DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a separately filed document (see MPEP 502.03 II):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is CHRISTOPHER.LEGENDRE@USPTO.GOV.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 28 April 2026 with respect to the specification been fully considered and are deemed to overcome the previous objection(s).
Applicant’s amendments filed 28 April 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered. Any claim objections and/or 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections not repeated herein are considered to be overcome by the amendments.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 28 April 2026 stating “Nor is ‘individual blade performance capability’ an inherently subjective construct, as alleged” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that “individual blade performance capability” is not a recognized term of art nor does it describe an objective measurement - rather, it is a term/concept coined by Applicant and, thus, a construct.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 28 April 2026 stating “Here, the specification provides exactly the type of qualitative and exemplary disclosure that demonstrates possession: the comparison is made between test loads and additional test loads and/or reference loads, and the resulting blade-specific capability is assessed from that comparison… It is not a free-floating opinion; it is a blade-specific quantity or characterization describing the ability of a corresponding rotor blade to convert wind power into partial rotational power, and the specification gives concrete examples of how that capability may be represented, including efficiency and percentage relative to a reference blade. See paragraphs [0054]-[0055]” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that, (1) in the case of “blade performance capability” representing an “efficiency”, there is no description of how “efficiency” is determined from a comparison (note: “efficiency” is a term of art that relates to a physical phenomenon and, thus, must be determined from physically measured variables, and cannot be determined by a “comparison”), and (2) in the case of “blade performance capability” representing a “percentage relative to a reference blade”, there is no mention of the metric(s)/parameter(s) by which “percentage” is calculated.
Applicant's remarks/arguments filed 28 April 2026 stating “Paragraph [0091] further discloses that individual blade performance capability may be derived from a load signal, including from an impact load sensor without using a swivel load sensor” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that, (1) in the case of “blade performance capability” representing an “efficiency”, there is no description of how the referenced loads are used to determine an “efficiency”, and (2) in the case of “blade performance capability” representing a “percentage relative to a reference blade”, there is no description of what constitutes a “percentage relative to a reference blade” and/or how such is determined in the context of a measured load(s)
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 28 April 2026 stating “With respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the examiner asserts that "individual blade performance capability" is indistinguishable from "individual blade power." That is incorrect. As now expressly set forth in amended claim 1, the former describes a capability of the blade, whereas the latter denotes an amount of power converted by the blade. The specification is consistent with that distinction: the capability is a blade-specific characterization derived from comparison and/or load signals, while the power is the actual partial rotational power attributable to the blade under given operating conditions. The fact that related quantities may be derived from overlapping operating data does not render the terms indefinite; it simply reflects that both quantities concern operation of the same physical rotor blade” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that both “individual blade performance capability” and “individual blade power” are defined with respect to the outcome of “convert power from wind into a partial rotational power for rotating the rotor”, the only difference being that the former is a capability and the latter is realized (i.e., “converted”) - however, in the context of a wind turbine blade, there is no distinction between a “capability” and its actual performance, since performance is just the realization of the blade’s capability. Accordingly, these terms describe the same concept, thereby rendering indefinite what it means to determine one but not the other (as permitted by “at least one of an individual blade performance capability or an individual blade power is determined”).
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 28 April 2026 stating “This is analogous in some respects to Diamond v. Diehr, where the Supreme Court explained that a claim does not become ineligible merely because it uses a mathematical formula, and that the claim there was "not merely a mathematical formula" but a process for curing rubber” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the issue in Diamond v. Diehr is substantially different and, thus, not deemed relevant to the instant claims - i.e., in Diamond v. Diehr, the claimed process resulted in a molded article, whereas the instant claimed process results in a determined parameter(s).
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 28 April 2026 stating “As in Thales, claim 1 applies physical measurements from a specific machine arrangement to improve technical operation, rather than claiming the underlying mathematics itself” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that the instant claims result in the mere determination of a parameter(s), which is not an improvement in technical operation.
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 28 April 2026 stating “That is a concrete technical improvement in the validation and operation of wind power installations”, with reference to SiRF, CardioNet, and USPTO Example 40 have been fully considered. According to MPEP 2106.05(a), "the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology". The Office respectfully notes that the instant claims are directed towards data collection and determination of a parameter(s) from such data - accordingly, there is no improvement to “validation” and/or “operation” of wind power installations reflected in the claims. The determined parameter(s) are not claimed as being used in any manner in any “validation” or “operation”. The additional steps of claim 7 merely further relate to data collection and the parameter(s) determination.
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed 28 April 2026 stating “Claim 1 does not merely gather data and report a result. The ordered combination recites, among other things, operating the wind power installation in a test mode with differently configured rotor blades, recording blade-specific test loads, comparing those loads against additional test loads or reference loads, and using the result to determine blade-specific performance capability” have been fully considered. The Office respectfully notes that “operating the wind power installation in a test mode with differently configured rotor blades, recording blade-specific test loads” is mere data acquisition and “comparing those loads against additional test loads or reference loads, and using the result to determine blade-specific performance capability” is mere parameter(s) determination.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 18, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, 4th line from bottom, a comma should be added after “humidity”.
In claim 18, the indent on the lines having the clause “the determination of the individual blade power…” should be reduced (since it does not further limit “determination of the individual blade power is repeated for at least one or more of:”.
In claim 19, the indent on the lines having the clause “the determination of the individual blade power…” should be reduced (since it does not further limit “determination of the individual blade power is repeated for at least one or more of:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
Step 2A, prong 1 - claim 1 recite(s) “an individual blade power is determined for each of the plurality of rotor blades” (note: the recitation “at least one of an individual blade performance capability or an individual blade power is determined” establishes “individual blade performance capability” and “individual blade power” in the alternative - accordingly, “individual blade performance capability… is determined” is optional and, thus, all associated limitations (including the last four lines of claim 1, which are directed exclusively towards determining “individual blade performance capability”) can be ignored)(note: insofar as “at least one test load is compared with at least one of an additional test load or with a reference load to yield a comparison” can be considered as relevant to “individual blade power… is determined”, then in such a case it is considered as being part of the judicial exception), which is a judicial exception since it is a mathematical concept (i.e., a mathematical calculation - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) stating “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” and “a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation);
- claim 18 recite(s) “an individual blade performance capability… is determined for each of the plurality of rotor blades” (note: the recitation “at least one of an individual blade performance capability or an individual blade power is determined” establishes “individual blade performance capability” and “individual blade power” in the alternative - accordingly, “individual blade power is determined” is optional and, thus, all associated limitations (including the last eleven lines of claim 18, which are directed exclusively towards “individual blade power”) can be ignored), which is a judicial exception since it is a mathematical concept (i.e., a mathematical calculation - see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C) stating “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the ‘mathematical concepts’ grouping” and “a step of ‘determining’ a variable or number using mathematical methods or ‘performing’ a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation).
Step 2A, prong 2 and Step 2B - claims 1 and 18 do not include limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and/or include additional elements that results in significantly more than the judicial exception:
-the pre-solution activity recited as “from captured operating data” (note: data capturing must precede the aforementioned “determined” step) amount to mere data gathering and, thus, does not impose any meaningful limits on the judicial exception or amount to significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05 A stating “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea”);
-in regards to “in order to assess blade configurations, the wind power installation is operated in a test mode with differently configured rotor blades, in the test mode, a load of one or more of the differently configured rotor blades is respectively recorded as a test load” (claim 1), the following notes are made:
- such recitations merely specify the type of information (i.e., load information) that is gathered and that it is well-known to gather load information of wind turbine rotor blades;
- there is no limitation imparted by “test mode” - i.e., the term “test mode” is not distinguishable from any other “mode”;
- the BRI of “the wind power installation is operated in a test mode with differently configured rotor blades” permits operation of the “wind power installation” with a single set of blades, such blades being “differently configured” - in such a case, it is noted that “differently configured” is broad/non-specific and that all blades of a given set of blades are inherently “differently configured” due to manufacturing tolerances, imperfections, non-uniform wear/degradation, etc.;
-the additional element(s) “an aerodynamic rotor with a plurality of rotor blades” do/does not amount to significantly more or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since it/they merely generally links the judicial exception to a technological environment.
Although the above analysis with respect to claims 1 and 18 only considers “the individual blade power” and “the individual blade performance capability” (due to “at least one of an individual blade performance capability or an individual blade power” establishing them as alternatives), respectively, it is noted that a similar analysis (not provided for brevity purposes) applies to each claim when considering “the individual blade performance capability” in claim 1 and “the individual blade power” in claim 18.
A similar analysis as applies to claims 14 and 19.
The limitations of claims 2, 3, 5, 7-13 and 17 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since they merely specify types of information used in the pre-solution activity and/or further specify the mathematical concept/relationship and/or add mathematical concepts/relationships (note: the additional elements of “a swivel load sensor” (claim 12), “an impact load sensor” (claim 12), and “a wind measurement mast” (claim 13) do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they merely provide a means for data acquisition).
The limitations of claims 15 and 16 pertaining to “control device” do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since they amount to mere instruction to implement the judicial exception on a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), and wherein the other limitations of these claims merely further specify the mathematical concept of the judicial exception and/or perform mere data processing.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, and 7-19 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for failing the written description requirement.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “an individual blade performance capability… is determined” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, the term “performance capability” is not a term of art and there is no description of how it is determined and/or what metrics are involved in its judgement and/or what property/information is communicated thereby. The Office acknowledges the following disclosure(s):
- par. [0050] states “the at least one test load is compared with at least one further test load and/or with a reference load, and the performance capability of the at least one rotor blade is assessed on the basis of the comparison” - however, there is no description of what constitutes such a “comparison” and/or how “individual blade performance capability” is determined from such a “comparison” and/or what metrics are used to evaluate “performance capability” and/or what property is described by “performance capability”;
- par. [0091] states “the individual blade performance capability is derived from a load signal” - however, there is no description of how “individual blade performance capability” is determined from “load signal” (i.e., load sensor data).
Due to identical instances, this rejection also applies to claims 14, 18, and 19. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2, 3, 7-13, and 15-17.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “an individual blade power is determined based on at least one of a load evaluation of the corresponding rotor or a recorded blade load of the corresponding rotor blade” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that Applicant, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. According to MPEP 2163 (I)(A), issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In the instant case, the disclosure does not sufficiently describe how “individual blade power” is determined from a “load” value. The Office acknowledges the following disclosure(s):
-pars. [0047]-[0049] state “the swivel load of a rotor blade can be considered to be proportional to the individual blade power. Thus, the individual blade power of the rotor blade can be determined on the basis of the swivel load in this manner. For example, the sum of the swivel loads of all rotor blades in steady-state operation can be set in relation to the generator power. The result is then a ratio between the sum of all swivel loads and the generator power…, and the same ratio can be used to calculated the individual blade power of a rotor blade” - however, there is no description of how a mere proportionality is used to determine “individual blade power” from “swivel load”;
- par. [0120] states “[a]n individual blade power can then also be read or derived from the impact load Lf” - however, there is no description of how “individual blade power” is “read” or “derived” from “impact load Lf”.
Due to a similar issue, this rejection also applies to claim 5. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 17.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation recited as “the individual blade performance capability describes a capability of a corresponding rotor blade of the plurality of rotor blades to convert power from wind into a partial rotational power for rotating the rotor, and the individual blade power denotes an amount of power that is converted by the corresponding rotor blade from the wind into a partial rotational power for rotating the rotor” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear how “individual blade performance capability”, which “describes a capability of a corresponding rotor blade… to convert power from into a partial rotational power”, is distinguishable from “individual blade power”, which “denotes an amount of power that is converted by the corresponding rotor blade from the wind into a partial rotational power of the rotor” - i.e., the actual performance of a blade is the realization of its capability and, thus, there is no distinction between a “capability” of a blade and its actual performance. Furthermore, it is noted that the disclosure indicates that “individual blade performance capability” and “individual blade power” are derived from the same data (i.e., load sensor data), and without any indication as to how each is determined therefrom, thereby confusing any distinction. Accordingly, these terms describe the same concept, thereby rendering indefinite what it means to determine one but not the other (as permitted by “at least one of an individual blade performance capability or an individual blade power is determined”). Due to identical instances, this rejection also applies to claims 14, 18, and 19. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 2, 3, 5, 7-13, and 15-17.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “a load evaluation of the corresponding rotor blade” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is inclusive of and/or referring to the antecedent “at least one test load is compared…” or introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 17.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “a load evaluation” renders the claim indefinite since it is not defined by the disclosure and/or since it is unclear what constitutes such a “load evaluation”. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 17.
In claim 2, the limitation recited as “a recorded blade load” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is inclusive of and/or referring to the antecedent “a test load” or introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 17.
In claim 3, the limitation recited as “the at least one individual blade power is determined based on a varying wind speed over the rotor area” renders the claim indefinite in light of the antecedent limitation “the at least one individual blade power is determined from the power values” since it is unclear if “the least one individual blade power” is determined wholly from “power values” or from both “power values” and “varying wind speed over the rotor area”. Relatedly, it is unclear what is meant by “based on” - i.e., is “varying wind speed over the rotor area” used in the determination of “individual blade power”?
In claim 5, the limitation recited as “a load variable” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is inclusive of and/or referring to the antecedent “a test load” or introducing a new limitation.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “reference loads” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is inclusive of and/or referring to the antecedent “reference load” (claim 1) or introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 8 and 9.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “a test mode” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is inclusive of and/or referring to the antecedent “a test mode” (claim 1) or introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 8 and 9.
In claim 7, the limitation recited as “test loads” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is inclusive of and/or referring to the antecedent “a test load” (claim 1) or introducing a new limitation. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claims 8 and 9.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “a normal rotor blade” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what aspects constitute “normal”.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “different blade angles… are correctable” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what constitutes being corrected and/or correct.
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “the comparison” (line 5) renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is referring to the antecedent “a comparison” (claim 12) or the antecedent “a comparison ” (claim 1).
In claim 12, the limitation recited as “the individual blade performance capability is derived from a load signal of an impact load sensor” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if it is further limiting the antecedent limitation “the individual blade performance capability of the corresponding rotor blade is determined based on the comparison” (claim 1) or not. If not, then the instant limitation renders the scope of the claim indefinite due to negation of the antecedent limitation.
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “when comparing changed rotor blades” renders the claim indefinite since “comparing changed rotor blades” lacks antecedent basis (see MPEP 2173.05(e)).
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “comparisons are made for same boundary conditions” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what constitutes “same boundary conditions” and/or it is unclear what constitutes a “comparison”.
In claim 13, the limitation recited as “a conversion rule” renders the claim indefinite since it is not defined by the disclosure.
In claim 15, the recitations of “The wind power installation as claimed in claim 14” and “carry out a method as claimed in claim 1” renders the claim indefinite due to multiple-dependency on claimed inventions in different statutory categories. Due to dependency, this rejection also applies to claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uckerwerk (DE 20220134 U1; previously cited; see previously included translation).
In reference to claim 14 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Uckerwerk discloses:
A wind power installation, comprising:
an aerodynamic rotor (see the figure) with a plurality of rotor blades (see the figure) that sweep through a rotor area, wherein
each rotor blade has a blade root with a blade root region and an adjustable blade angle (see e.g. par. [0004]); and
the wind power installation is configured to validate the wind power installation or a component of the wind power installation, by determining, for at least one of the plurality of rotor blades, at least one of an (note: strike-through text is ignored due to at least one / or establishing it as optional) or an individual blade power (“In order to reduce these loads as much as possible, it is necessary to measure the power consumption of each individual rotor blade” - par. [0005]; “Based on this data, the energy absorption of each individual leaf can be calculated” - par. [0006]) in each case from captured operating data related to the wind power installation,
(note: strike-through text is ignored due to the antecedent at least one / or establishing it as optional), and the individual blade power denotes an amount of power that is converted by the corresponding rotor blade from the wind into a partial rotational power for rotating the rotor, such that a sum of the individual blade power of all of the plurality of rotor blades of the rotor results in a total rotational power of the rotor,
in order to assess blade configurations (note: the recitation in order to assess blade configurations is considered as a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed invention), the wind power installation is operated in a test mode (note: any mode of operation can be considered a test mode) with differently configured rotor blades (note: the recitation differently configured is broad/non-specific - any set of rotor blades are different in some sense due to manufacturing tolerances/imperfections, at the least),
in the test mode, a load (i.e., pressure sensors and voltage sensors, which are indicative of load - see par. [0006]) of one or more of the differently configured rotor blades is respectively recorded (i.e., to allow calculation therewith - see par. [0006]) as a test load (note: the naming of data is not structurally limiting),
(note: the following limitations are ignored since they are associated with determination of individual blade performance capability)
In reference to claim 19 (as far as it is clear and definite)
Uckerwerk discloses:
A wind power installation, comprising:
an aerodynamic rotor (see the figure) with a plurality of rotor blades (see the figure) that sweep through a rotor area, wherein
each rotor blade has a blade root with a blade root region and an adjustable blade angle (see e.g. par. [0004]); and
the wind power installation is configured to validate the wind power installation or a component of the wind power installation, by determining, for at least one of the plurality of rotor blades, at least one of an individual blade performance capability (“In order to reduce these loads as much as possible, it is necessary to measure the power consumption of each individual rotor blade” - par. [0005]; “Based on this data, the energy absorption of each individual leaf can be calculated” - par. [0006]) or (note: strike-through text is ignored due to at least one / or establishing it as optional) in each case from captured operating data related to the wind power installation,
the individual blade performance capability describes a capability of a corresponding rotor blade of the plurality of rotor blades to convert power from wind into a partial rotational power for rotating the rotor (i.e., the energy absorption of a blade is descriptive of its capability to convert wind power/energy into rotor rotation power/energy), and the individual blade power denotes an amount of power that is converted by the corresponding rotor blade from the wind into a partial rotational power for rotating the rotor (definitional), such that a sum of the individual blade power of all of the plurality of rotor blades of the rotor results in a total rotational power of the rotor (definitional),
(note: the antecedent limitation determining… at least one of an individual blade performance capability or an individual blade power establishes determining… individual blade performance capability and determining… individual blade power in the alternative - accordingly, individual blade power is optional and, thus, all associated limitations (including the following lines, which are directed exclusively towards determining individual blade power) are ignored)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 CHRISTOPHER RYAN LEGENDRE whose telephone is (571)270-3364 and email is christopher.legendre@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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 Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHRISTOPHER R LEGENDRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights