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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the regions of Fugslang are not physically separate blade sections but instead are design modules to form a continuous molded wind turbine blade. However, this is only determined with speculation from Fugslang. While Fugslang describes this as a blade design it never explicitly mentions that this is only a design and not an application with separate sections of a physical part. Further, where Fugslang mentions that the sections are connected to one another, the applicant makes an assumption that putting “connected” in quotations means it is only a conceptual connection and not an actual connection. This is not convincing and is an extreme assumption of the prior art not backed up by any supporting evidence in the art. The figures of Fugslang showing clear separating lines of the sections is sufficient support to provide disclosure of separate physical sections. Further, the applicant then admits that Fugslang does discuss a physical separation of the blades after stating that the design is for a conceptual separation and a single formed blade. The applicant argues that only one version of this separation exists, which is disputed by the exact paragraph 0098 they point to, which describes that the blade can be a root section, the first longitudinal segment, and a tip section and then further adds that another fourth section of an extender section can be added. This shows that these four separate segments of Figure 5 that the examiner had pointed to can be formed of separate pieces. As such, the arguments are not found to be convincing and the rejections are maintained.
With regards to claim 18 the applicant argues that the structures provided in the preamble are limiting because they limit the structure of the flange. The examiner disagrees, as the body of the claim is only related to the flange and not to the other segments of the wind turbine blade. If the applicant wants these limitations to be further limiting they should be moved to the body of the claim.
Claim Interpretation
With regards to claims 11 and 12, the specification of the instant application (Paragraphs 0021 and 0023) provides a glued or adhesive connection as the only described inseparable connection. As such, the breadth of an inseparable connection of claim 11 is being interpreted to include a glued or adhesive connection.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 13-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fugslang (US 20120063913).
Regarding claim 1, Fugslang discloses A wind turbine rotor blade comprising:
a root section having a blade root, an outer end, and a root section length (Figure 9, item 130);
a main section having an inner end, an outer end, and a main section length (Figure 9, items 132 and 141 combine to form the main section);
a tip section having an inner end, a blade tip, and a tip section length (Figure 9, item 136);
said outer end of said root section and said inner end of said main section being configured to be connected to one another (Figure 9 shows the inner part of 132 being connected to the outer part of 130);
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 (Par. 0219 describes that the main section and tip section are part of the airfoil section which means that both have aerodynamic profiles. Figure 9 shows the tip 136 being connected to the main section); and,
said outer end of said root section and said inner end of said main 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).
Regarding claim 2, Fugslang discloses 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 4, Fugslang discloses 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. This requires only one of the tip section length being equal to or smaller than the root section length and smaller than the main section length because of the “at least one of” limitation. Fugslang Paragraph 0087 describes just the section 140 being at least 60-75% of the airfoil length, meaning that the tip can be at most 25-40% of the airfoil length and the tip section must be smaller than the main section as the main section includes the first longitudinal segment.
Regarding claim 6, Fugslang discloses that the tip section is made as a single segment. This is a product by process limitation and as such the limitations are only defined by the structure they impart. As there is no specific structure imparted by being made as a single segment (making could include the bonding and connecting of segments to make one single segment), there are no specific structural limitations imparted by the claim limitations. See MPEP 2113. Figure 9 shows item 130 being one segment.
Regarding claim 7, Fugslang discloses that at least one of said main section and said root section is made as a single segment. This is a product by process limitation and as such the limitations are only defined by the structure they impart. As there is no specific structure imparted by being made as a single segment (making could include the bonding and connecting of segments to make one single segment), there are no specific structural limitations imparted by the claim limitations. See MPEP 2113. Figure 9 shows item 136 being one segment and items 132 and 141 combine to form a single main segment.
Regarding claim 13, Fugslang discloses that at least one of said tip section and said main section are made of a fiber reinforced material (Par. 0085).
Regarding claim 14, Fugslang discloses that the root section is made of at least one of a fiber reinforced material and a metal material (Par. 0085).
Regarding claim 15, Fugslang discloses that a maximum chord located in said main section (Figure 9 shows the maximum chord being located in the main airfoil section that includes both 132 and 141).
Regarding claim 17, Fugslang discloses that the root section is assembled from at least two ring-shaped root segments (Paragraphs 0098-0099 describe that 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).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curtin (US 20110142636).
Regarding claim 18, Curtin discloses A flange of a wind turbine rotor blade including a root section having a blade root, an outer end, and a root section length; the wind turbine rotor blade further including a main section having an inner end, an outer end, and a main section length; the wind turbine rotor blade further including a tip section having an inner end, a blade tip, and a tip 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 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; and, the outer end of the root section and the inner end of the main section having a circular cross section (Each of these limitations is recited in the preamble of the claim and as such are considered intended use limitations and only impart the structure that is positively recited in the body of the claim. As the limitations relating to the shape of the blade and segment structures are not positively recited in the body of the claim, they are disclosed by Curtin. All limitations in the body of the claim are addressed below. See MPEP 2111.02), the flange comprising:
a flange body defining a circular flange cross section and being configured to be assembled between the root section and the main section (Figure 3, item 110 shows a flange between the root section 104 and the main section 38. Figure 3 shows this to be circular which is also shown in Figure 4, item 116 and discussed in paragraph 0030); and,
said flange body 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 (Figure 3, items 114 shows bolt holes that accept bolts 50 into each of the flanges to form a detachable connection between the main and root sections).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugslang (US 20120063913) in view of Curtin (US 20110142636).
Regarding claim 3, Fugslang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Fugslang does not explicitly disclose that the root section length is at least 5 % of a total blade length.
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 greater than about 20% of the span of the rotor 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 Fugslang be 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).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugslang (US 20120063913) in view of Razeghi (EP 4174310).
Regarding claim 5, Fugslang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Fugslang does not explicitly disclose the internal structure of the rotor and thereby does not disclose at least one of a spar cap and a shear web having an outer end; and, wherein said tip section length is selected such that said outer end of said at least one of said spar cap and said shear web is arranged within said main section and said tip section does not include said at least one of said spar cap and said shear web.
Fugslang and Razeghi are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blade structures with segments along the length. Razeghi teaches a blade main segment (52) having shear webs (40 and 42) that extend through the main section with spar caps (86 and 92) and a female spar part (62) which does not extend into the tip section. While the tip segment includes a male spar part 71 to attach to the first segment, this is a different spar structure and the first spar and web of the main blade segment does not extend into the tip section. The details can be seen in Figure 6 and described in paragraphs 0056-0060.
While Fugslang Figure 3 shows the tip section being attached to the main section, it does not show how they are attached or the internal structure so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable internal structure of the main portion and connection with the tip section. Razeghi describes that the connection between the main segment and tip segment provides necessary strength for joining with minimal impact on the blade performance (Par. 0006) and the inclusion of the spars and webs provide structural support for the blade (Par. 0003) and bear the load of the blade (Par. 0005). As both Razeghi and Fugslang show connecting a main blade section with an outer blade tip, the connection structure and spar layout of Razeghi would provide predictable results in the segmented blade of Fugslang. 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 attachment structure and blade spar structure of Razeghi in the interface between the main and tip sections of the blade and main blade internals of Fugslang because the connection between the main segment and tip segment provides necessary strength for joining with minimal impact on the blade performance (Par. 0006) and the inclusion of the spars and webs provide structural support for the blade (Par. 0003) and bear the load of the blade (Par. 0005) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugslang (US 20120063913) in view of Razeghi (EP 4174310) and further in view of Curtin (US 20110142636).
Regarding claim 8, Fugslang discloses the limitations of claim 1 in the 102 rejection set forth above. However, Fugslang does not disclose or teach how any of the segments are connected to each other and as such does not disclose that the root section and said main section are connected via a different connection type than said main section and said tip section.
Fugslang and Razeghi are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blade structures with segments along the length. Razeghi teaches a connection structure between the tip segment and the main segment using a male to female connection that allows for an overlap between the main and tip segments and a pinned structure (Par. 0059). The details can be seen in Figure 6 and described in paragraphs 0056-0060.
Razeghi describes that the connection between the main segment and tip segment provides necessary strength for joining with minimal impact on the blade performance (Par. 0006) and the inclusion of the spars and webs provide structural support for the blade (Par. 0003) and bear the load of the blade (Par. 0005). As both Razeghi and Fugslang show connecting a main blade section with an outer blade tip, the connection structure of Razeghi would provide predictable results in the segmented blade of Fugslang. 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 male to female attachment structure of Razeghi in the interface between the main and tip sections of the blade of Fugslang because the connection between the main segment and tip segment provides necessary strength for joining with minimal impact on the blade performance (Par. 0006) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
However, Fugslang in view of Razeghi does not teach the connection between the root section and the main section. Fugslang in view of Razeghi and Curtin are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine blades with circular root structures and segmented connections. 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 Fugslang in view of Razeghi 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 both Fugslang in view of Razeghi and Curtin show 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 Fugslang in view of Razeghi. 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 Fugslang in view of Razeghi 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).
Regarding claim 9, Fugslang in view of Razeghi 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, Fugslang in view of Razeghi 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).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fugslang (US 20120063913) in view of Razeghi (EP 4174310) 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, Fugslang in view of Razeghi 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”.
Fugslang in view of Razeghi 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). Curtin teaches using glue between portions of the blade (Par. 0068) but does not explicitly teach the glue being used between the male and female portions to attach the tip and the main section. However, Curtin mentioning the use of glue between the portions means that glue is suitable to work with the materials and structure and would provide predictable results. Further, Curtin mentions that other means known in the art to connect the two portions may be used instead of the pin joint (Par. 0059).
As Fugslang in view of Razeghi and further in view of Curtin shows the glue is suitable to be used in the blade and Guo teaches using glue in overlapping structures to bond the segments together, the use of the glue of Guo in the interface of Fugslang in view of Razeghi 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 in place of the pin connection of Fugslang in view of Razeghi and further in view of Curtin because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Fugslang in view of Razeghi 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 Fugslang (US 20120063913) in view of Mukherjee (US 20220307465).
Regarding claim 16, Fugslang discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Fugslang does not explicitly disclose that the blade profile is a flatback profile.
Fugslang 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 Fugslang because the use of a flatback profile has an increased efficiency (Par. 0004) and increased efficiency and reduction in chord length (Pars. 0076-0077)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights