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 .
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed December 03, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, all references except EP 3581790 A1 and WO 2022022788 A1 have been considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words in length. Additionally, it cites Figure 3 and contains reference characters. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-8 and 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The preambles of Claims 2-8 recite “A connector”. The claims may instead recite “The connector”, since they refer to the previously recited connector of the claim they depend upon.
The preamble of Claim 11 recites “A wind turbine rotor blade”. The claim may instead recite “The wind turbine rotor blade”, since it refers to the previously recited wind turbine rotor blade of the claim it depends upon.
Regarding Claims 13-15, Lines 6 and 7 of Claim 13 recite “a length-adjustable spacer” and “a first threaded insert”. There appears to be antecedent basis issues and this is inconsistent with how antecedent basis is handled in the rest of the claim. For instance, these are both limitations of the connector assembly recited in Claim 1. In another portion, Claim 13 recites “the first and second threaded inserts of each connector assembly”. Applicant is suggested to amend so that the antecedent basis is handled consistently. Claim 14, Line 1 has a similar issue regarding “a stud bolt”. Claim 15, Line 2 has a similar issue regarding “a spacer”.
The preambles of Claims 14-15 recite “A method”. The claims may instead recite “The method”, since they refer to the previously recited method of the claim they depend upon.
Claim 12 is subsequently objected to for its dependency upon a previously objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, Lines 10-11, “length adjustment means” modified by the function of being configured “for adjusting the length of the spacer between an initial length and a maximum extended length”. This is interpreted to be a ratchet arrangement with a toothed linear rack formed on one spacer part and a spring-loaded pawl on the other spacer part to engage with the teeth of the rack when the first and second spacer parts are pushed apart toe extend the spacer length, a threaded interface, or equivalents thereof as described on Pg. 7, Lines 15-20, 33-34 of the Specification filed December 03, 2025.
Claim 2, Lines 2-3, “surface features” modified by the function of being configured “for engaging with a spacer length adjustment means”. This is interpreted to be a polygonal shape, a sprocket-wheel with gear teeth extending radially outward, or equivalents thereof as described on Pg. 6, Lines 33-38 and Pg. 9, Lines 4-7 of the Specification filed.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-15 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.
Regarding Claim 1, Lines 5 and 7 recite “a part” and “the other part”. It is unclear if this refers to the “two parts” in the preamble of the claim or are requiring additional parts. Please note that while reference characters may be used in claims, they generally do not affect the scope of the claim (see MPEP 608.01(m)).
Regarding Claim 2, Line 3 recites “a spacer length adjustment means”. However, Claim 1 requires a spacer with “a length adjustment means”. Due to the similarity in recitations, it is unclear if this refers to the same means or requiring different means. For purposes of examination, it is believed these intended to be different.
Regarding Claim 7, Line 2 recites “the surface features”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since surface features have not been previously introduced. It is also unclear what features the claim refers to. Note the dependency upon Claim 4 which depends upon Claim 1. This scope does not recite surface features.
Claims 3-6 and 8-15 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
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.
Claims 10 and 12 are 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.
Regarding Claims 10 and 12, the claims refer to “A wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 1/8”, respectively. However, Claims 1 and 8 are with respect to a “connector assembly”, not a wind turbine rotor blade. Thus, Claims 10 and 12 are rejected for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend and failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which they depend, since they refer to a different apparatus than that of Claims 1 and 8.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-15, as far as they are definite and understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding Claim 1, interpreting “length adjustment means” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as note above, Figures 3-4 of Festner et al. (US 2024/0026856 A1) teach a connector assembly for connecting two parts (132, 134) comprising a stud bolt (146) comprising a shank (center portion surrounded by 144) and a threaded portion (portions surrounded by 140, 142) at each end of the shank; a first threaded insert (140) for embedding in a part (132), adapted to engage with a first threaded portion of the stud bolt (146); a second threaded insert (142) for embedding in the other part (134), adapted to engage with the second threaded portion of the stud bolt (146); and a spacer (144) dimensioned to enclose the shank of the stud bolt (146) [0062-0064]. Festner does not expressly a length adjustment means for adjusting the length of the spacer between an initial length and a maximum extending length. The spacer (144) is in one piece and does not appear to have such a mechanism. According to Pg. 2, Line 15 – Pg. 3, Line 10 of the Specification filed December 03, 2025, the length adjustment means allows the spacer to extend to a maximum extended length such that its end faces press against opposing end faces of the rotor blade. This results in a pre-tension force that achieves a strong connection between segments of a rotor blade.
Figures 3-4 of Hedges et al. (US 2022/0260051 A1) teach a connection assembly with a portion (140) having a length adjustment means (see 152, 112) [0067, 0091]. However, it can be seen that (140) is not the claimed stud bolt in that it comprises separate portions rather than a shank and threaded portion at each end of the shank, a spacer enclosing the shank as required of the claim. Therefore, Claim 1 is considered allowable in view of Hedges as well.
Figure 3 of Snyder et al. (US 4,854,798 A) teaches a connection assembly with a spacer (26, 28) wherein a length adjustment means (46) is provided. However, the length adjustment means (46) does not meet the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation examples noted above, nor is it considered an equivalent. Rather, the length adjustment means (46) are pressurized fluid supply lines that must continuously operate to adjust the length. The position is then rigidly held by shims (50) (Col. 4, Lines 24-57). Thus, the function is not considered performed in substantially the same way to produce the same results, since it requires the use of a pressurized fluid supply with shims to rigidly hold the adjustment rather than being easily adjustable through the ratchet/threaded interface as in the instant application.
Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-15 subsequently depend upon Claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights