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 16 is amended. Claim 27 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 16 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Cieslak (US 20170218918) and Girolamo (US 20200318604) and in view of Bech (US 20160263843) and SCHIBSBYE (US 202000023557) equivalent to WO 2018100152 as evident by WO 2013128682 hereinafter WO’682.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 16-21, 23-28, 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cieslak (US 20170218918) and Girolamo (US 20200318604) and in view of Bech (US 20160263843) and SCHIBSBYE (US 202000023557) equivalent to WO 2018100152 as evident by WO 2013128682 hereinafter WO’682
Regarding Claim 16 Cieslak discloses a method of manufacturing a spar cap for a wind turbine blade part (abstract), comprising the steps of: - providing a plurality of precured elongate elements of a fibre reinforced resin composite material comprising a first main surface and a second opposite main surface and a first lateral face and a second opposite lateral face and a first end and an opposite second end (Figure 2, [0034]-[0036], spar cap-20, elongate elements-22, first and second main surface -28, 29, first and opposite lateral side-26, first and opposite end-24 ), - stacking the plurality of precured elements, wherein at least an interlayer of an elongate non-cured fibre material being arranged between adjacent ones of the precured elongate elements (Figure-2, interlayer-30, [[0036]), thereby forming a stack of the precured elongate elements and the at least one interlayer(s), the stack having a lower stack surface and an opposite upper stack surface, a first lateral stack face and an opposite second lateral stack face, and a first stack end and an opposite second stack end (Figure 2), - moving the stack of the precured elongate elements and the at least one interlayer(s) to a spar cap mould comprising a mould bottom and mould side walls, - arranging the stack of precured elements and interlayer(s) in the cavity of the spar cap mould (Figure 5, [0057], [0059], resin R is infused in the cavity of the mould-52, mould-52 with bottom and side walls) - infusing resin into the stack of precured elements and interlayers in the mould (Figure 5 showing resin is infused, [0063]). Cieslak discloses comprising coating the surfaces by a slip coating, prior to arranging the stack of precured elongate elements and one of the interlayer in the cavity of the spar cap mould (Figure 5, [0062], peel ply-68) but did not disclose that the coating contact the surface of the bottom of the mold. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art SCHIBSBYE discloses that the coating applied at the surface of the bottom of the mold ([0036], [0055]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to the time of invention to combine Cieslak with that of SHIBSBYE coating applied at the surface of the mould teaching for the purpose of facilitating the demoulding process.
Claims 9 and 19 Cieslak discloses that the wind turbine blade with plurality of blade components are arranged in a blade mould (spar caps mould are also part of the blade components as the spar cap molds are critical part of the wind turbine blades and spar caps can be produced offline and then integrated into the main blade mould or manufactured directly within the blade mould). Therefore, the teaching of Cieslak does not teach away that stacks of the elongate elements with the interlayer could be formed outside the mould. This method is mostly common in the art as shown by Girolamo. Figures 5 and 6 shows that the stacked structure with one interlayers is moved to the spar cap mould (Figures 5-6, [0053]-[0055], stacks 41.1, 41.2, 41.3, with interlayer 50.1,50.2, 50.3 spar cap-40, spar cap mould -60).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to the time of invention to combine Cieslak with that of Girolamo’s spar caps can be produced offline and then integrated into the main blade mould for the purpose of cost efficient and stability
Further, Girolamo as explained above Figures 5 and 6 shows that the stacked structure with one interlayers is moved to the spar cap mould (Figures 5-6, [0053]-[0055], stacks 41.1, 41.2, 41.3, with interlayer 50.1,50.2, 50.3 spar cap-40, spar cap mould -60) aligning at least the first and second lateral faces of the precured elongate elements (Figure 3 arrow showing lateral faces are aligned) but did not show that they are aligned by means of longitudinally mutually spaced loose stack clamping devices.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Bech discloses that clamping devices are used for aligning the stack and then moved to mold-20 (Figure 2, abstract, [0045], [0047], stacks-40; [0050], clamping device-86).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to the time of invention to combine Cieslak with that of Bech’s clamping device for the purpose of good alignment and attaching the stacking structure while minimizing the damage to the stacks ([0028], Bech).
Cieslak didn’t explicitly mention resin is cured. In the similar field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Bech discloses allow the resin to cure to form a cured stack of precured elements and interlayer(s) forming a spar cap ([0065]).
Also it would be obvious for any one skilled in the art to comprehend that once the stacks are cured it would have been removed or demoulded from the mold, however Cieslak did not explicitly disclose that but such step is common in the art for the purpose of extracting the cured part once it attained the cured temperature as also evident by WO’ 682 (page 4, second para).
Regarding Claim 17 Cieslak discloses the precured elongate elements comprise carbon fibres and/or glass fibers ([0034], [0035]).
Regarding Claim 18 Cieslak discloses the resin of the fiber reinforced resin composite material of the precured elements is polyester resin ([0062]-[0063], infill blocks-70 are filled with polyester).
Regarding Claim 19, Cieslak discloses wherein the resin infused into the stack of the precured elongate elements and the at least one interlayer is of the same type as the resin of the precured elements ([0046]).
Regarding Claim 20 Cieslak discloses the precured elongate elements are plank-shaped or strip- shaped (Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 21 Cieslak discloses the plurality of precured elongate elements are pultruded elements, and/or wherein the fibres of the fibres material of the at least one layer comprises glass fibres and/or carbon fibres ([0035]).
Regarding Claim 23 Cieslak/Bech discloses, wherein the step of moving the stack of precured elements and interlayer(s) to a spar cap mould comprises: - connecting a lifting device such as a lifting beam to the loose stack clamping devices and move the stack of precured elements and interlayer(s) to the mould by means of the lifting device (Figure 2, lifting device suspended from -72, [0047], combining Cieslak with Bech the limitation is met).
Regarding Claim 24 Cieslak/Bech discloses, wherein the step of arranging the stack of precured elements and interlayer(s) in the cavity of the spar cap mould comprises (Figure 5, [0059]): - arranging the stack above the mould cavity of the spar cap mould (Figure 5), and - gradually bringing the lower stack surface of the stack into contact with the surface of the mould bottom of the mould cavity, and simultaneously gradually removing the mutually spaced loose stack clamping devices from the stack before contacting the bottom of the mould, (Figure 13a, [0064]).
Regarding Claim 25 Cieslak discloses wherein arranging the stack of precured elongate elements and the at least one interlayer in the cavity of the spar cap mould comprises (Figure 5): - arranging the stack above the mould cavity of the spar cap mould on a plurality of longitudinally mutually spaced support members, each support member supporting a stack portion, and removing the clamping devices from the stack (Figure 13a, [0064], clamp-86), and - gradually bringing the lower stack surface of the stack into contact with the surface of the mould bottom of the mould cavity, by simultaneously gradually removing the support members, (Figure 13a, [0063])).
Regarding Claim 26, Cieslak discloses wherein the support members extend transversely with respect to the spar cap mould and are supported by upper faces of side walls of the mould (Figure 5, [0059], support member-62, 58 elongated elements-22 are supported by the upper faces of side walls of the mould).
Regarding Claim 28, Cieslak discloses wherein the step of infusing resin into the stack of precured elements and the at least one interlayer interlayer(s) in the mould comprises: coating the upper surface of the stack of precured elements and the at least one interlayers with a peel coating, (Figure 5, [0062], peel ply-68), and covering the cavity of the spar cap mould with a vacuum bag and infuse the resin by vacuum assisted resin transfer moulding ([0008]).
Regarding Claim 31 Bech discloses wherein the longitudinally mutually spaced loose stack clamping devices surround the stack of the precured elongate elements and the at least one interlayer (Figure 2, stack-40, [0045], [0047], [0050).
Regarding Claim 32 Bech discloses, wherein the lifting device comprises a lifting beam (Figure2, [0047], lifting device suspended from-72).
Regarding Claim 33 Ceislak discloses wherein the step of gradually bringing the lower stack surface of the stack into contact with the surface of the mould bottom of the mould cavity is performed by starting at the first stack end and ending at the opposite second stack end (Figure 5 ), and wherein the step of simultaneously gradually removing the longitudinally mutually spaced loose stack clamping devices from the stack before contacting the mould bottom of the mould is performed by starting from the one of the loose stack clamping device closest to the first stack end and ending at the one of the loose stack clamping device closest to the opposite second stack end (Figure 2, 13a, Bech’s clamping device- 86).
Regarding Claim 34 Ceislak/Bech discloses wherein the step of gradually bringing the lower stack surface of the stack into contact with the surface of the mould bottom of the mould cavity is performed by starting at the first stack end and ending at the opposite second stack end, and wherein the step of simultaneously gradually removing the support members is performed by starting from the support member closest to the first stack end and ending at the support member closest to the opposite second stack end (Figure13a, [0065], support structure-70 moved away from the mold, Bech).
Regarding Claim 35 SCHIBSBYE discloses wherein the slip coating comprises a peel ply ([0036], [0055]).
Regarding Claim 36 SCHIBSBYE discloses wherein the peel coating comprises a peel ply ([0036], [0055]).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cieslak (US 20170218918) as evident by Girolamo (US 20200318604) in view of Bech (US 20160263843) as evident by WO 2013128682 hereinafter WO’682 as applied to claim 16 further in view of Dan-Jumbo (US 20150314577).
Regarding Claim 29, Cieslak/Nielsen discloses comprising carrying out an inspection of the cured stack of precured elements and interlayer(s) (Figure 5, Cieslak) but didn’t explicitly disclose that the cured stack after removed from the spar cap mould, conduct any required repairs. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Dan-Jumbo discloses method for repair in the composite structure ([0007], [0024]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art prior to the invention to combine Cieslak/Bech with Jumbo’s teaching of repair methods for the purpose of fabrication of large structures employing composite materials which have applications in aircraft and automobiles ([0004], Jumbo).
Conclusion
34. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights