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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-9, 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “the second recess” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. Furthermore claim 4 recites a connection surface having a textured, roughened or treated surface. The scope of the claimed textured, roughened or treated surface is unclear because all surfaces have at least some microscopic textures or surface roughness.
Claim 5 recites “the second recess” without a proper antecedent basis.
Claims 6-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 5.
Claim 6 recites “the face side” without a proper antecedent basis.
Claims 7 and 11 recite “the end face” without proper antecedent bases.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the end face of the at least one web, in particular the bonding flange, is inclined relative to the vertical axis by a first angle (p), in particular by 30° to 45° or 40° to 50°”. It is unclear if the limitations in particular are limiting or not limiting.
Claims 11 and 12 also contain limitations that are “in particular”.
Claim 8 recites “the second protruding cap” without a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 9 recites “the second recess” without a proper antecedent basis.
Claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of its claim dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 is an improper multiple dependent claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 8-10, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barton (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0086463).
As per claim 1, Barton (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0086463) discloses a segmented wind turbine blade, comprising at least a first blade segment (26; figure 2) and a second blade segment (24), further comprising a first recess (56) formed on the outer contour of the first blade segment (as shown; figure 2), and a first protruding cap (44, 52) protruding from the cross-section of the second blade segment (as shown; figure 2), wherein the first protruding cap is flush with the outer contour of the second blade segment (as shown; figures 2, 3a) , wherein the first recess (56) is configured for housing the first protruding cap (as shown; figure 2) , and the first recess and the first protruding cap are configured to be connected to each other such as to assemble the first segmented blade and the second segmented blade to form the segmented wind turbine blade (as shown; figure 2).
As per claim 2, Barton discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses an adhesive, wherein the adhesive is configured to connect the first recess and the first protruding cap with each other (adhesively bonded scarf joint; paragraph [0045]).
As per claim 4, Barton discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first recess and/or the second recess form(s) a connection surface having a textured, roughened or treated surface (all surfaces inherently have at least some level of microscopic surface roughness).
As per claim 8, Barton discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first protruding cap and/or the second protruding cap are/is tapered (as shown; figure 2).
As per claim 9, Barton discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first recess and/or the second recess are/is tapered (as shown; figure 2).
As per claim 10, Barton discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the two blade segments is one-single piece (as shown; figure 2).
As per claim 14, Barton discloses a wind turbine comprising at least one segmented wind turbine blade according to claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10 (wind turbine as shown in figure 1).
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kyriakids (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0141286).
As per claim 1, Kyriakids (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2012/0141286) discloses a segmented wind turbine blade , comprising at least a first blade segment (58) and a second blade segment (64), further comprising a first recess formed on the outer contour of the first blade segment (see annotated figure 4 below) , and a first protruding cap protruding from the cross-section of the second blade segment (see annotated figure 4 below), wherein the first protruding cap is flush with the outer contour of the second blade segment (see annotated figure 4 below), wherein the first recess is configured for housing the first protruding cap (as shown; figure 5), and the first recess and the first protruding cap are configured to be connected to each other such as to assemble the first segmented blade and the second segmented blade to form the segmented wind turbine blade (as shown; figure 5).
As per claim 2, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses an adhesive, wherein the adhesive is configured to connect the first recess and the first protruding cap with each other (joint profiles having adhesives; figure 5; paragraph [0041]).
As per claim 3, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses a second recess formed on the contour of the second blade segment, and a second protruding cap protruding from the cross-section of the first blade segment, wherein the first recess and the second protruding cap are on opposite sides of the first blade segments, said opposite sides being the pressure side and the suction side of the corresponding blade segment (see annotated figure 4 above).
As per claim 4, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first recess and/or the second recess form(s) a connection surface having a textured, roughened or treated surface (inherently having at least some level of microscopic surface roughness).
As per claim 5, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses at least one web (56) extending between the pressure side and the suction side of the first blade segment and/or the second blade segment, wherein the at least one web is configured to mechanically support the first recess and/or the second recess (as shown; figures 4, 5).
As per claim 6, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the at least one web (56) comprises a bonding flange (80) at the face side of the at least one web (as shown; figures 4, 5).
As per claim 7, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 5, and further discloses wherein the end face of the at least one web, in particular the bonding flange, is inclined relative to the vertical axis by a first angle (p) , in particular by 30° to 45° or 40° to 50° (end face 80 of shear web 56 are chamfered or angled; figures 4, 5).
As per claim 10, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein each of the two blade segments is one-single piece (as shown; figure 4).
As per claim 11, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first blade segment is an inboard blade segment (blade segment 58 can be blade segment 20 which includes a inboard blade segment; paragraph [0036]; figures 2, 4), and wherein the end face of the at least one web of the first blade segment is inclined relative to the vertical axis towards the second blade segment by a first angle, in particular by 30° to 45° or 40° to 50° (end face 80 of shear web 56 are chamfered or angled; figures 4, 5), and the at least one web of the second blade is inclined relative to the vertical axis by a second angle, whereas the first and the second angle are complementary, such that the at least one web of the first blade segment and the at least one web of the second blade segment form bonding surfaces, in particular bonding flanges (as shown; figure 5).
As per claim 12, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the cross-section of the first blade segment and the cross-section of the second blade segment are inclined relative to the vertical axis, in particular such that a division plane between the first blade segment and the second blade segment is inclined by a/the first angle, in particular by 40° to 45° or by 40° to 50° (as shown, blade segments 58 and 56 are inclined to form a division plane at joint profile 68 at an angle; figures 4, 5).
As per claim 14, Kyriakides discloses a wind turbine comprising at least one segmented wind turbine blade according to claims 1-7, 10-12 (wind turbine shown; figure 1).
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton in view of Hayden (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0346965).
As per claim 13, Barton discloses a method for assembling a segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, comprising the following steps: at an assembling site, applying an adhesive in the first recess and/or the second recess and/or on the first protruding cap and/or on the second protruding cap such as to form at least one adhesive surface (adhesively bonded scarf joint; paragraph [0045]).
Barton does not explicitly teach assembling the first blade segment and the second blade segment by pressing the first blade segment and the second blade segment, essentially perpendicular to the adhesive surface, together.
Hayden (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0346965) is related prior art in that it deals with a method of forming a scarf joint for a segmented wind turbine blade. Hayden teaches assembling the first blade segment and the second blade segment by pressing the first blade segment and the second blade segment, essentially perpendicular to the adhesive surface, together (applying pressure using a pressure bag; figures 2, 3; abstract). Hayden teaches that it can reduce formation of voids which causes stress concentration and act as points for frack nucleation (paragraphs [0004]-[0006]). Therefore, in order to reduce the void formation at the bondline, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Barton’s bonding method to incorporate Hayden’s method of applying pressure using pressure bag because it can reduce the formation of voids.
Claim(s)13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyriakides in view of Hayden.
As per claim 13, Kyriakides discloses the segmented wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and further discloses the following steps: at an assembling site, applying an adhesive in the first recess and/or the second recess and/or on the first protruding cap and/or on the second protruding cap such as to form at least one adhesive surface (forming joint profiles using adhesive; paragraph [0041]).
Kyriakides does not explicitly teach assembling the first blade segment and the second blade segment by pressing the first blade segment and the second blade segment, essentially perpendicular to the adhesive surface, together.
Hayden (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2016/0346965) is related prior art in that it deals with a method of forming a scarf joint for a segmented wind turbine blade. Hayden teaches assembling the first blade segment and the second blade segment by pressing the first blade segment and the second blade segment, essentially perpendicular to the adhesive surface, together (applying pressure using a pressure bag; figures 2, 3; abstract). Hayden teaches that it can reduce formation of voids which causes stress concentration and act as points for frack nucleation (paragraphs [0004]-[0006]). Therefore, in order to reduce the void formation at the bondline, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Kyriakides’s bonding method to incorporate Hayden’s method of applying pressure using pressure bag because it can reduce the formation of voids.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2021/0215133) teaches a segmented wind turbine blade having inclined spar caps forming a scarf joint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights