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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 18 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because examination requires employing different search strategies and search queries, and the examination burden is not limited exclusively to a prior art search but also includes the effort required to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection. Multiple inventions, such as those in the present application, require additional reference material and further discussion for each additional feature addressed. Concurrent examination of the multiple inventions claimed would thus involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive, which they are not. See MPEP 808.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 18 November 2025.
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) 1-4 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fan (CN 115614233).
Regarding claim 1, Fan discloses A wind turbine comprising:
a rotor blade (Pg. 1, lines 16-18);
an electrical system embedded in said rotor blade (Pg. 4, lines 5-19 describes an electrical heating and lightning protection system within a blade);
at least one switchable connection between said electrical system and ground; and, said at least one switchable connection being controllably switchable between an open state and a closed state so that: when said at least one switchable connection is in said closed state, the electrical system is grounded, and, when said at least one switchable connection is in said open state, said electrical system is not grounded. Pg. 8, lines 25-59 describes two switches 15 and 16 that provide a closed system where the system is connected to the ground when the system is not heating and an open state where the heating system is connected and the electrical system is not grounded.
Regarding claim 2, Fan discloses that said electrical system includes a blade heating system for preventing accumulation of ice on said rotor blade (Pg. 6, lines 44-60 and Pg. 7, lines 4-43 describes the various heating systems).
Regarding claim 3, Fan discloses that said electrical system includes a first main conductor securely disposed on a suction side of said rotor blade and a second main conductor securely disposed on a pressure side of said rotor blade; and, said at least one switchable connection is electrically coupled to at least one of: said first main conductor and a ground terminal, and, said second main conductor and said ground terminal. Figure 6 shows and Pg. 7, lines 40-59 describes that the various heating assemblies can be arranged along the thickness of the blade, meaning one is provided on the suction side and another is on the pressure side. Further, Pg. 8, lines 25-40 describes that the heating system is used to direct lightning current conduction, meaning that during the lightning conduction state the heating system is used as conductors which provides a first conductor on the pressure side and a second conductor on the pressure side.
Regarding claim 4, Fan discloses that said electrical system includes a blade heating system for preventing accumulation of ice on said rotor blade; and, during operation, said heating system is supplied with power via said first main conductor and said second main conductor. See rejection of claim 3 above which describes that each of the heaters is used as conductors when the heaters are not operating so the heaters are powered by the conductors as shown in Figures 1 and 2. Pg. 7, lines 18-30 and 45-59 describes the heating elements being used to melt ice.
Regarding claim 14, Fan discloses A wind turbine comprising:
a rotor blade (Pg. 1, lines 16-18);
an electrical system embedded in said rotor blade (Pg. 4, lines 5-19 describes an electrical heating and lightning protection system within a blade);
at least one switchable connection between said electrical system and ground; and,
said at least one switchable connection being controllably switchable between an open state and a closed state so that when said at least one switchable connection is in said closed state, the electrical system is grounded, and,
when said at least one switchable connection is in said open state, said electrical system is not grounded (Pg. 8, lines 25-59 describes two switches 15 and 16 that provide a closed system where the system is connected to the ground when the system is not heating and an open state where the heating system is connected and the electrical system is not grounded);
a control device including a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon (Pg. 5, lines 8-18 and pg. 8,lines 42-59);
said program code being configured, when executed by said processor, to:
determine first information which is representative of whether said electrical system is to be operated or is to be stopped if already in operation;
generate a first control signal for said at least one switchable connection, which is configured to switch said at least one switchable connection into said open state if the first information is representative that said electrical system is to be operated; and,
generate a second control signal for said at least one switchable connection, which is configured to switch said at least one switchable connection into said closed state if the first information is representative that operation of said electrical system is to be stopped (Pg. 8, lines 25-59 describes operation of the switches to be opened or closed depending on the lightning protection capability which are controlled by the processor and controller and allows for the switching between the two).
Regarding claim 15, Fan discloses that the program code is configured, when executed by said processor, to generate the first control signal and the second control signal repeatedly and alternatingly. Pg. 8, lines 25-59 describes operation of the switches to be opened or closed depending on the lightning protection capability which are controlled by the processor and controller and allows for the switching between the two. As the signal provides opening and closing of the switches, these signals are repeated and alternating each time they are activated so the program provides repeated and alternating controls.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 115614233) in view of Omura (JP 2010223148).
Regarding claim 5, Fan discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Fan does not explicitly disclose at least one needle electrode extending from a trailing edge of said rotor blade.
Fan and Omura are analogous prior art because both describe lightning protection systems for wind turbine blades. Omura teaches at least one needle electrode extending from a trailing edge of the rotor blade (Figures 1 and 2, item 5 as described in paragraph 0015). Omura paragraphs 0011-0012describes the needle electrodes 5 attached to the trailing edge and that the system allows for the lightning energy to be isolated to ground voltage much more quickly (Par. 0014) and protects the blade tip (Par. 0010). As Omura describes connecting the lightining system and electrodes with the existing receptors in the blade (Pars. 0011-0012) and Fan already describes using the heating system as a conductive element within the blade to ground the system, the lightning protection system and trailing edge electrodes of Omura would provide predictable results if added to the wind turbine blade of Fan. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the blade tip lightning protection system and trailing edge electrodes of Omura into the wind turbine blade of Fan because the system allows for the lightning energy to be isolated to ground voltage much more quickly (Par. 0014) and protects the blade tip (Par. 0010) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan (CN 115614233) in view of Myhr (US 20100119370).
Regarding claim 16, Fan discloses the limitations of claim 15 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Fan does not explicitly disclose that the program code is configured, when executed by said processor, to set, during icing conditions, a time interval from generating the first control signal to generating the second control signal being longer than a time interval from generating the second control signal to generating the next first control signal.
Fan and Myhr are analogous prior art because both describe lightning protection and ice protection systems for wind turbine blades. Myhr describes shutting down the turbine systems and processor units to prevent lightning strikes for a pre-determined period of time (Pars. 0153-0156) when lightning is sensed and operating the turbine and systems normally otherwise. Thereby, the second signal is related to the shut down of the turbine and only exists for a predetermined time when not operating as compared to the first signal where the turbine runs during normal operation. As such, when the lightning is only a threat for a short period and the turbine is operating normally otherwise, it is possible for the second control signal time to be shorter than the first control signal time as the system would normally operate for longer than it is shut down. Fan already describes shutting down the heating elements and grounding the blade during lightning risks (Pg. 8, lines 25-59) and Myhr describes that auxiliary systems can be shut down in response to the lightning (Par. 0155), so the defined time period and control signals of Myhr would provide predictable results in the turbine of Fan. Further, Myhr describes that the sensors and systems allow for prevention of lightning risk for the turbine while allowing the system to operate normally when the turbine is not a risk (Pars. 0153-0156). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the lightning sensors and defined shutdown time periods of Myhr in the wind turbine of Fan because the sensors and systems allow for prevention of lightning risk for the turbine while allowing the system to operate normally when the turbine is not a risk (Pars. 0153-0156) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 17, Fan in view of Myhr teaches that lengths of the time intervals are predetermined (Myhr Pars. 0153-0156).
Regarding claim 18, Fan discloses the limitations of claim 14 but does not explicitly disclose that the program code is configured, when executed by said processor, to: provide second information which is representative of electrostatic charge formation in the rotor blade; and, determine the first information depending on the second information.
Fan and Myhr are analogous prior art because both describe lightning protection and ice protection systems for wind turbine blades. Myhr describes shutting down the turbine systems and processor units to prevent lightning strikes for a pre-determined period of time (Pars. 0153-0156) when lightning is sensed and operating the turbine and systems normally otherwise. Myhr further describes that lightning sensors measure the electrical current and/or voltage (Par. 0153) which provides electrostatic charge formation measurements in the sensors, which are a part of the turbine blade. Fan already describes shutting down the heating elements and grounding the blade during lightning risks (Pg. 8, lines 25-59) and Myhr describes that auxiliary systems can be shut down in response to the lightning (Par. 0155), so the control signals of Myhr would provide predictable results in the turbine of Fan. Further, Myhr describes that the sensors and systems allow for prevention of lightning risk for the turbine while allowing the system to operate normally when the turbine is not a risk (Pars. 0153-0156). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the lightning sensors and controls of Myhr in the wind turbine of Fan because the sensors and systems allow for prevention of lightning risk for the turbine while allowing the system to operate normally when the turbine is not a risk (Pars. 0153-0156) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745