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 Amendments
Applicant field a response and amended claims 1-17 on 06/27/2025.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 2, 4, 9, 10, 13, and 17 are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The revised rejection below addresses the amended claims.
Applicant argues:
“Thus, when resin from the pre-preg 26 is released, it is released into fibre substrate 22. Pre-preg 26 never comes into contact with the thermoplastic film 20 in Behmer et al. and there is no teaching or suggestion found in Behmer et al. that resin from pre-preg 26 would make contact with thermoplastic film 20. In fact, paragraph [0034] of Behmer et al. discusses the resin only impregnating the fibre layer 22: " ... resin from the pre-preg 26 migrates into and impregnates the fibre substrate 22."
In view of the above, it is clear that Behmer et al. does not teach "contacting the heated first and second layers with a liquid epoxy resin or a liquid mixture of epoxy resins," as required by independent claim 1, since there is no teaching or suggestion in Behmer et al. that the resin contacts both of the first and second layers.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Behmer teaches an erosion resistant pre-form fixed to an outer surface of a fairing body, wherein the erosion resistant pre-form comprises a thermoplastic film and fiber substrate (Figures 3-5, items 14, 20, and 22). Behmer teaches providing the fiber substrate (i.e., second layer) directly on the thermoplastic film (i.e., first layer) (Figure 5).
By performing vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding on an erosion resistant pre-form as taught by Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter, the fiber substrate would become infused with the liquid epoxy resin due to the porosity and absorbency of the dry fiber substrate of Behmer, as exhibited by the impregnation of the fiber substrate with the resin of the prepregs. Because the thermoplastic film is directly in contact with the epoxy-impregnated substrate, the thermoplastic film would naturally be in contact with the epoxy resin.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimiaeifar (US 12,017,415) in view of Behmer (PG-PUB 2016/0215757), Kaune (PG-PUB 2015/0021835), and Hunter (PG-PUB 2018/0186103).
Regarding claim 1, Kimiaeifar teaches a method of manufacturing an erosion shield for a wind turbine blade (Figure 2, item 38), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a layer of a polymer material, such as a polyurethane material (Col 3, ln 25-60 and Col 4, ln 54-60);
preparing the erosion shield such that the shield has a U-shaped profile (Page 2, col 4, ln 54- col 5, ln 20); and
affixing the shield to a leading edge region the wind turbine blade through bonding (Figure 3 and col 5, ln 22-55).
While Kimiaeifar does not disclose the particular technique and steps performed to mold the erosion shield, Kimiaeifar discloses the shield is shaped within a mold where a release agent is applied (Col 6, Ln 5-22).
Kimiaeifar does not explicitly teach the (1) arranging a second layer directly on top of the first layer, the second layer comprising a fiber material; (2) heating the first layer and the second layer to a temperature of 35-90 °C; (3) once the first and second layer have the temperature of 35-90 °C, contacting the heated first and second layers with a liquid epoxy resin or a liquid mixture of epoxy resins; and (4) curing the epoxy resin or mixture of epoxy resins to adhere the first layer to the second layer to obtain the fiber-reinforced part.
As to (1), Behmer teaches a process for manufacturing an erosion resistant aerodynamic fairing for a rotor blade, comprising:
first manufacturing an erosion resistant preform (Figure 3-5, item 14, 20, and 22 and [0031]-[0033]) by providing the second substrate directly on the thermoplastic film (Figure 5) and
second co-curing the erosion resistant pre-form with layers of prepreg for producing a fairing body in order to obtain the erosion resistant preform disposed flush with the fairing body [0034]-[0035].
Specifically, in preparing the erosion resistant preform, Behmer teaches using a thermoplastic film formed from an aliphatic polyurethane because it possess good erosion resistant properties, hydrolytic stability and low temperature flexibility and is well suited for use in aerodynamic fairings (Figures 3-5, item 20 and [0010] and [0031]. Behmer teaches using fiber substrate disposed on the thermoplastic film for support (Figure 3-5, item 22 and [0031]-[0032]). Behmer teaches fusing the thermoplastic film and fiber substrate by heating to a temperature of 60 to 150° C and pressed together under an additional pressure of approximately 1 bar for approximately 60 seconds to fuse the layers together for a strong connection [0032]. Behmer teaches after fusion, resin infusion occurs [0033]-[0034]. Accordingly, Behmer teaches the final integrated shield is a composite of polyurethane film, fibrous layers, and epoxy.
While Kimiaeifar discloses using a polyurethane layer in the erosion shield, Kimiaeifar does not disclose the entire composition of the erosion shield, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. 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 Kimiaeifar with the erosion resistant preform of Behmer in the form of an epoxy-infused preform comprising thermoplastic film and fiber layers, a known suitable erosion resistant shield preform, to provide a known suitable erosion resistant shield preform with desirable durability and erosion resistant properties.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process of Kimiaeifar with steps of providing a second layer comprising a fiber material disposed directly on top of a first layer of thermoplastic and infusing the preform with epoxy.
As to (2) and (4), Kaune teaches a process of preparing fiber-reinforced plastics blades for wind power systems [0002], [0006], [0030]. Kaune teaches the fiber-reinforced plastics are shaped into any shapes and sizes, including large and complex shapes, such as blades [0030]. Kaune teaches (a) treating a heatable mold with a release agent; (b) introducing a fiber material and optionally other reinforcing material into the mold, (c) placing one or more hoses which serve for the subsequent input of a liquid mixture encompassing at least one resin and at least one hardener reactive toward the resin, (d) applying a plastics film which permits airtight sealing of
the mold, and (e) extracting, for example by pumping, the air between mold and plastics film, whereupon the resultant vacuum sucks the liquid mixture through the hoses into the mold and the fiber material [0012].
Kaune teaches using epoxy resin cured by means of amine hardeners [0026].
Kaune teaches the liquid mixture input under suction in step (e) of the process and comprising resin and hardener is preferably temperature-controlled prior to input under suction, wherein the case of epoxy resin-amine hardener mixtures this temperature
(infusion temperature) is preferably from 35 to 45° C [0019]. Kaune teaches the curing step (f) preferably takes place in a plurality of stages, wherein in a first stage for epoxy resin-amine hardener mixtures, this temperature is typically in the range from 40 to 60° C [0020].
While Kimiaeifar discusses molding the shield, Kimiaeifar does not teach the particular technique used to cure the preform and provide a shaped and finished shield, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. 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 Kimiaeifar with the vacuum-assisted epoxy-based resin infusion of the preform using the technique of Kaune, a known suitable technique for molding fiber-reinforced plastics for rotor blades or wind power systems, to yield the predictable result of transforming the dry shield preform into an epoxy-based shield as desired by Kimiaeifar.
As to (3), Hunter teaches a process of manufacturing a wind turbine blade by performing vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding (Figures 3A and 3B). Hunter teaches pre-heating the mold and, therefore, the layers of fibrous material before any resin is introduced [0012]-[0013]. Hunter teaches due to the elevated temperature of the various structural layers prior to infusion, when resin is introduced into the mould, less heat is lost from the resin to the layers than would otherwise be the case if the mould
had not been pre-heated, and as a result, the resin remains at a higher temperature and lower viscosity during infusion, which advantageously reduces the likelihood of voids occurring in the finished blade [0013]. Hunter teaches pre-heating the mould until all of the layers of fibrous material in the first and second zones have reached a temperature that is greater than or equal to a pre-selected target temperature [0017]-[0018]. Hunter teaches choosing a pre-selected target temperature that is substantially the same as the infusion temperature, all the layers will be at a temperature that is greater than or equal to the infusion temperature, and hence heat transfer away from the resin to the layers will be minimized [0022]-[0025]. For instance, Hunter teaches pre-heating temperatures can be a first temperature of approximately 35° C. to 50° C and a second temperature may be approximately 40° C. to 60° C [0022]-[0025].
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 Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer and Kaune with pre-heating to a resin infusion temperature as taught by Hunter for the benefit of maintaining the temperature and viscosity of the resin during infusion and reducing likelihood of voids in the final product.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer and Kaune with pre-heating the mold and first and second layers to the resin infusion temperature 35 to 45°C of Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer and Kaune prior to resin infusion as taught by Hunter.
Regarding claim 2, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the heating step comprises heating the first layer and the second layer to a temperature of 35 to 45° C (Kaune, [0019]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 3, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the epoxy resin has an epoxy equivalent between 150 to 200 g/equivalent (Kaune, [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the method comprises a step of contacting the heated first and second layers with a hardener prior to the step of curing the epoxy resin (Kaune, [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 4, wherein the hardener has an amine value of 350-700 mg
KOH/g (Kaune, [0026]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 6, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter does not explicitly teach the step of curing comprises forming crosslinks between the epoxy resin or mixture of epoxy resins and the first layer. However, given that the process of Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter is identical with the claimed process and epoxy resin, amine hardener, and first layer of Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter are identical with the claimed corresponding parts, the interaction between the first layer and epoxy resin in Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter would be expected to be substantially identical. Therefore, it would be expected for the curing of the first and second layers with epoxy resin in the process of Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter to form crosslinks between the epoxy resin and first layer.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 7, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first layer consists of a thermoplastic elastomer (Behmer, [0010] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 8, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first layer consists of a thermoplastic polyurethane (Behmer, [0010] and [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the layer thickness is about 600 microns (0.6 mm) (Behmer, [0031]).
Given that the thickness lies within the claimed range, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the step of curing the epoxy resin or mixture of epoxy resins is carried out at a temperature of at least 60 °C (Kaune, [0020]).
Regarding claim 11, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the step of contacting the heated first and second layers with a liquid epoxy resin or a liquid mixture of epoxy resins is carried out by vacuum assisted resin transfer molding (Kaune, [0012] and [0020).
Regarding claim 12, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the fiber reinforced part is an erosion shield for a leading edge of the wind turbine blade (Kimiaeifar, Figures 4a and 5a and Page 2, Col 4, ln 54-Col 5, ln 20).
Regarding claim 13, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the heating step comprises heating the first layer and the second layer up to a temperature of 60 °C- 80°C for curing (Kaune, [0019]-[0020], [0026]), such that the heating step would including heating to a temperature of 40°C- 59°C.
Regarding claim 14, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the resin is a liquid at a temperature of 25 temperature of 25 °C and a pressure of 1 atm (Kaune, [0019]).
Furthermore, given the epoxy resin of Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter is identical to the claimed epoxy resin, the epoxy resin of Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter would be expected to have the same properties, including remaining a liquid at room temperature and atmospheric pressure.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 17, Kimiaeifar in view of Behmer, Kaune, and Hunter teaches a process of manufacturing a wind turbine blade with a fiber-reinforced part, the method comprising the steps of:
providing a fiber-reinforced part, the fiber-reinforced part being manufactured accosting to the process of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above);
separately providing a structural blade body (Kimiaeifar, Figure 3 and col 5, ln 22-55), and
affixing the shield to a leading edge region the wind turbine blade through bonding (Kimiaeifar, Figure 3 and col 5, ln 22-55).
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 on 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
Prosecution Insights