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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “stiffening element” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thomsen (US2014/0064870).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Thomsen teaches a method for transporting a wind turbine blade, comprising: a) providing a blade (12) with a compliant portion (generally 46) forming a flexure hinge (the blade flexes around concave side 46, generally indicated by the perpendicular line to cable 21) for being bent around a bending axis (13) arranged perpendicular to a length direction of the blade, b) transporting the blade along a curved transportation path (14), wherein the flexure hinge is bent according to a curvature of the transportation path (see Fig. 8), and c) reinforcing the compliant portion (the bent portion is reinforced with covers 24).
Regarding claim 3, Thomsen teaches the blade comprises at least two blade portions (generally 3, 23) connected to each other by the flexure hinge, the flexure hinge being configured to move the blade portions relative to each other by bending the flexure hinge around the bending axis (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 4, Thomsen teaches during transporting the blade, the blade portions are moved relative to each other by bending the flexure hinge according to the curvature of the transportation path (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 5, Thomsen teaches the bending axis is arranged perpendicular or parallel to a chord line of the blade (see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Thomsen teaches the compliant portion and/or a remaining structure of the blade includes at least one beam, spar cap and/or shear web of the blade.
Regarding claim 8, Thomsen teaches the compliant portion and/or a remaining structure of the blade includes a pressure side shell (46) or a suction side shell of the blade.
Regarding claim 10, Thomsen teaches the compliant portion is arranged at a distance from a root portion of the blade (3) of at least 10% of a blade length (the remaining limitations are considered optional).
Regarding claim 11, Thomsen teaches reinforcing the compliant portion includes arranging one or more pre-cast elements (24) in the compliant portion and joining the one or more pre-cast elements with a remaining structure and/or a recessed structure of the blade.
Regarding claim 14, Thomsen teaches fixing a stiffening element (24) at the blade for temporarily stiffening the compliant portion for lifting and/or handling the blade, and/or removing the stiffening element before step b).
Regarding claim 15, Thomsen teaches a deflection of the flexure hinge is monitored during transporting the blade.
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 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 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 2, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen in view of Alvarez Redondo et al. (US2023/0374970).
Regarding claims 2, 7 and 9, Thomsen teaches the blade comprises a remaining structure extending throughout the compliant portion, but fails to teach a recessed structure having at least one recess in the compliant portion, wherein the blade comprises a recessed structure having at least one recess in the compliant portion, and the recessed structure includes a shell, pressure side shell and/or suction side shell of the blade, wherein the blade comprises a recessed structure having at least one recess in the compliant portion, and the recessed structure includes a shear web and/or a spar cap of the blade.
In an analogous art, Alvarez teaches a wind turbine blade. Alvarez teaches a gap (between portions 13, 14 and filled by fairing plate 24, see Fig. 3) forming a recessed structure, the recessed structure including a shell (24), the recessed structure including a spar (15, 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the blade of Thomsen and change it so that the blade comprises a remaining structure extending throughout the compliant portion, but fails to teach a recessed structure having at least one recess in the compliant portion, wherein the blade comprises a recessed structure having at least one recess in the compliant portion, and the recessed structure includes a shell, pressure side shell and/or suction side shell of the blade, wherein the blade comprises a recessed structure having at least one recess in the compliant portion, and the recessed structure includes a shear web and/or a spar cap of the blade as taught by Alvarez to allow the blade to be formed in multiple segments.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the PTO-892 for a list of references related to wind turbine transport.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
