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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2- 14 each recite “a wind turbine blade in line 1. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the wind turbine blade” since it is previously recited.
Claim 2 recites “one or more carbon fibre yarns and/or tows” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “one or more of the carbon fibre yarns and/or tow material” since it is previously recited.
Claim 3 recites “the carbon fibre yarns and/or tows” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the carbon fibre yarns and/or tow material” since it is previously recited.
Claim 5 recites “the blade” in line 2. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the wind turbine blade” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 7 recites “the blade” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the wind turbine blade” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 8 recites “heating” in line 7. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the heating” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 8 recites “electrical power” in line 8. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the electrical power” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 12 recites “as described in claim 1” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it seems like it should be removed since the claim depends from claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “power source” in line 7. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the power source” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 13 recites “heating” in line 7. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the heating” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 14 recites “electrical power” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the electrical power” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 15 recites “heating” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “the heating” since it is previously recited as such.
Claim 15 recites “the vicinity” in line 4. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “a vicinity” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
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 1-15 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 “a substantially spanwise direction” in line 10. The term “substantially” 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 3 recites the phrase "such as" in line 2 and 4. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites “a substantially sinusoidal fashion” in line 4. The term “substantially” 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 9 recites the phrase "such as" in line 2. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the phrase "such as" in line 6. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites the phrase "such as" in line 6. This renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2, 4-8, 10-12, and 14 depend off of an indefinite claim, therefore rendering these claims indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzner et al. US 20150023792 in view of Roed et al. US 20220049683.
Regarding claim 1, Spitzner discloses: A wind turbine blade (Fig 1: 11) having
a suction side shell portion (Fig 1: Back side of blade away from the wind) and a pressure side shell portion (Fig 1: Front side of blade against the wind), each shell portion extending between a leading edge (Leading edge is where 2 is located) of the wind turbine blade and a trailing edge (Trailing edge is the opposite side of 2) of the wind turbine blade, the wind turbine blade extending along a longitudinal axis from a root end (Fig 1: where reference 112 is located) of the wind turbine blade to a tip end (Fig 1: where reference 113 is located) of the wind turbine blade, the wind turbine blade comprising:
- a leading-edge heating element (2) extending along at least a portion of the leading edge of the wind turbine blade (2 extends along the leading edge), the leading-edge heating element being configured for deicing a corresponding portion of an exterior surface of the leading edge (Par 65).
However, Spitzner is silent as to:
- a first plurality of heating strips, each heating strip of the first plurality of heating strips extending in a substantially spanwise direction of the wind turbine blade,
the first plurality of heating strips forming part of a first shell portion of the wind turbine blade,
the first plurality of heating strips being embedded inside the first shell portion or positioned such that they are exposed to an inside of the wind turbine blade, wherein the first shell portion is the pressure side shell portion or the suction side shell portion,
the first plurality of heating strips being spaced apart from one another and from the leading-edge heating strip in a chordwise direction, each heating strip having a first end and a second end, the first end being closer to the tip end than the second end, each heating strip comprising carbon-fibre yarn and/or tow material, and
- a power source configured to provide electrical power to each of the first plurality of heating strips in order to generate heating in said each strip, said heating being generated by the carbon-fibre yarn and/or tow material.
From the same field of endeavor, Roed teaches:
- a first plurality of heating strips (Fig 3: 32), each heating strip of the first plurality of heating strips extending in a substantially spanwise direction of the wind turbine blade (32 extends in the spanwise direction),
the first plurality of heating strips forming part of a first shell portion of the wind turbine blade (32 is on the pressure side shell),
the first plurality of heating strips being embedded inside the first shell portion or positioned such that they are exposed to an inside of the wind turbine blade (Par 61),
wherein the first shell portion is the pressure side shell portion or the suction side shell portion (32 is on the pressure side shell),
the first plurality of heating strips being spaced apart from one another and from the leading-edge in a chordwise direction (32 are spaced from one another and from the leading edge in the chordwise direction), each heating strip having a first end and a second end, the first end being closer to the tip end than the second end (32 has a first end closer to the tip and a second end away from the tip),
each heating strip comprising carbon-fibre yarn and/or tow material (Par 31), and
- a power source (55) configured to provide electrical power to each of the first plurality of heating strips in order to generate heating in said each strip (Par 48),
said heating being generated by the carbon-fibre yarn and/or tow material (Par 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the blade surface with the leading edge heating device of Spitzner to have and work with the heating devices on the shell surface and control system that is taught by Roed to efficiently decrease ice accumulation on the blade (Par 2) by being able to apply power in a stepless manner to the whole blade (abstract).
The combination would result in: the first plurality of heating strips being spaced apart from the leading-edge heating strip in a chordwise direction.
Regarding claim 5, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where Roed teaches:
wherein a length of each heating strip is at most 80% of a length of the blade from the root end to the tip end (Fig 3: 32 is less than 80% of the length).
Regarding claim 6, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where Roed teaches:
wherein the heating generated by at least one heating strip of the first plurality of heating strips can be controlled independently of the heating generated by another heating strip of the first plurality of heating strips (Par 39: 37 selects which heating device).
Regarding claim 7, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where Roed teaches:
wherein a total extent of the first plurality of heating strips in a chordwise direction at a first position along the longitudinal axis of the blade is at least 50% of a chord length at the first position (Fig 3: 32s extend over 50% of the chord length).
Regarding claim 11, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where Roed teaches:
wherein in a direction from the leading edge to the trailing edge, a length of each of the first plurality of heating strips is at most as long or shorter than a preceding heating strip of the first plurality of heating strips (Fig 3: 32 are just as long as each preceding heating strip).
Regarding claim 14, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where Roed teaches:
- providing electrical power to each of the heating strips in the first plurality of heating strips to generate heat in the heating strips (Par 39: 37 selects which heating device).
Claims 2 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzner et al. US 20150023792 and Roed et al. US 20220049683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rauch et al. US 5971323.
Regarding claim 2, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein one or more of the first plurality of heating strips comprise one or more carbon fibre yarns and/or tows extending from the first end to the second end of the heating strip.
From the same field of endeavor, Rauch teaches:
wherein one or more of the first plurality of heating strips comprise one or more carbon fibre yarns and/or tows extending from the first end to the second end of the heating strip (Col 3, line 29-33: Carbon fibers run longitudinally along the span of the blade).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roed’s heating elements to have the carbon fibers run longitudinally along the span of the blade as taught by Rauch to allow for uniform heating (Col 1, line 30-42).
Regarding claim 8, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein the first end of each heating strip of the first plurality of heating strips abuts a respective first metallic mesh and the second end of each heating strip abuts a respective second metallic mesh, whereby the respective first metallic mesh and the respective second metallic mesh are electrically connected to one another via the heating strip, and wherein the respective first metallic mesh and the respective second metallic mesh are connected to the power source to allow heating to be generated in the heating strip by providing electrical power to the heating strip.
From the same field of endeavor, Rauch teaches:
wherein the first end of each heating strip of the first plurality of heating strips abuts a respective first metallic mesh (Fig 3A: 46 abuts 30) and the second end of each heating strip abuts a respective second metallic mesh (Second end of the full element abuts 31), whereby the respective first metallic mesh and the respective second metallic mesh are electrically connected to one another via the heating strip, and wherein the respective first metallic mesh and the respective second metallic mesh are connected to the power source to allow heating to be generated in the heating strip by providing electrical power to the heating strip(Col 3, line 35-40: Carbon resistive elements are formed in a metal sheath that is a mesh and connected to 27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roed’s heating elements to have the sheath that connects the leads to the carbon heating element as taught by Rauch to ensure electrical contact (Col 3, line 41-44).
Regarding claim 9, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
metallic mesh, such as copper mesh, arranged between the heating strips and the outer surface of the first shell portion.
From the same field of endeavor, Rauch teaches:
metallic mesh, such as copper mesh, arranged between the heating strips and the outer surface of the first shell portion (Col 3, line 35-40: Carbon resistive elements are formed in a metal sheath that is a mesh).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roed’s heating elements to have the sheath that connects the leads to the carbon heating element as taught by Rauch to ensure electrical contact (Col 3, line 41-44).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzner et al. US 20150023792 and Roed et al. US 20220049683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clemens US 20150204311.
Regarding claim 3, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein one or more of the carbon fibre yarns and/or tows, such as all the carbon fibre yarns and/or tows, extend from the first end to the second end of the respective heating strip in an undulating fashion, such as in a substantially sinusoidal fashion.
From the same field of endeavor, Clemens teaches:
wherein one or more of the carbon fibre yarns and/or tows, such as all the carbon fibre yarns and/or tows, extend from the first end to the second end of the respective heating strip in an undulating fashion, such as in a substantially sinusoidal fashion (Fig 1; Par 55: Carbon fiber strings are sine wave oscillating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roed’s heating elements to have the Carbon fiber strings are sine wave oscillating as taught by Clemens to allow for the energy input to increase relative to the blade surface (Par 55).
Regarding claim 4, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to
wherein one or more of the first plurality of heating strips comprises unidirectional carbon fibre material or biaxial fibre material for generating the heating.
From the same field of endeavor, Clemens teaches:
wherein one or more of the first plurality of heating strips comprises unidirectional carbon fibre material or biaxial fibre material for generating the heating (Fig 1; Par 55: Carbon fiber strings are sine wave oscillating).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roed’s heating elements to have the Carbon fiber strings are sine wave oscillating as taught by Clemens to allow for the energy input to increase relative to the blade surface (Par 55).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzner et al. US 20150023792 and Roed et al. US 20220049683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buggy et al. US 20190003463.
Regarding claim 10, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein the first plurality of heating strips comprises a first heating strip and a second heating strip, wherein the first heating strip is closer to the leading edge than the second heating strip and wherein the first heating strip is longer than the second heating strip.
From the same field of endeavor, Buggy teaches:
Multiple zones (Fig 5C) for selective heating (Par 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roed’s method of selectively picking which heating element to use with using the heating elements to heat each different sized zone as taught by Buggy to sufficiently and effectively heat the blade surface in differing environmental conditions in an efficient manner (Par 8).
The combination would result in: wherein the first plurality of heating strips comprises a first heating strip and a second heating strip, wherein the first heating strip is closer to the leading edge than the second heating strip and wherein the first heating strip is longer than the second heating strip.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzner et al. US 20150023792 and Roed et al. US 20220049683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lindskog US 20240410341.
Regarding claim 12, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
wherein both the suction side shell portion and the pressure side portion comprises a plurality of heating strips.
From the same field of endeavor, Lindskog teaches:
wherein both the suction side shell portion and the pressure side portion comprises a plurality of heating strips (Par 68: Heating mat on both pressure and suction side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roed’s heating elements to be located on both sides of the blades as taught by Lindskog to deice both sides of the blade while keeping energy consumption down (Par 67).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzner et al. US 20150023792 and Roed et al. US 20220049683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hansen et al. US 20240254972.
Regarding claim 13, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
- laying up, in a first mould, material for forming the first shell portion, including laying up fibre material, the leading-edge heating element, and the first plurality of heating strips,
- embedding the laid-up material in a resin, such as by resin infusion, and
- connecting each of the heating strips to a power source to allow heating to be provided in each of the heating strips by applying a voltage across each heating strip.
From the same field of endeavor, Hansen teaches:
- laying up, in a first mould, material for forming the first shell portion, including laying up fibre material, the leading-edge heating element, and the first plurality of heating strips, - embedding the laid-up material in a resin, such as by resin infusion, and - connecting each of the heating strips to a power source to allow heating to be provided in each of the heating strips by applying a voltage across each heating strip (Par 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the blade of Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1 to be made by a mold infusing and curing manufacturing method as taught by Hansen to allow for the embedding of the heating elements that reduces the number of connection interfaces (Par 32).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spitzner et al. US 20150023792 and Roed et al. US 20220049683 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. US 20210180571.
Regarding claim 15, Spitzner as modified by Roed in the rejection of claim 1, where Roed teaches:
wherein the heating in said heating strip is reduced or switched off when a level of icing in the vicinity of said heating strip has been reduced to below a threshold, such as been removed entirely in the vicinity of the heating strip (Par 45: Mode selector 37 is configured to cover different zones of the blade and can select which heating device).
However, they are silent as to:
wherein the heat generated in each of the heating strips is controlled based on an image of the blade surface obtained from a vision system,
wherein heating is provided in a particular heating strip if it is determined, based on the image from the vision system, that deicing is required in the vicinity of said heating strip.
From the same endeavor, Yang teaches:
an image of the blade surface obtained from a vision system (Fig 1: S10, S20, S30, S40),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Roed’s control system to use the ice detection system of Yang to automatically detect and determine if ice is on the blade (Par 7) and allow for continued operation of the turbine (Par 4).
The combination would result in: wherein the heat generated in each of the heating strips is controlled based on an image of the blade surface obtained from a vision system, wherein heating is provided in a particular heating strip if it is determined, based on the image from the vision system, that deicing is required in the vicinity of said heating strip.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Spandley et al. US 11965487 and March Nomen US 11773828 discloses a electro thermal heating element similar to applicants. Bessiere et al. US 5947418 discloses a similar mesh system as applicants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
