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 May 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that both group I and group II require a wind turbine blade and would therefore a search of group I would encompass a search of group II. This is not found persuasive as the examiner finds that different search strategies are required as discussed in the requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 May 18, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of A-I, B-II, C-II, D-I, E-II, F-II, G-IV, H-I, I-I, J-I, K-I, L-I, M-IV, N-I, O-I, P-III, Q-I, R-IV, S-I, T-I in the reply filed on May 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
No arguments are made with regard to this election. Therefore, these elections are made without traverse.
Claims 6-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species as defined by the election groups in the requirement of December 18, 2025, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 18, 2026. (
Claim 6 requires that the flow enhancing components comprise multi-element airfoils, and surface mounted elements. The elected overall wind turbine blade configuration of A-I (Figure 5) only has multi-element airfoils and no surface mounted elements (leading edge elements / surface mounted flaps according the disclosure). Claims dependent from claim 6 are therefore also withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the linear profile of the predetermined structure that monotonically tapers down from the root region to the tip region of claim 3 must be shown or the feature canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “wherein the blade body comprises a pressure side and a suction side joining at a leading edge, and a trailing edge”. The comma is not grammatically correct and should be removed.
Claim 1 recites, “wherein the blade body comprises a pressure side and a suction side joining at a leading edge, and a trailing edge, the blade body longitudinally extending from a root region beginning from a proximal end of the blade body and extending up to a predetermined first length of the blade body, to a tip region beginning from a distal end of the blade body and extending up to a predetermined second length of the blade body, through a transition region extending between and joining the root region and the tip region”. Because of the presentation of the claim, it is unclear that the blade body longitudinally extends from a root region to a tip region through a transition region. This is because it is not clear where one concept begins and another concepts ends. For example it may be read that the blade body extends longitudinally from a root region (beginning from a proximal end of the blade body and extending up) to a predetermined first length of the blade body.
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 1-5 and 20 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, “wherein the predetermined structure is fail-safe under a predetermined operating condition”. First, it is unclear what is considered safe? There is no definition in the specification or agreed upon definition of safe for wind turbine blades. What is considered “safe” by one person / entity may be considered not safe by another. The term “safe” in the claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “safe” 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. Additionally, the conditions impact what may be considered safe or not. For example, a wind turbine blade may be safe in winds up to 100 mph. Whether this is safe or not depends on the environment and operating conditions. This leads to the next aspect of indefiniteness for this limitation. The claimed “predetermined operating condition” that the blade is safe under is completely open to interpretation and variable, see MPEP 2173.05(b) II. This leads to what is considered “safe” to be indefinite because what is “safe” is at least dependent on the condition. Furthermore, it is unclear what “fail-safe” means. Is the overall wind turbine safe if the predetermined structure fails? Is the wind turbine blade itself safe if the predetermined structure fails. Is the predetermined structure safe if something else fails. The claim language does not specify which of these or other interpretations is appropriate. Based on the above, no structural requirements of the predetermined structure can be determined.
Claim 1 recites, “a plurality of flow enhancing components physically coupled to the blade body and configured to enhance a plurality of aerodynamic flow characteristics of the blade body”. Flow characteristics are numerical quantities that can be used to analyze objects. The term “enhance” is subjective and is relative to a designer’s goal or purpose, see MPEP 2173.05(b) IV. It is noted that even aerodynamic flow characteristics that typically want to be minimized such as drag may in other situations want to be maximized in other situtations. It is also noted that this limitation is also a functional limitation and has no clear structural requirements associated with it and is indefinite for this reason as well, see MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the predetermined structure comprises a substantially cylindrical or circular or elliptical or eccentric body of revolution cross-section beginning from the root region up to a predetermined length of the blade body in the direction of the tip region.” The term “eccentric body of revolution” is not a term of art and is not defined by the specification. Eccentricity is defined in mathematics as related to conic sections. In the specification (406) is described as an eccentric body of revolution but does not appear related to conic sections. It is unclear the metes and bounds of this term. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “eccentric body of revolution” in claim 2 is used by the claim to mean related to the shape of 406, while the accepted meaning is not defined because it is unclear how “eccentric” (eccentricity is related to shape of conical sections) is related to a body of revolution (for example, what axis).” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 4 recites, “wherein the flow enhancing components are adapted to the predetermined structure of the blade body for an assembly-based manufacturing of the wind turbine rotor blade.” The limitation is both a product-by-process limitation and a functional limitation, see MPE 2113 I and MPEP 2173.05(g). As product-by-process claim is only limited to the structure implied by the steps. In combination with this, it is unclear what physical features make something achieve the function of being adapted to assembly-based manufacturing while simultaneously not actually requiring that it be assembly-based manufactured.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the flow enhancing components compensate for a performance of the predetermined structure of the blade body under the predetermined operating condition”. Similar to a rationale discussed with regard to claim 1 above, the claimed “predetermined operating condition” is completely open to interpretation and is variable, see MPEP 2173.05(b) II. This leads to the functional requirement of the flow enhancing component compensating for a performance of the predetermined structure of the blade body to be indefinite as it is dependent on this variable condition. The functional language itself is also indefinite as well it has no clear structural requirements associated with it see MPEP 2173.05(g). Additionally, it is unclear the compensation requires. The claim states that the flow enhancing components compensate for a performance of the predetermined structure of the blade body (under the predetermeined operating condition). It is unclear if this compensation is relative to the performance of the predetermined structure itself or relative to blade without the predetermined structure.
Claims dependent from the claims discussed are also rejected due to their dependency.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grabau (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20090232656) hereinafter Grabau.
Regarding claim 1, Grabau discloses:
A wind turbine blade {Figures 9A-C, whole structure shown; [0001]/[0040]} comprising:
a blade body having a shape that generates a lift when impacted by an incident airflow {Figures 9A-C, this is implicitly a function of a wind turbine blade as this is the mechanism used for the turbine to rotate, see MPEP 2144.01. See also [0004]},
wherein the blade body comprises a pressure side and a suction side joining at a leading edge, and a trailing edge {Figure 9C, the blade body has a pressure side on the lower surface of 93 and 103 and suction side on the upper surface of 93 and 103. The pressure side and suction side are joined at a leading edge on the left side of the figure and a trailing edge at the right side of the figure},
the blade body longitudinally extending {Figure 9A, the blade body extends longitudinally left to right in the figure}:
from a root region {Figure 9A, a region on the left end of the blade may be considered the root region}
beginning from a proximal end of the blade body and extending up to a predetermined first length of the blade body {Figure 9A, the root region may extend for a first length which is not further defined and is therefore open to interpretation how long the first length is},
to a tip region {Figure 9A, a region on the right end of the blade may be considered the tip region}
beginning from a distal end of the blade body and extending up to a predetermined second length of the blade body {Figure 9A, the tip region begins at the right end of the blade and extends up to a second length of the blade body which is not further defined and is therefore open to interpretation how long the second length is},
through a transition region {Figure 9A, the region not considered the root region or tip region may be considered the transition region}
extending between and joining the root region and the tip region {Figure 9A, the root region is defined from the left and the tip is defined from the right end; therefore the transition region is always extending between},
the blade body comprising a predetermined structure {Figures 9A-C, any portion of the blade body shown may be considered a predetermined structure},
wherein the predetermined structure is fail-safe under a predetermined operating condition {See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above. For purposes of examination, this limitation is presumed inherent as it is a functional limitation and the structure of the reference is substantially identical to the claimed structure, see MPEP 2112.01}; and
a plurality of flow enhancing components physically coupled to the blade body and configured to enhance a plurality of aerodynamic flow characteristics of the blade body {Figures 9A-C, (15) and (16) are considered flow enhancing components physically coupled to the blade body that is the central main portion of the blade. The extra surface area generates more lift, see [0004] and is therefore considered flow enhancing}.
Regarding claim 2, Grabau further discloses:
wherein the predetermined structure comprises a substantially cylindrical or circular or elliptical or eccentric body of revolution cross-section beginning from the root region up to a predetermined length of the blade body in the direction of the tip region {See 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. The predetermined structure may be considered (22), (7), (8), (9), and (10) until the end of (17). The cross-section may be considered an eccentric body of revolution and begins from the root region up to a predetermined length of the blade body towards the tip region}.
Regarding claim 3, Grabau further discloses:
wherein the predetermined structure comprises a substantially linear profile that monotonically tapers down from the root region to the tip region, through the transition region {Figure 9A, the predetermined structure where (9) and (10) in particular be seen to have a monotonic taper from the root to tip region and linear profile}.
Regarding claim 4, Grabau further discloses:
wherein the flow enhancing components are adapted to the predetermined structure of the blade body for an assembly-based manufacturing of the wind turbine rotor blade {Figures 9A/C, the flow enhancing components of (15) and (16) are attached via (18) to the predetermined structure described in claim 3. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above}.
Regarding claim 5, Grabau further discloses:
wherein the flow enhancing components compensate for a performance of the predetermined structure of the blade body under the predetermined operating condition {See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above. For purposes of examination, this limitation is presumed inherent as it is a functional limitation and the structure of the reference is substantially identical to the claimed structure, see MPEP 2112.01}.
Regarding claim 20, Grabau further discloses:
A wind turbine comprising one or more turbine blades {[0001], the blade is for a wind turbine with at least one or more blades},
the one or more wind turbine blades comprising the blade body and the plurality of flow enhancing components of claim 1 {See claim 1. Figures 9A-C show one turbine blade with the blade body and plurality of flow enhancing components of claim 1. It is also implicit that this blade design can be used on a wind turbine comprising multiple blades (although not required by the claim)}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fuglsang et al (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20110020128) teaches an additional airfoil shape at the root of a wind turbine blade, where the main blade has a circular cross-section.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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 5712703508. 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 K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights