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 .
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “an extrapolation (28e) of the suction surface and an extrapolation”. However, an extrapolation is an estimation based on a mathematical model. Depending on the mathematical model used, the extrapolation would have different profiles. Because claim 1 failed to specify the mathematical model used for the claimed extrapolation, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 3-5 and 13 recite “preferably”. It is unclear if the preferred language is limiting the claim scope or not.
Claim 8 recites “an extrapolation of the suction surface”. However, “an extrapolation of the suction surface” was already recited in claim 1. It is unclear if the extrapolation recited in claim 8 is different extrapolation from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “substantially” which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vedula (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0118058).
As per claim 1, Vedula discloses a flow modifying element for a wind turbine blade, wherein the wind turbine blade (102; figure 2) comprises a blade body having a leading edge, a suction surface, and a pressure surface (as shown; figure 2), wherein the flow modifying element (104, 106) is configured to provide a trailing edge for at least a longitudinal section of the wind turbine blade (as shown; figure 4), wherein the flow modifying element and the blade body form an aerodynamic profile (as shown; figure 4), wherein the flow modifying element comprises: a suction side (160) ; a pressure side (162); a trailing end (158) that provides the trailing edge of the aerodynamic profile (as shown; figure 4); and a pressure surface extending section (150) on the pressure side and configured to extend the pressure surface of the blade body towards the trailing end (as shown; figure 4), wherein the pressure surface extending section is shaped to provide in the aerodynamic profile a pressure side profile section that has a shape of a concave curve and that forms a recessed portion that is recessed from the pressure side towards the suction side of the flow modifying element (as shown; figure 4), wherein the pressure side profile section is shaped to have an apex in the direction of the suction side perpendicular to a chord line (c) of the blade body (see annotated figure 4 below), wherein the apex is located in the direction of the suction side above a center line between an extrapolation of the suction surface and an extrapolation of the pressure surface of the blade body in the profile, and wherein the pressure side profile section has a first part that extends rearwardly and upwardly towards the trailing end and the suction side, reaches the apex and has a second part that extends rearwardly and downwardly towards the trailing end and the pressure side (see annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the pressure surface extending section (150) is configured to meet the pressure surface (114) of the blade body (102) at an obtuse angle, the pressure surface extending section being configured to extend from the pressure surface towards the suction side (as shown; figure 4).
As per claim 4, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the shape of the concave curve of the pressure side profile section is configured to extend from the pressure surface of the blade body to the trailing end, preferably without an inflection point (as shown; figure 4).
As per claim 5, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the flow modifying element further comprises a suction surface extending section (172; figures 4, 5) configured to extend the suction surface of the blade body towards the trailing end (as shown; figures 4, 5), wherein the suction surface extending section is preferably configured to form a continuous surface with the suction surface of the blade body (as shown, ribs 172 appears to form a continuous surface with the suction surface 116; figure 4).
As per claim 6, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the suction surface extending section (172) is shaped to provide in the aerodynamic profile a curved end section that extends towards the trailing end and that bends away from the suction side towards the pressure side (as shown, ribs 172 tapers toward the direction of the pressure side; figures 4, 5).
As per claim 8, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the suction surface extending section is shaped to provide in the aerodynamic profile a suction side profile curve that includes a straight or substantially straight section (ribs 172 shown to be substantially straight; figures 4, 5) that is configured to be tangential to the suction surface of the blade body, or to form a positive or a negative angle with an extrapolation of the suction surface of the blade body (ribs 172 substantially forms an angle relative to the suction side 116 of blade 102; figure 4).
As per claim 10, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the flow modifying element is configured to have a shape that is matched to a thickness of a rear part of the blade body where the flow modifying element is arranged so that the thickness of the aerodynamic profile is continuous at the transition from the blade body to the flow modifying element (as shown, at least ribs 172 is shown to have a thickness substantially the same as trailing edge 120 of blade body 102; figure 4) .
As per claim 11, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the flow modifying element is an add-on element that further comprises a mounting section configured to be mounted to a trailing edge of the blade body (via attachment portion 148 or 248; figures 4, 5, 9), or wherein the flow modifying element and the blade body are formed integrally to form the wind turbine blade (adhesively attached, i.e., integrally formed; paragraph [0035]).
As per claim 12, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 11, and further discloses wherein the mounting section has a rounded shape configured to be mounted to a rounded trailing edge of the blade body (as shown, attachment portion 248 can be rounded to wrap around a rounded trailing edge of blade body 102; figure 9).
As per claim 13, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the wind turbine blade extends in a longitudinal direction from a position at 0%L, at which the wind turbine blade is mountable to a hub of a wind turbine rotor, to a blade tip at a position of 100%L, wherein L corresponds to a length of the blade, wherein the flow modifying element is configured to be provided on the blade body within a longitudinal region between 0%L and 60%L, preferably between 5%L and 50%L, more preferably between 10%L and 40%L (inner chord extender located within 50% of the span length as shown; figure 2; paragraph [0032]).
As per claim 14, Vedula discloses a wind turbine blade (100; figure 2) comprising a blade body (102) having a leading edge, a suction surface, and a pressure surface (as shown; figures 2-4), wherein the wind turbine blade further comprises: a flow modifying element according claim 1, wherein the flow modifying element (104, 106) is mounted to the blade body (as shown; figure 2) or wherein the flow modifying element and the blade body are formed integrally to form the wind turbine blade (chord extender 104 and 106 are adhesively attached to rotor blade 102; paragraph [0035]), wherein the flow modifying element provides a trailing edge for at least a longitudinal section of the wind turbine blade (as shown; figure 2) .
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vedula (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0118058).
As per claim 3, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according to claim 1 and further discloses wherein the pressure side profile section that has the shape of the concave curve has a first tangent in a first point located towards the blade body and has a second tangent at a second point located towards the trailing end (see annotated figure 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
408
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Vedula does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second tangents form an angle that is smaller than 140 degrees, preferably smaller than 120 degrees, more preferably smaller than 100 degrees. Vedula however teaches the angle 166 between the chord line and the straight reference line between the ends of the extension portion ranges from 5 degrees to 30 degrees (paragraph [0041]). Vedula further teaches one or more design characteristics of the chord extender including the shape and the angle of orientation can be varied in order to enhance the operational impact of the extender (paragraph [0021]). Therefore, in order to enhance the operational impact of the extender, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Vedula’s curvature, which determines the angle between the tangents at the two ends, to incorporate an angle less than 140 degrees since Vedula teaches changing the shape or the angle can enhance the operational impact of the extender (paragraph [0021]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vedula in view of Hancock (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0127504).
As per claim 9, Vedula discloses the flow modifying element according toc claim 1. Vedula does not explicitly teach one or more actuators configured to change an extension, an orientation and/or a curvature of the flow modifying element.
Hancock is related prior art in that it deals with a wind turbine blade having a flow modifying element attached to the trailing edge of the blade. Hancock teaches one or more actuators configured to change an extension, an orientation and/or a curvature of the flow modifying element (paragraph [0013]). Hancock teaches the shape modifiable airfoil sections allows to reduce load variations on the blade (paragraph [0006]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Vedula’s flow modifying element to incorporate Hancock’s modifiable airfoil sections actuated via an actuator because as Hancock teaches, the shape modification allows to reduce load variations on the blade.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Claim 7 contains allowable subject matter wherein the suction surface extending section is shaped to provide in the aerodynamic profile an intermediate suction profile section that has a shape of a concave curve and that forms a further recessed portion that is recessed from the suction side towards the pressure side of the flow modifying element and wherein the apex is located in the direction of the suction side above a center line between an extrapolation of the suction surface and an extrapolation of the pressure surface of the blade body in the profile, and wherein the pressure side profile section has a first part that extends rearwardly and upwardly towards the trailing end and the suction side, reaches the apex and has a second part that extends rearwardly and downwardly towards the trailing end and the pressure side (features in claim 1).
In the closest prior art, Vedula, in the embodiment of figure 6, teaches wherein the suction surface extending section is shaped to provide in the aerodynamic profile an intermediate suction profile section that has a shape of a concave curve and that forms a further recessed portion that is recessed from the suction side towards the pressure side of the flow modifying element. However, in this embodiment, it would not have geometric features of claim 1 wherein the apex is located in the direction of the suction side above a center line between an extrapolation of the suction surface and an extrapolation of the pressure surface of the blade body in the profile, and wherein the pressure side profile section has a first part that extends rearwardly and upwardly towards the trailing end and the suction side, reaches the apex and has a second part that extends rearwardly and downwardly towards the trailing end and the pressure side.
In another prior art, Chang (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0224024) teaches a flow modifying element having a suction surface extending section that has a concave curve that forms a recess (figure 2A). However, that profile causes the pressure side to be convex and such geometry would not have all required geometric features of claim 1.
In another prior art, Kneissl (U.S. Patent No. 11,719,224) teaches a flow modifying element with a suction side forming a recess. However, Kneissl fails to teach a suction surface extending section that extends from the suction side of the blade body.
No relevant prior art off record sufficiently teaches the allowable subject matter in such a way that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior arts to create the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sloth (WIPO Publication WO 2011/157849) teaches a flow modifying element forming a concave recess at the pressure side.
Tobin (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0024631) teaches a flow modifying element at the trailing edge that forms a recess and extends from a pressure side of the wind turbine blade.
Dixon (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0050154) teaches a flow modifying element at the trailing edge of the blade to reduce noise from Karman vortex streets.
Grasso (U.S. Patent No. 11,136,958) teaches a curved trailing edge flow modifying element.
Zamora Rodgriguez (U.S. Patent No. 10,495,056) teaches also teaches a curved trailing edge flow modifying element.
In a non-prior art, Enevoldsen (U.S. Patent No. 12,577,935) teaches an active flap having a curvature with an apex above the chord line. However, Enevoldsen was filed after the effective filing date of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
