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(s) submitted September 15, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 2 recites “the one or more apertures” which should be changed to “the at least one aperture” to be consistent with claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6, 8, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0051914 to Dehlsen.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Dehlsen teaches:
A pitch controlled wind turbine comprising a tower (4), a nacelle (1) mounted on the tower, a hub (18) mounted rotatably on the nacelle, and at least three wind turbine blades (50, 52, 54, 56, 58), wherein each wind turbine blade extends between a root end (radially inward end attached to hub) connected to the hub via a pitch mechanism (not shown, see paragraph 32), and a tip end (radially outward end of blade); the wind turbine further comprising:
at least three blade connecting members (40, 42, 44, 46, 48), each blade connecting member extending from a connection point (64, 66, 68, 70) on one wind turbine blade towards a connection point on a neighbouring wind turbine blade, where the connection point on a given wind turbine blade is arranged at a distance (length between root and collar 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 on the respective blade) from the root end and at a distance (length between tip and collar 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 on the respective blade) from the tip end of the wind turbine blade;
wherein each wind turbine blade comprises a leading edge (front end of each blade), a leading edge extension (anchoring plates in collars 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17, see Figure 5), and a blade shell (outer skin of each blade) defining a suction side (top surface of each blade) and a pressure side (bottom surface of each blade) around the blade,
wherein the leading edge extension extends forward of the leading edge (see Figure 5), and the connection point of the respective wind turbine blade is located forward of the leading edge and adjacent the pressure side on the leading edge extension, and each wind turbine blade further comprises a respective fairing (collars 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17) extending over at least the leading edge extension,
wherein the fairing has a profile which is twisted nose down with respect to a profile of the blade shell adjacent the fairing (see paragraphs 28-33, 37, and Figures 1, 3-5).
Regarding the fairing, Dehlsen teaches the aerodynamic shell can pitch with respect to the collars (paragraph 33). When the shell pitches upward, the collar points downward with respect to the shell. Therefore, the fairing is considered to have a profile which is twisted nose down with respect to a profile of the blade shell.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2#
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 1, wherein each wind turbine blade has a trailing edge (downstream end of blade) and the respective fairing extends at least up to the trailing edge (see Figure 5).
In Reference to Claim 3#
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 2, wherein the fairing extends beyond the trailing edge, wherein the fairing has a width, and a portion of the fairing extending beyond the trailing edge has a width-wise taper. Figure 5 shows the fairing extends further downstream than the trailing edge of the blade and tapers to a point at the trailing edge of the fairing.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 1, wherein the fairing profile is an aerofoil profile (see Figure 5), and the fairing aerofoil profile has a different shape than an aerofoil profile of the blade shell adjacent the fairing (paragraph 37). Figure 5 shows the fairing has an aerodynamic profile which is larger than the profile of the blade shell. By being larger, the fairing profile has a different shape than the aerofoil profile of the blade shell.
In Reference to Claim 6#
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 1, wherein the fairing profile has a thickness distribution (see Figure 5), and the thickness distribution of the fairing is different than a thickness distribution of the profile of the blade shell adjacent the fairing. Figure 5 shows the fairing is thicker than blade shell and tapers in thickness towards the trailing edge. Thus, the fairing profile has a thickness distribution which is different than the thickness distribution of the profile of the blade shell.
In Reference to Claim 8#
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 1, wherein the respective fairing has at least one aperture (not shown), wherein at least one of the blade connecting members extends from the connection point on the leading edge extension covered by the fairing and through the aperture towards the connection point on the neighbouring wind turbine blade. Figure 4 shows the connecting members (lateral stays 40, 48) which are connected to anchoring plates of each fairing. Figure 5 shows the connecting member attached to the fairing (collar 17). The collars surround the anchoring plates (paragraph 37, lines 1-4). Thus, there is inherently an aperture for the connecting member in the fairing in order for the connecting member to be secured to the anchoring plate.
In Reference to Claim 12#
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 1, wherein the respective fairing has an inboard side (radially inner face) facing towards the root end of the wind turbine blade, and an outboard side (radially outer face) facing towards the tip end of the wind turbine blade, wherein a portion of the inboard side of the fairing which extends over the leading edge extension is substantially planar, wherein the substantially planar portion of the fairing is aligned with a chord of the blade shell adjacent the fairing. Figure 5 shows the inboard side of the fairing extends approximately linearly from the leading edge to the trailing edge. The examiner considers the inboard side to be “substantially planar”.
In Reference to Claim 13#
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 12, wherein the outboard side of the fairing is curved opposite the substantially planar portion of the fairing. The radially outer side of the fairing is curved, see Figure 5.
In Reference to Claim 14#
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 1, wherein the wind turbine blades each comprise an inboard blade part (8, 10, 12, 14, 16) comprising the root end and an outboard blade part (50, 52, 54, 56, 58) comprising the tip end, the inboard blade part and the outboard blade part being connected to each other at a split position (region having fairings 9, 11, 13, 15, 17), and wherein the inboard blade part is joined to the outboard blade part by a connection joint, the connection joint comprising a connector (65), wherein the leading edge extension is integrally formed with the connector, and wherein the fairing covers the connection joint, wherein the fairing is secured to the connector (see paragraphs 30-31, and Figures 3 and 4).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0051914 to Dehlsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of case law.
In Reference to Claim 5
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 1, wherein the fairing profile has a camber distribution (fairing is an aerofoil shape which has a camber profile).
Dehlsen fails to teach:
The camber distribution of the fairing is different than a camber distribution of the profile of the blade shell.
The Court has held that a configuration can be a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), see MPEP §2144.04 Changes in Shape for further clarification).
In In re Dailey, the applicant claimed a nursing container with a collapsible bottom so that air is not admitted into the container when contents are drained and the configuration of the top and bottom portions of the container are “a portion of a sphere less than a hemisphere.” The cited prior art taught the nursing container with the collapsible bottom, but not the “less than a hemisphere” configuration. The Court decided that the configuration of the container is “a mere matter of choice” not significantly novel over the prior art.
In the instant application, Dehlsen teaches the fairing and blade shell both have camber distributions, but is silent regarding them being different.
There is a reasonable expectation of success of forming the fairing with a different camber profile than the blade shell because the camber profile of a shell affects the aerodynamics of the blade. While the fairing is desired to house the connection members, the blade shell adjacent to the fairing can be desired to improve the aerodynamics of the blade, which improves the power generation capability of the wind turbine.
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 wind turbine of Dehlsen by shaping the fairing to have a different camber profile than the blade shell adjacent to the fairing in view of case law for the purpose of improving the aerodynamic performance of the blade and improving the power generation capability of the wind turbine.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0051914 to Dehlsen as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 12,066,003 to Nielsen.
In Reference to Claim 9
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 8, comprising the at least one aperture.
Dehlsen fails to teach:
The at least one aperture is substantially ovoid, and/or elongate and/or kidney-shaped.
Nielsen teaches:
A wind turbine (1) comprising a wind turbine blade (5) having a shell with an aperture (13) for a connecting member (6), wherein the aperture is elongate (see column 12, lines 4-25 and Figures 7 and 8).
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 wind turbine of Dehlsen by re-shaping the aperture to be elongate as taught by Nielsen for the purpose of avoiding the wind turbine blade from colliding with the connecting member while pitching (column 12, lines 14-17 of Nielsen).
Claim(s) 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0051914 to Dehlsen as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of WO 2022/167131 to Nielsen.
In Reference to Claim 11
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 8 comprising the one or more apertures around the blade connecting members.
Dehlsen fails to teach:
The one or more apertures are covered or sealed around the one or more blade connecting members.
Nielsen teaches:
A wind turbine (10) comprising a blade (20) having an aperture (140), wherein the aperture is sealed (via glue) (see page 8, lines 16-17).
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 wind turbine blade of Dehlsen by sealing the one or more apertures using glue as taught by Nielsen for the purpose of preventing dirt and debris from entering the blade through the aperture.
In Reference to Claim 18
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 1 comprising the fairing.
Dehlsen fails to teach:
The fairing is sealed to the blade shell.
Nielsen teaches:
A wind turbine (10) comprising a blade (20) having an aperture (140), wherein the aperture is sealed (via glue) (see page 8, lines 16-17).
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 wind turbine blade of Dehlsen by sealing the blade shell using glue as taught by Nielsen for the purpose of preventing dirt and debris from entering the blade through the aperture.
When modifying the wind turbine blade of Dehlsen with the teachings of Nielsen, each opening would be sealed with glue, including any gaps between the fairing and blade shell.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0051914 to Dehlsen as applied to claim 14, and further in view of US 4,236,873 to Sherman.
In Reference to Claim 15
Dehlsen teaches:
The pitch controlled wind turbine of claim 14 comprising the connector. The connector of Dehlsen is a thrust bearing which maintains the blade longitudinally (paragraph 37, lines 8-14).
Dehlsen fails to teach:
The connector is a metallic component.
Sherman teaches:
A wind turbine blade (10) comprising a component (inner and outer sleeves 14, 16) which maintain the blade longitudinally by absorbing loads, and wherein the component is a metallic component (steel) (column 3, lines 18-21).
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 wind turbine of Dehlsen by forming the component of a metallic material as taught by Sherman for the purpose of having the desired material properties, such as a high strength to absorb blade loading and maintain the blade longitudinally.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 10, 16, and 17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach each wind turbine blade is coupled to two of the blade connecting members from respective connection points which are adjacent to each other on the same leading edge extension as recited in claims 7 and 10. Dehlsen teaches two blade connecting members for each blade, however each blade has one connecting member at the leading edge and the other at the trailing edge, and therefore Dehlsen fails to teach the connecting points are adjacent to each other on the same leading edge extension as claimed.
The prior art of record fails to teach the connector is coupled to transfer load between a spar cap portion of the inboard blade part and a spar cap portion of the outboard blade part as recited in claim 16. While Dehlsen teaches the connector maintains the blades longitudinally and Sherman teaches the connector transfers loads, neither art mentions coupling the connector to a spar cap portion.
The prior art of record fails to teach the connector extends outside the profile of the blade shell as recited in claim 17. The connector of Dehlsen is entirely within the profile of the blade shell and fairing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0309625 to Dehlsen teaches a wind turbine comprising connection members between blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights