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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/14/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 08/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nies (US 20090169390) in view of Fugslang (US 20120063913) and further in view of Curtin (US 20110142636).
Specifically, the prior art previously presented does not describe the specific span length of the main section being in a range of 60% to 90% of the total blade length.
The applicant further argues that Fugslang does not teach or disclose that the main section is made as a single segment. However, these limitations are provided in an apparatus claim and as such are only limited by the structure imparted by the method. The applicant in paragraph 0020 of the specification of the instant application describes that “In further aspects, the tip section is manufactured as a single segment, the main section is manufactured as a single segment and/or the root section is manufactured as a single segment. "Manufactured as a single segment" means the respective segment is provided as a single part that cannot be disassembled into longitudinal sub-sections. The respective segment therefore must be transported in a single piece. Of course, the respective segment may have been assembled from different parts, for example by bonding two or more shell segments. In general, each of the sections may include any number of sub-segments.”. As such, the limitations “manufactured as a single segment” does not limit the structure of the prior art as being unitary or a single piece, as the applicant specifically states that the single piece segment can be manufactured from multiple segments and that they must be bonded together or attached in some way. The description that the segment must be transported in a single piece does not impart structure on the limitation and while the prior art describes that the part cannot be disassembled into longitudinal sub-sections, this structure could be disassembled into multiple longitudinal segments by destroying or cutting the structure, so this does not impart any structure on the limitations. As Fuglsang shows the segments being attached to each other to form a single blade, the segments can be considered to be manufactured as a single segment and the arguments regarding those limitations are not found to be convincing.
With regards to the argument to claim 18, the examiner agrees that these amendments move the limitations towards a flange, root section, and wind turbine blade sections are moved into the body of the claim and the prior rejection is overcome. However, new prior art and rejections are presented.
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) 1-4, 6-10, 13-15, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies (US 20090169390) in view of Fugslang (US 20120063913) and further in view of Curtin (US 20110142636).
Regarding claim 1, Nies discloses A wind turbine rotor blade (figure 2) comprising:
a main section having an inner end, an outer end, and a main section length (Figure 2, item 10);
a tip section having an inner end, a blade tip, and a tip section length (Figure 2, item 20); said main section length being in a range of 60% to 90% of a total blade length (Paragraph 0034 describes that the root module which is serving as the main section can be between .5 to .75 of the total length of the blade. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05);
said main section being made as a single segment (See discussion of the limitations of the section being made as a single segment above. Figure 2 shows item 20 being a single segment);
said outer end of said main section and said inner end of said tip section each having a cross section shaped as an aerodynamic profile and being configured to be connected to one another (Figures 2-8 show items 10 and 20 having an aerodynamic shape at the connection and being connected to one another); and,
said inner end of said main section having a circular cross section (Figure 2 shows the root being circular.
However, Nies does not explicitly disclose a root section having a blade root, an outer end, and a root section length,
said outer end of said root section and said inner end of said main section being configured to be connected to one another; or
said outer end of said root section having a circular cross-section.
Nies and Fugslang are analogous prior art because both describe segmented wind turbine blades. Fugslang teaches a root section having a blade root, an outer end, and a root section length (Pars. 0098-0099 describes the use of a hub extender that has a root and an outer end), said outer end of said root section and said inner end of said main section being configured to be connected to one another (Pars. 0098-0099 describes the hub extender connects to the radially inner end of the main section); or said outer end of said root section having a circular cross-section (Pars. 0161 and 0210 describe that the root section is circular along its length, meaning that the connection point between the main section and the root section must be circular). Paragraph 0032 describes that the hub extender increases the overall length of the blade which would increase the energy capture of the blade. Further, as both Nies and Fugslang show wind turbine blades with multiple segments and Nies already describes that blade extenders can be used (Par. 0034), the hub extender of Fugslang would provide predictable results if added to the inner end of the blade of Nies. 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 hub extender of Fugslang to the blade of Nies because the hub extender increases the overall length of the blade which would increase the energy capture of the blade (Par. 0032) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
However, The blade of Nies in view of Fugslang does not describe the length of the root section so it is not clear that the blade would provide the required length of the main section. Nies in view of Fugslang and Curtin are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blades that suggest the use of root extensions. Curtin teaches providing a root spacer that can be between 0-20% of the span of the blade (Par. 0029) and suggests that the inclusion of a root spacer increases the effective length of the blade (Par. 0029) which increases the amount of energy the blade can extract from the wind (Par. 0027). Fugslang already describes the possibility of using a hub extender (Paragraphs 0098-0099) that would serve as part of the root section, so providing the length described in Curtin would provide predictable results. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the root section of Nies in view of Fugslang be 0-20% or more of the blade length as described in Curtin because it increases the effective length of the blade and increases the amount of energy that can be extracted by the blade (Curtin Pars. 0027-0029).
Nies describes that the root section can be ¾ of the total blade length with the blade being 60 m. This means that in that scenario, the length of the main section would be 45 m with the length of the tip being 15 m or in the scenario of the root section being ½ of the total length each being 30 m. With the root spacer being between 1-20% of the total blade length (the zero percent is not considered as this would mean no root spacer exists) this would make the root spacer between 0.6 and 12 m. This would change the total length of the blade to be 60.6 m – 72 m and would make the main section anywhere from 74% of the total blade length to 42% of the total blade length. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that the root section has a circular cross section over an entirety of said root section length (Par. 0061 describes the root region being substantially circular and not transitioning until the airfoil region).
Regarding claim 3, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that the root section is at least 5% of a total blade length (Curtin Par. 0029). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that said tip section length is at least one of equal to or smaller than said root section length and smaller than said main section length (See rejection of claim 1 above describing that the tip section can be smaller than the main section length).
Regarding claim 6, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that the tip section is made as a single segment. Nies Figure 2 shows the tip section being one segment and see discussion of these limitations and their interpretation in the response to arguments above.
Regarding claim 7, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that said root section is made as a single segment. Fugslang describes the hub extender as one element and see discussion of these limitations and their interpretation in the response to arguments above.
Regarding claim 8, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches the limitations of claim 1 in the 103 rejection set forth above. However, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin in its current combination does not teach that the root section and said main section are connected via a different connection type than said main section and said tip section.
Curtin teaches providing a flanged and bolted connection (Figure 3, item 110) between a root section and a main section with bolts (Figure 2, item 50) between the two sections to attach them to each other.
As Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin shows an attachment between a cylindrical root section and a main section but does not show the type of attachment, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable attachment structure. Curtin teaches that the flanged and bolted attachment provides a rigid attachment between the segments (Par. 0028). As the current combination of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin shows cylindrical connections between a root and a main blade section, the flanged and bolted structure of Curtin would provide predictable results between the main and root sections of the current combination of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin. 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 flanged and bolted connection of Curtin between the root and main sections of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin because it provides a rigid connection between the segments (Par. 0028) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Nies shows using a male and female connection to connect the tip and main segments (Figure 8) which is different from the flanged connection between the main section and the root section.
Regarding claim 9, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that the outer end of said root section and said inner end of said main section or said outer end of said main section and said inner end of said tip section are configured to be connected to one another by a detachable connection (Curtin Figure 3 item 110 and figure 2 item 50 shows a bolted connection between the root and the main section, which is a detachable connection).
Regarding claim 10, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that the detachable connection is a bolted connection (Curtin Figure 3 item 110 and figure 2 item 50 shows a bolted connection).
Regarding claim 13, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that at least one of said tip section and said main section are made of a fiber reinforced material. The current embodiment provided above does not describe a material to be used to make the blade as Nies is silent to the desired material used. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable material to use for the blade or tips segments. Curtin teaches that the segments can be made of a fiber reinforced material (Par. 0085). As both Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin and Curtin describe segmented wind turbine blades, the use of fiber reinforced material is known for wind turbine blades, and the material is suitable for the blade of Curtin, the fiber reinforced material of Curtin would provide predictable results in the blade of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the fiber reinforced material of Curtin as the material of the wind turbine blade segments of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that the root section is made of at least one of a fiber reinforced material and a metal material (Curtin Par. 0085). See rejection of claim 13 above for the rationale, the same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 15, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches a maximum chord located in said main section (Nies Figure 2 shows the largest chord length of the blade being in item 10)
Regarding claim 17, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches that the root section is assembled from at least two ring-shaped root segments (Fugslang Paragraphs 0098-0099 describe that multiple hub extenders can be used which would create another root segment. Pars. 0161 and 0210 describe that the root section is circular along its length).
Regarding claim 18, Nies discloses A wind turbine rotor blade (figure 2) comprising:
a flange (Figure 2 shows a flange at the inner end);
a main section having an inner end, and outer end, and a main section length (Figure 2, item 10);
a tip section having an inner end, a blade tip, and a tip section length (Figure 2, item 20);
the outer end of the main section and the inner end of the tip section each having a cross section shaped as an aerodynamic profile and being configured to be connected to one another (Figures 2-8 show items 10 and 20 having an aerodynamic shape at the connection and being connected to one another).
However, Nies does not explicitly disclose a root section having a blade root, an outer end, and a root section length;
the outer end of the root section and the inner end of the main section being configured to be connected to one another;
the outer end of the root section and the inner end of the main section having a circular cross section;
said flange defining a circular flange cross section and being configured to be assembled between the root section and the main section; and,
the flange being configured to receive first ends of a plurality of bolts from the root section and the main section, wherein the bolts have second ends configured to be received in the inner end of the main section and the outer end of the blade root so as to form a detachable connection.
Nies and Fugslang are analogous prior art because both describe segmented wind turbine blades. Fugslang teaches a root section having a blade root, an outer end, and a root section length (Pars. 0098-0099 describes the use of a hub extender that has a root and an outer end), said outer end of said root section and said inner end of said main section being configured to be connected to one another (Pars. 0098-0099 describes the hub extender connects to the radially inner end of the main section); or said outer end of said root section having a circular cross-section (Pars. 0161 and 0210 describe that the root section is circular along its length, meaning that the connection point between the main section and the root section must be circular) said flange defining a circular flange cross section and being configured to be assembled between the root section and the main section (Par. 0061 describes the root region being substantially circular and not transitioning until the airfoil region). Paragraph 0032 describes that the hub extender increases the overall length of the blade which would increase the energy capture of the blade. Further, as both Nies and Fugslang show wind turbine blades with multiple segments and Nies already describes that blade extenders can be used (Par. 0034), the hub extender of Fugslang would provide predictable results if added to the inner end of the blade of Nies. 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 hub extender of Fugslang to the blade of Nies because the hub extender increases the overall length of the blade which would increase the energy capture of the blade (Par. 0032) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
However, Nies in view of Fugslang does not explicitly teach the flange being configured to receive first ends of a plurality of bolts from the root section and the main section, wherein the bolts have second ends configured to be received in the inner end of the main section and the outer end of the blade root so as to form a detachable connection.
Nies in view of Fugslang and Curtin are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blades that suggest the use of root extensions. Curtin teaches providing a flanged and bolted connection (Figure 3, item 110) between a root section and a main section with bolts (Figure 2, item 50) between the two sections to attach them to each other.
As Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin shows an attachment between a cylindrical root section and a main section but does not show the type of attachment, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable attachment structure. Curtin teaches that the flanged and bolted attachment provides a rigid attachment between the segments (Par. 0028). As the current combination of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin shows cylindrical connections between a root and a main blade section, the flanged and bolted structure of Curtin would provide predictable results between the main and root sections of the current combination of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin. 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 flanged and bolted connection of Curtin between the root and main sections of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin because it provides a rigid connection between the segments (Par. 0028) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies (US 20090169390) in view of Fugslang (US 20120063913) and further in view of Curtin (US 20110142636) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Guo (CN 113738570).
Regarding claim 11, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches the limitations of claim 8 as set forth in the above 103 rejection but does not explicitly teach that the outer end of said main section and said inner end of said tip section are configured to be connected to one another by an inseparable connection. See claim interpretation discussion above for clarity on the interpretation of an “inseparable connection”.
Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin and Guo are analogous art because both describe connecting segments of wind turbine blades together. Guo teaches using lap glue adhesive, specifically epoxy resin, polyurethane, or silicone to bond the segments of the blades (Pg. 4, lines 55-58 and Pg. 5, lines 1-5).
As Guo teaches using glue in overlapping structures to bond the segments together and Nies shows using overlapping male and female segments to connect the main segment and tip segment, the use of the glue of Guo in the interface of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin would provide predictable results. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the glue of Guo with the male and female connection of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin because combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 12, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin and further in view of Guo teaches that the outer end of said main section and said inner end of said tip section are configured to be connected to one another by a glued connection (Guo Pg. 4, lines 55-58 and Pg. 5, lines 1-5).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies (US 20090169390) in view of Fugslang (US 20120063913) and further in view of Curtin (US 20110142636) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mukherjee (US 20220307465).
Regarding claim 16, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin does not explicitly teach that the blade profile is a flatback profile.
Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin and Mukherjee are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blade structures. Mukherjee teaches a blade with a flatback profile (Figure 5) and describes that the use of a flatback profile has an increased efficiency (Par. 0004) and increased efficiency and reduction in chord length (Pars. 0076-0077). Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the flatback profile of Mukherjee in the wind turbine blade of Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin because the use of a flatback profile has an increased efficiency (Par. 0004) and increased efficiency and reduction in chord length (Pars. 0076-0077).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nies (US 20090169390) in view of Fugslang (US 20120063913) and further in view of Curtin (US 20110142636) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Jacobsen (US 20170045032).
Regarding claim 20, Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin teaches the limitations of claim 18 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, it does not explicitly teach that the main section has first threaded bushings embedded in the inner end of the main section and the root section has second threaded bushings embedded in the outer end of the blade root.
Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin and Jacobsen describe circular connection structures for blade roots. Jacobsen teaches providing threaded bushings embedded into blade sections to connect a root with a radially internal connection structure (Par. 0003). These bolts and bushings provide a strong connection between the blade segments (Par. 0004). As Nies in view of Fugslang and further in view of Curtin already describes a circular flange connection system between the internal flange of the main section and the outer portion of the root and Jacobsen shows the bushings being suitable for circular flange portions, the bushings of Jacobsen would provide predictable results in both the main blade section interior and root exterior of the sections. 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 bushings and bolts of Jacobsen in both the main blade section interior and root section exterior because these bolts and bushings provide a strong connection between the blade segments (Par. 0004) and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is allowed.
Claim 19 is 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: With regards to claim 5, none of the prior art found provided no spar cap or web structure in the tip section of the blade. Spar caps and web structures are normally used inside the blade portions to provide the required stiffness and mechanical properties as the skin alone is normally not strong enough to withstand the stress requirements of the blade. No prior art was found that provided a tip segment without any internal support structures or provided any rationale why it would have been obvious to remove internal supports to not have those structures. As such, it would not have been obvious to modify the existing structures to remove all spar cap and web structures for the prior art.
With regards to claim 19, while the root of the prior art is described to be between 5 and 20% of the total blade length, Nies only describes the tip segment as being at smallest 25% of the total blade length. Even with adding the largest possible root length while still meeting the required main segment measurements, the smallest possible tip length is 20.88% of the overall blade length. As such, the tip length does not meet the required limitations. Nies describes the 25% length of the tip as the smallest desired and even prefers 33% of the length to be the tip for the transportation of the blade segments. Because the base reference specifically does not desire the tip length required and no other prior art found provides the specific combination of percentages, the limitations are allowable. No other prior art was found with these proportions and the proportions have not been found to be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892. The examiner has cited various prior art that shows blades that are longitudinally segmented.
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
