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 Amendment
Applicant filed a response; amended 1, 3-4, 6, 9-14; cancelled claim 8; and added new claims 16-18 on 04/07/2026.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amended claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, and 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredericksen (US 9,234,500) in view of Huai (CN102672976, citations based on machine translation provided) and Stiesdal (US 7,473,385).
Regarding claim 1, Frederiksen teaches a method for manufacturing a wind turbine blade (Figure 7-9), comprising the steps of:
arranging an upper mold and lower mold respectively attached in direct mechanical contact to a pre-casted fiber lay-up or a a dry fiber lay-up, thereby preparing two separate preforms (Col 4, ln 30-47 and Col 8, ln 20-50);
bring together the upper mold and lower mold and the respective preforms (Col 8, ln 32-64);
applying vacuum to a space between the upper mold and outer mold (Col 9, ln 10-13);
and (i) infusing and curing resin into the preforms or (ii) heating to liquefy the resin and cure the preforms in order to perform a blade formed as a single piece (Col 9, ln 14-20).
Fredericksen teaches the fiber material of the preform may be dry, pre-casted, or a combination of a dry and pre-casted material impregnated with a resin compatible with infused resin during vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (Col 8, ln 10-19 and Col 9, ln 13-20).
Fredericksen does not teach:
(1) an upper mold attached in direct mechanical contact to a pre-casted fiber lay-up and a lower mold attached in direct mechanical contact to a dry fiber lay-up;
(2) a mold core is surrounded by a composite surface disposed between the upper and lower mold and consisting of an inner surface of the pre-casted fiber lay-up, an inner surface of the dry fiber lay-up, and surfaces of two connection regions between the dry fiber lay-up and the pre-casted fiber lay-up;
(3) apply vacuum to a space between the mold core and the composite surface, introducing a resin into the space, and curing the resin.
Huai teaches a process of manufacturing a wind power generation blade, comprising: laying upper shell reinforcing material and shear rib reinforcing material in an upper mold; laying a vacuum bag film on the upper shell reinforcing material and shear rib reinforcing material; vacuuming the sealed spacing to infuse the reinforcement material and shearing webs; laying a balloon on the vacuum bag film laying a lower shell reinforcement material in a lower web; solidifying the upper shell reinforcing material and shear rib reinforcing material; integrally molding the lower shell reinforcing material in the lower mold with the pre-casted reinforcement of the upper shell via vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (Page 2-3 and Figure 2 and 3). Huai teaches shear ribs serve to increase the strength of the blade (Page 3).
Stiesdal teaches a process of manufacturing a windmill blade of composite materials using a removable mold core with a flexible external core part wrapped around an internal, firm or workable core part and surrounded by a flexible, air-tight membrane, and outer mold parts arranged to close around the mold core for formation of a mold cavity (Claim 1; Figure 6; Col 4, ln 60- Col 5, ln 5; Col 7, ln 1-22), wherein a shear web 36 may be made with an inner core part 42, which e.g. may be made of plywood, balsawood or PVC foam (Col 5, ln 1-15). Stiesdal teaches the at least a part of the internal part of the mold core is then taken out of the finished windmill blade (Col 2, ln 62- Col 3, ln 7). Stiesdal teaches during molding, the cavity 51 is partly filled by the fiber materials 26, 31, 44, 45 and 47, the core materials 28, 42,43, and 46, the flow pipe 29 and possible other core parts 30, as the cavities between the fibers and between the fibers and other parts are filled with air and vacuum is applied to the cavity 51 so that at least a substantial part of the air staying between the parts in the cavity is evacuated, thereby compressing the fiber and core materials in the cavity as the flexible membrane of the mold core expands (Col 6, ln 1-12). Stiesdal teaches the blade may be made with a plural shear webs or completely without webs (Col 4, ln 10-14). Stiesdal teaches disposing a shear web on an inner layer of fiber material (Col 4, ln 61- Col 5, ln 27).
Stiesdal teaches embodiments of using dry or impregnated fiber (Col 7, ln 23-32). Stiesdal teaches combinations of the practical embodiment of the method with fiber material laid in dry condition and where a part of laid material is in form of finished fiber reinforced parts, e.g. previously molded part for the blade root or longitudinally pultruded profiles (Col 7, ln32-45-49). Stiesdal teaches combinations of materials in the laying may also be envisaged, which otherwise in prior art methods are held separate to each other, such as mats in prepreg may also be envisaged where the integrated resin contributes to the injection of the surrounding dry fiber material to a certain degree, and where the amount of resin needed for complete impregnation of the laminate is provided by vacuum injection (Col 7, ln 50-57).
As to (1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Fredericksen with the technique of using a combination of pre-casted fiber lay-up and dry fiber layup as taught by Huai, a known conventional and suitable technique of preparing blade preforms as taught Stiesdal and suggested by Fredericksen.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would have been motivated to modify the process of Stiesdal with steps of preparing an upper mold with a pre-casted fiber lay-up and lower mold with a dry fiber-layup and bringing the upper and lower molds together for VARTM as taught by Huai.
As to (2) and (3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal with shear ribs as taught in Huai or Stiesdal for the benefit of increasing the strength of the blade as taught by Huai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Fredericksen with a mold core assembly of Stiesdal, for the benefit of supporting the fiber preform during assembly and molding in order to maintain the hollow interior structure of the blade and apply compaction to the lay-ups during infusion around a shearing web as taught by Stiesdal, thereby improving resin infusion of the fibers.
Accordingly, due to the addition of a mold core and modified molding space, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal with applying vacuum to a space between the mold core and the composite surface, as taught by Stiesdal, in order to introduce a resin into the space and cure the resin.
Regarding claim 2, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the dry fiber lay-up and/or the pre-casted fiber lay-up includes a core material (Frederickson, Figure 7-9 and Col 8, ln 32-64).
Regarding claim 7, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein an auxiliary material is disposed between a surface of at least one edge portion of the pre-casted fiber lay-up and a surface of at least one edge portion of the dry fiber lay-up (Stiesdal, Figure 9 and Col 4, ln 31-50).
Regarding claim 12, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising, before the step of applying vacuum, a step of covering the mold core with a vacuum bag (Stiesdal, Col 2, ln 62- Col 3, ln 6; Col 4, ln 61- Col 5, ln 10; Col 7, ln 1- 22; and Figure 9, item 41).).
Regarding claim 13, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein before the step of arranging the upper mould on the lower mould, step of arranging one or more reinforcement beams on the dry fibre lay-up (Stiesdal, Figure 9 and Col 4, ln 61- Col 5, ln 15).
Regarding claim 14, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1, comprising, before the step of arranging the upper mould on the lower mould, a step of arranging a web, and wherein at least the dry fibre lay-up, connection region of the two connecting regions and the web is infused with resin (Fredericksen, Col 9, ln 14-20 and Huai, Page 2-3 and Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the web is configured to transversally connect the pre-casted fibre lay-up and the dry fibre lay-up, once cured, within an interior cavity of the blade (Stiesdal, Figure 9 , item 36 and Col 4, ln 61- Col 5, ln 15).
Regarding claim 16, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the pre-casted fibre lay-up has a first sandwich
structure of a first balsa core sandwiched between first outer laminate and a first inner laminate, and
wherein the dry lay-up has a second sandwich structure of a second balsa core sandwiched between second outer laminate and a second inner laminate (Fredericken, Figure 7-9 and Col 4, ln 41-60).
Regarding claim 17, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the mould core comprises a first mould core
portion and a second mould core portion, and a shear web disposed between the first mould core portion and the second mould core portion (Stiesdal, Figure 9, items 35 and 36 and Col 4, ln 61- Col 5, ln 15).
Regarding claim 18, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 17, wherein the space includes (i) a first space region disposed between the first mould core portion and the shear web and (ii) a second space region disposed between the second mould core portion and the shear web (Stiesdal, Figure 9 and Col 4, ln 61- Col 5, ln 15).
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredericksen (US 9,234,500) in view of Huai (CN102672976, citations based on machine translation provided) and Stiesdal (US 7,473,385), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Stiesdal (US 8,282,874, hereinafter referred to as Stiesdal ‘874).
Regarding claim 3, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal does not teach a connection region of the two connecting regions comprises an overlap region in which the pre-casted fiber lay-up and the dry fiber lay-up overlap eachother.
Stiesdal ‘874 teaches a process of manufacturing a wind turbine blade, the process comprising joining two halves of a mold assembly with layers of fiber glass material together for resin infusion (Col 6, ln 5-56). Stiesdal teaches at least one fibre mat which is placed in the upper part of the mould can overlap with at least one fibre mat which is placed in the lower part of the mould, and this overlap increases a stability of the joint between the two halves of the finished blade (Figure 2 and Col 4, ln 3-20 and 32-38). Stiesdal teaches a biaxial fibre mat can be used as the fibre mat which overlaps with at least one fibre mat of the upper or lower part of the mould (Figure 2 and Col 4, ln 3-20 and 32-38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal with overlapping joints of the fiber reinforcement layers of the upper and lower preforms as taught by Stiesdal ‘874 for the benefit of providing stronger joints.
Regarding claim 4, Fredericksen in view of Huai, Stiesdal, and Stiesdal ‘874 teaches the process as applied to claim 3, wherein the pre-casted fiber lay-up and/or the dry fiber lay-up comprises the core material in an overlap region in which the pre-casted lay-up and dry fiber lay-up overlap eachother (Steisdal ‘874, Figure 2 and Col 4, ln 3-20 and 32-38; Col 5, ln 29-42).
Regarding claim 5, Fredericksen in view of Huai, Stiesdal, and Stiesdal ‘874 teaches the process as applied to claim 3, wherein both the dry fiber lay-up and the pre-casted fiber lay-up comprise at least one tapered edge portion overlapping each other in the overlap region (Stiesdal ‘874, Figure 2 and Col 4, ln 3-20 and 32-38).
Regarding claim 6, Fredericksen in view of Huai, Stiesdal, and Stiesdal ‘874 teaches the process as applied to claim 3, wherein the pre-casted fibre lay-up and the dry fibre lay-up are in direct contact with each other in a connection region of the two connection regions (Stiesdal ‘874, Figure 2 and Col 4, ln 3-20 and 32-38).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fredericksen (US 9,234,500) in view of Huai (CN102672976, citations based on machine translation provided) and Stiesdal (US 7,473,385), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Schroder (PG-PUB 2011/0085911).
Regarding claim 11, Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal does not teach before the step of arranging the upper mold comprising the pre-casted fiber lay-up on the lower mold, a step of fixing the pre-casted fiber lay-up to the upper mold.
Schroder teaches a composite material blade molding process comprising preparing a blade half-shell preforms in an upper and lower mold and bringing the preforms together [0033]-[0036]. Schroder teaches one mold stays on the ground while the other mold is rotated together with the formed blade segment therein and the mold is put on top on the mold on the ground, and there is a risk that a blade segment in the mold which is rotated to be put on the other mold might fall out of the mold or might at least be displaced [0033]. Schroder teaches the fixing device is configured to press and/or to clamp the formed/molded blade segment to the mold such that it is fixed in and/or on the mold (Figures 2-14 and [0037]). Schroder teaches in other embodiments the fixing device is configured to fixate the blade segment to the mold by upholding a vacuum between the formed or molded blade segment and a mold surface after a vacuum bag has been removed [0037]. Schroder teaches blade segment is formed (molded) in the mold such that it has at least one fixating portion at least partially on at least one edge of the blade segment, for example, on the trailing edge or leading edge of a blade half or blade half segment [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Fredericksen in view of Huai and Stiesdal with a fixing device of Schroder, for the benefit of fixating the preform for safely rotating the mold half without the preform falling out or being displaced as taught by Schroder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9-10 are allowed for reasons previously discussed.
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 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 HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
