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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 07/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“stiffness-structure” throughout the specification should read “stiffness structure”.
“interlocking-system” throughout the specification should read “interlocking system”.
“fiber-structure” throughout the specification should read “fiber structure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Active flap” in Claim 1, Line 1 should read “An active flap”.
“relatively” in Claim 1, Line 4 should read “relative”.
“Active flap” in Claims 2-8, Line 1 should read “The active flap”.
“stiffness-structure” in Claim 4, Line 3 should read “stiffness structure”.
“interlocking-system” in Claim 5, Line 3 and Claim 9, Line 5 should read “interlocking system”.
“fiber-structure” in Claim 6, Line 4 should read “fiber structure”.
“Active flap system” in Claim 9, Line 1 should read “An active flap system”.
“an active flap” in Claim 9, Line 2 should read “the active flap”.
“Blade” in Claim 11, Line 1 should read “The blade”.
“a wind turbine” in Claim 11, Line 1 should read “the wind turbine”.
“Blade” in Claim 13, Line 1 should read “The blade”.
“a wind turbine” in Claim 13, Line 1 should read “the wind turbine”.
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 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.
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 3 and 7 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 7, the limitation “a/the hook” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is introducing a hook and referring to an earlier claimed hook, and if the latter, to which hook is the limitation referring, since Claim 1 (upon which Claim 7 depends) fails to disclose a hook of the extension means.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stiesdal (US Patent No: 8,251,656).
Regarding Claim 1: Stiesdal discloses an active flap (Figures 3-4, No. 9) for a blade (Figure 1, No. 1) of a wind turbine, comprising an upper part (12) configured to connect the active flap to an interface positioned at the blade (Column 4, Lines 2-5 – portion of the blade on which the flap is positioned), a lower part (13) configured to move relatively to the upper part (Column 4, Lines 12-13), an adjustment means (16) arranged in an openable cavity (15) between the upper part and the lower part (Figures 3-4), configured to reversibly provoke a movement of the lower part (Column 4, Lines 16-18), and a hinge part (14; Column 4, Line 4) configured to connect the lower part to the upper part (Figures 3-4; Column 4, Lines 12-13), wherein the adjustment means is connected to the upper part and the lower part (Figures 3-4), and wherein the upper part comprises an extension means (Figures 3-4 – portion of upper part 12 covering cavity 15) detachably mounted to the lower part and configured to open (20) the openable cavity (Figures 3-4 – extension means is mounted to the lower part 13 via the rest of upper part 12 and hinge part 14 and is detachable from the lower part in that it forms opening 20 with lower part 13).
Regarding Claim 3: Stiesdal discloses the active flap according to Claim 1, wherein the hinge part is elastically deformable (Column 4, Lines 32-34).
Regarding Claim 6: Stiesdal discloses the active flap according to Claim 1, wherein the extension means of the upper part is at least partially reinforced with at least one fiber structure (Column 4, Lines 27-30).
Regarding Claim 8: Stiesdal discloses the active flap according to Claim 1, wherein the adjustment means comprises an inflatable bladder (Figures 3-4; Column 4, Lines 18-20 & 38-43).
Regarding Claim 11: Stiesdal discloses the blade (1) for the wind turbine (Column 1, Line 14) comprising at least one active flap (9) according to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiesdal in view of Enevoldsen (EP 3128169 A1).
Regarding Claim 2: Stiesdal discloses the active flap according to Claim 1; however, Stiesdal fails to disclose the extension means comprising a hook and the lower part comprising a recess configured to hold the hook.
[AltContent: textbox (Extension Means)]Enevoldsen teaches an active flap (Figures 4-7, No. 40) comprising an upper part (11) with an extension means (see below) and a lower part (13, 30), wherein the extension means comprises a hook (see below) and the lower part comprising a recess configured to hold the hook (see below).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recess)][AltContent: textbox (Hook)]
PNG
media_image1.png
160
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the active flap of Stiesdal with a hook and recess, as taught by Enevoldsen, for the purpose of providing a smoother transition between he extension means and lower part, thus helping to avoid the generation of vortices on the flap surface (Figures 4-7; Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 5: Stiesdal discloses the active flap according to Claim 1; however, Stiesdal fails to disclose the upper part comprising an interlocking system to connect the adjustment means to the upper part.
Enevoldsen teaches an active flap (Figures 4-7, No. 40) comprising an upper part (11) and an adjustment means (14), wherein the upper part comprises an interlocking system (41) to connect the adjustment means to the upper part (Figures 4-7; Paragraph [0059]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the active flap of Stiesdal with an interlocking system, as taught by Enevoldsen, for the purpose of preventing relative sliding of the adjustment means relative to the remaining structure of the active flap (Paragraph [0059]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiesdal in view of Hancock (US Patent No: 8,517,682).
Regarding Claim 4: Stiesdal discloses the active flap according to Claim 4; however, Stiesdal fails to disclose the lower part comprising at least one stiffness structure.
Hancock teaches an active flap (Figure 3, No. 106) comprising an upper part (part of flap near skin 122) and a lower part (part of flap near skin 120), wherein the lower part comprises at least one stiffness structure (134).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the lower part of the active flap of Stiesdal with at least one stiffness structure, as taught by Hancock, for the purpose of further reinforcing the lower part and thus the active flap while still ensuring the active flap is able to bend to allow the blade shape to change (Column 4, Lines 52-54; Column 7, Lines 5-9).
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiesdal in view of Enevoldsen (EP 3913212 A1).
Regarding Claim 9: Stiesdal discloses an active flap system comprising the active flap according to Claim 1; however, Stiesdal fails to disclose an interface configured to be fixed at the blade, wherein the upper part of the active flap is removably connected to the interface via at least one interlocking system.
Enevoldsen teaches an active flap system comprising an active flap (Figures 21-23, No. 300) for a wind turbine blade (Figure 1, No. 6), the active flap comprising an upper part (upper part of 309), a lower part (lower part of 309), and an interface (305) configured to be fixed at the blade (Figures 21-23; Paragraph [0067]), wherein the upper part of the active flap is removably connected to the interface via at least one interlocking system (Figure 22, No. 327, 329, 331, 335).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the active flap system of Stiesdal with an interface configured to be fixed at the blade, wherein the upper part of the active flap is removably connected to the interface via at least one interlocking system, as taught by Enevoldsen, for the purpose of providing additional room for accommodating the adjustment means (Paragraph [0067]).
Regarding Claim 13: Stiesdal, as modified by Enevoldsen, discloses the blade (Stiesdal: 1) for the wind turbine (Stiesdal: Column 1, Line 14), further comprising at least one active flap system of Claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiesdal and Enevoldsen ‘212 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Enevoldsen ‘169.
Regarding Claim 10: Stiesdal, as modified by Enevoldsen ‘212, discloses the active flap system according to Claim 9; however, Stiesdal fails to disclose a static part attached to the lower part of the active flap, wherein the static part is configured to be adapted for an aerodynamic parameter.
Enevoldsen ‘169 teaches an active flap (Figures 4-7, No. 40) comprising an upper part (11) and a lower part (13), wherein a static part (30) is attached to the lower part and is configured to be adapted for an aerodynamic parameter (Paragraphs [0052]-[0053]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the active flap system of Stiesdal, as modified by Enevoldsen ‘212, with a static part, as taught by Enevoldsen ‘169, for the purpose of providing a further degree of freedom to the active flap (Paragraph [0056]).
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: The prior art fails to disclose an active flap as claimed in Claim 1, wherein a/the hook of the extension means of the upper part comprises a ball joint.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L SEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3564. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM-6 PM, every other Friday off.
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.
/MICHAEL L SEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
