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 and Arguments
The amendment dated 10/8/2025 has been considered and entered into the record. Applicant has amended to now require a first plurality of fiber that are polymeric fibers. This amendment overcomes the previous rejection based upon Cieslak, Eyb, and Fritz. Accordingly, the previous rejection is withdrawn. Additionally, the previous indefinite rejections are withdrawn due to amendment. Claim 10 is canceled. New claims 17–19 have been added. Claims 1–9 and 11–19 are examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1–9, 11, and 13–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cieslak (US 2017/0218918 A1) in view of Eyb (US 2007/0189903 A1) and Perrow (US 2011/0221093 A1) as evidenced by Fritz (US 2011/0243751 A1).
Cieslak teaches the creation of a wind turbine blade comprising a spar cap 12, wherein the cap includes a stack structure 23 plurality of pre-cured fiber-reinforced strip layers 22 and a plurality of infusion-promoting layers 30 located between the strips. Cieslak abstract, ¶¶ 5–6, 33, 35, 41, Figs. 1, 2. For examination purposes, the Examiner equates infusion-promoting layers 30 with the claimed plurality of interlayers. The pre-cured fiber-reinforced strip layers 22 preferably comprise carbon fibers impregnated with resin that is cured. Id. ¶ 35. The infusion-promoting layers 30 may comprise glass fiber fabrics that are infused with resin. Id. ¶¶ 40–46.
The fibers located in the infusion-promoting layers 30 have a first elastic modulus, the cured resin of the infusion-promoting layers 30 has a second elastic modulus, the pre-cured fiber-reinforced strip layers 22 have a third elastic modulus, and the infusion-promoting layer 30 has a fourth elastic modulus.
Cieslak fails to teach a particular type of resin for use in the cured resin of the infusion-promoting layers 30 and the pre-cured fiber-reinforced strip layers 22.
Eyb teaches the formation of a wind turbine blade that includes a pressure side spar cap comprising a carbon fiber-reinforced composite and a suction side spar cap comprising a glass fiber-reinforced composite. Eyb abstract, ¶¶ 18–19. Epoxy resin is commonly used to make fiber-reinforced composites for use in wind turbine blades. Id. ¶ 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used epoxy as the resin in the infusion-promoting and pre-cured layers of Cieslak motivated by the desire to select a suitable resin for making composites for wind turbine blade parts.
Fritz teaches the formation of wind turbine blades and that typical polymeric matrix materials, such as epoxies, acrylics, etc., have elastic moduli in the range of about 1–4 GPa. Fritz abstract, ¶ 31.
Cieslak fails to teach that the fibers used in the infusion-promoting layer are polymeric fibers.
Perrow teaches a method and system for making wind turbine blades, wherein various types of fabric may be used to make the blade including glass fibers and polyester felt (i.e., veil). Perrow abstract, ¶ 47. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute the glass fiber fabric of Cieslak with the polyester felt because Perrow teaches the functional equivalency of glass fiber fabrics and polyester felt in making wind turbine blades. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 1 and 16 require a ratio between a first elastic modulus and a second elastic modulus that ranges from between 1:4 and 4:1, wherein the first elastic modulus relates to a first plurality of fibers and the second elastic modulus relates to a first cured resin. Independent claims 1 and 16 further require that the first plurality of fibers to be polymeric fibers and more specifically polyester fibers in dependent claims 17 and 18. Dependent claim 7 further requires that the first cured resin be one of epoxy, polyester, or vinyl ester resins. As established above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected polyester fibers as the first plurality of fibers and epoxy resin to be the first cured resin. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the claimed feature relative elastic moduli, it is reasonable to presume that the required modulus ratio is inherent to the combined prior art teachings. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. polyester fibers and epoxy resin). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed property of a ratio between a first elastic modulus and a second elastic modulus that ranges from between 1:4 and 4:1 would obviously have been present one the prior art product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 8 is rejected as the glass-fiber fabric of Cieslak may be in the form of a woven or bi-directional fabric. Cieslak ¶ 53. Claim 9 is rejected as the plurality of pre-cured fiber-reinforced strip layers 22 are bound together by the polymer resin infused between each strip layer. Id. ¶¶ 19–26. Claim 13 is rejected as the first and second resin are necessarily either the same or different resins. Claim 14 is rejected as the spar cap of Cieslak may be integrally formed with a blade shell. See id. ¶¶ 4–5, Fig. 1. Claim 15 is rejected as the wind turbine blade comprises first and second spar caps on the pressure and suction sides of the blade, wherein one or more shear webs connect the spar caps. Id.
Claim 19 is rejected as Fritz establishes that it is well known that vinyl ester and epoxy resins are functional equivalents when making composites for use in wind turbines. See Fritz ¶ 31; KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cieslak, Eyb, and Fritz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Badger (US 2020/0263657 A1).
Cieslak et al. teach the use of carbon fiber-reinforced as pre-cured fiber-reinforced strip layers 22 in the spar cap, but fail to teach the use of pre-cured fiber-reinforced pultrusion planks.
Badger teaches the formation of a wind turbine blade comprising spar caps 12, wherein the caps are made up of a stack of pre-fabricated elongate reinforcing strips 18 that are pultruded members of carbon fiber-reinforced plastic. Badger abstract, ¶ 37, Fig. 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have looked to Badger for a specific type of carbon fiber-reinforced strips for use in spar caps in order to successfully practiced the invention of Cieslak.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it is unclear why the carbon fibers of Eyb are discussed in the Office Action and what fibers correspond to the claimed first plurality of fibers. The carbon fibers of Eyb are not mentioned in the rejection above due to the amendment of claim 1. As explained above, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisans to modify the glass fibers of the infusion-promoting layers with the polyester fibers of Perrow.
Applicant then argues that the prior art fails to teach the relative elastic moduli as required in the instant claims. Claims 1 and 16 require a ratio between a first elastic modulus and a second elastic modulus from between 1:4 and 4:1, wherein the first elastic modulus relates to a first plurality of fibers and the second elastic modulus relates to a first cured resin. Independent claims 1 and 16 further require that the first plurality of fibers to be polymeric fibers and more specifically polyester fibers in dependent claims 17 and 18. Dependent claim 7 further requires that the first cured resin be one of epoxy, polyester, or vinyl ester resins. As established above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected polyester fibers as the first plurality of fibers and epoxy resin to be the first cured resin. Although the prior art does not explicitly teach the claimed feature relative elastic moduli, it is reasonable to presume that the required modulus ratio is inherent to the combined prior art teachings. Support for said presumption is found in the use of like materials (i.e. polyester fibers and epoxy resin). The burden is upon Applicant to prove otherwise. In re Fitzgerald 205 USPQ 594. In addition, the presently claimed property of a ratio between a first elastic modulus and a second elastic modulus that ranges from between 1:4 and 4:1 would obviously have been present one the prior art product is provided. Note In re Best, 195 USPQ at 433, footnote (CCPA 1977) as to the providing of this rejection made above under 35 USC 102. Reliance upon inherency is not improper even though rejection is based on Section 103 instead of Section 102. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947 (CCPA 1975).
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 MATTHEW D MATZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-5732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571.272.7783. 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.
/MATTHEW D MATZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights