard shell section (48)(i.e., a relatively inboard section of the second blade shell) and an outboard shell section (i.e., a relatively outboard section of the second blade shell) connected together, and
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke does not address:
at least part of the inboard shell section is formed of at least part of an inboard portion of a used first blade shell, and/or
at least part of the outboard shell section is formed of at least part of an outboard portion of a used first blade shell.
Fugisang discloses:
a wind turbine blade made from pre-existing blade sections (see par. [0238]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke to include making the second blade shell from a pre-existing blade (i.e., either the shell of first blade or a different blade), as disclosed by Fugisang, for the purpose of reducing cost.
In reference to claim 6
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke and Fugisang addresses:
The method of Claim 5, wherein attaching the connecting fixture to each blade comprises attaching the connecting fixture to both the inboard shell section and the outboard shell section of the respective second blade shell (note: the boundary and/or imaginary line separating inboard shell section and outboard shell section can be considered as coinciding with the connecting fixture, in which case the connecting fixture straddles inboard shell section and outboard shell section).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke and Wang.
In reference to claim 9
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1.
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke does not address:
the connecting fixture extends over a radial extent of between 0.5C and 1.5C, where C represents the chord length of the blade at the connection point.
Wang discloses:
a wind turbine rotor comprising a bracing system, wherein the bracing system includes connecting fixtures (2) attached to the blades that couple with connecting members (3) extending between the blades, wherein the connecting fixtures (2) extend over a radial extent of between 0.5C and 1.5C (see Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke to include embodying the connecting fixture as in Wang for the purpose of ensuring a secure and reliable attachment (due to use of a known structure for this particular purpose).
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke and Jensen.
In reference to claims 10 and 13
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1.
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke does not address:
attaching a connecting fixture to each blade comprises bonding a connecting fixture to each blade using adhesive. (claim 10)
attaching the connecting fixture to a blade comprises overlaminating an inboard edge of the connecting fixture and/or overlaminating an outboard edge of the connecting fixture. (claim 13)
Jensen discloses:
a connection fixture (42) for connecting a wire/cable to a wind turbine blade, the connection fixture being attached to the blade via an adhesive (see col.5:ll.12-15) or overlamination (see col.13:ll.32-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke to include either bonding or overlamination for attaching the connecting fixture to the blade, as disclosed by Jensen, for the purpose of ensuring a secure attachment.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke and Fritz.
In reference to claim 11
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1.
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke does not address:
attaching a connecting fixture to each blade comprises attaching the connecting fixture to the blade using a plurality of fixing members that extend into the blade shell.
Fritz discloses:
a wind turbine blade (see Figure 3) comprising an accessory element (110) that is attached via fixing members (132) that extend in to the blade shell.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke to include embodying the connecting fixture as an accessory that is attached to the blade via fixing members that extend into the blade, as disclosed by Fritz, for the purpose of ensuring secure attachment.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke and Liu.
In reference to claim 15
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1.
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke does not address:
further comprising arranging one or more shim angle adjustment members between the root of each blade and the hub to change an in-plane inclination and/or out-of-plane inclination of each blade.
Liu discloses:
a wind turbine comprising angle adjustment members (7, 3, and 6 - Figure 1) between the blade roots and the hub in order to change the inclination of the blade for purpose of avoiding blade-tower strikes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke to angle adjustment members between each blade and the hub, as disclosed by Liu, for the purpose of decreasing the risk of a blade-tower strike.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke and Hald.
In reference to claim 16
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke addresses:
The method of claim 1.
Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke does not address:
the wind turbine comprises a controller, and wherein the method further comprises upgrading the controller with one or more revised control functions to effect at least one of the following:
a) reduce the rated rotational speed of the rotor;
b) reduce the rated power of the wind turbine;
c) modify the pitch control to limit the maximum thrust on the wind turbine and/or to limit flapwise blade loads;
d) reduce the stop wind speed;
e) modify pitch control by introducing or modifying cyclic and/or individual pitch control as load reduction feature.
Hald discloses:
a wind turbine comprising a wind turbine controller (52), wherein the controller is updated to include reduced rated power settings to avoid a power output that exceeds the maximum limit of a transmission line (see col.11:ll.47-52).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Busbey/Dalton in view of Ke to include a wind turbine controller, as disclosed by Hald, for the purpose of allowing active monitoring/control of the wind turbine, and to include reduced rated power settings in the controller, as further disclosed by Hald, for the purpose of avoiding a power output that exceeds the maximum limit of a transmission line.
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 2 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting of claims 1 and 15, respectively, of co-pending Application No.18/878,599 (hereafter referred to as Nielsen) in view of Doorenspleet et al. (US 7,517,194 - hereafter referred to as Doorenspleet). This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
In reference to claim 2
Although claim 2 of the instant application is not identical to Nielsen claim 1, they are not patentably distinct from one another. The application claim 2 is broader in at least one aspect and includes additional features not claimed in Nielsen claim 1.
Regarding the broadening aspect of the application claim 2, the following comparison between Nielsen claim 1 and the application claim 2 underlines (see underlined features in Nielsen claim 1) what elements have been excluded in the presentation of application claim 2.
Application claim 2 (via claim 1)
Nielsen claim 1
A method of repowering a horizontal-axis wind turbine, the wind turbine comprising a rotor rotatably mounted to a nacelle ), the rotor comprising a plurality of used first wind turbine blades connected to a hub, each blade comprising a blade shell (i.e., the exterior of a blade can be considered as a “shell”), and each blade extending in a radial direction from a blade root to a blade tip and in a chordwise direction (c) between a leading edge and a trailing edge, and the rotor defining a rotor axis and a first rotor diameter, the method comprising:
increasing the rotor diameter such that the rotor defines a second rotor diameter that is greater than the first rotor diameter; The method of Claim 1 wherein increasing the rotor diameter comprises: (note: strike-through text is ignored due to or establishing it as optional) or b) providing a plurality of second wind turbine blades and exchanging each used first wind turbine blade for a second wind turbine blade, wherein each second wind turbine blade is longer than each first wind turbine blade in the radial direction;
attaching a connecting fixture to each blade, each connecting fixture defining a connection point for connecting a blade connecting member to the blade; and
connecting a blade connecting member between corresponding connection points of a pair of wind turbine blades such that each blade is connected to at least one other blade by a blade connecting member.
A method of repowering a horizontal-axis wind turbine comprising a tower, a nacelle located rotatably at an apex of the tower, and a rotor having a hub and at least three used blades mounted pitchably to the hub and extending radially therefrom, the method comprising:
- uninstallinq the at least three used blades from the hub,
- installing at least three repower blades to the hub, each repower blade extending between a root and a tip, and each repower blade further comprising a connection point located between the root and the tip,
- installing a plurality of blade connecting members, each blade connecting member being connected between the corresponding connection points of a pair of the repower blades; and
- installinq a tensioning system with the hub, the tensioning system being configured to adjust a tension in each blade connecting member.
Thus, it is apparent, for the broadening aspect, that Nielsen claim 1 includes features that are not in application claim 2. Following the rationale in In re Goodman, cited above, where applicant has a patent containing a claim for a specific or narrow invention, applicant may not then obtain a patent for a second invention with a claim for a generic or broader invention without first submitting an appropriate terminal disclaimer. Since application claim 2 is anticipated by Nielsen claim 1, with respect to the broadening aspect, and since anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, then application claim 2 is obvious over Nielsen claim 1 with respect to the broadening aspect.
With regards to the additional features, Nielsen claim 1 does not address:
each second wind turbine blade is longer than each first wind turbine blade in the radial direction.
Doorenspleet discloses:
increasing the rotor diameter of a wind turbine by installing larger blades (see col.1:ll.55-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Nielsen claim 1 to include making the repower blades longer than the used blades, as disclosed by Doorenspleet, for the purpose of allow increased energy production.
In reference to claim 17
A comparison (not included for brevity purposes) between application 17 and Nielsen claim 15, as modified by Doorenspleet in the manner presented above in regards to application claim 2, shows correspondence (at least in an In re Goodman fashion).
Citations of Pertinent Art
The following art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Anaya (CN 120936801) discloses a wind turbine blade having a connecting fixture (41).
Garvey (GB 2461753 A) discloses a wind turbine rotor having connecting members extending between blades.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone number is (571)270-3364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-5 PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711