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
The amendment submitted 04/28/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, and 10-17 remain pending. Claims 9 and 18-19 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims necessitating new and modified grounds of rejection. Please see new and modified grounds of rejection below.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the Applicant argues the claims are allowable since the prior art being relied upon does not teach “wherein the second shell support portion contacts the second shell”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merely rearranging the second shell support portion to contact the second shell would have been an obvious modification to one of ordinary skill in the art as mere rearrangement of parts supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second shell support portion contacting the second shell must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 12 recite “wherein the second shell support portion contacts the second shell” and Applicants disclosure as originally filed does not seem to support such a claim limitation. Applicant has indicated that support may be found in “FIG. 15” however there is no Figure 15 in Applicant’s disclosure and Applicant’s specification makes no description of the second shell support portion contacting the second shell. Presuming Applicant intended to indicate Figure 5 as supporting this claim limitation, it merely reasonably discloses the second shell support portion (144) in close proximity to the second shell (122, unlabeled in Fig 5; see Figs 3-4) and is insufficient to support a limitation requiring the second shell support portion to contact the second shell. For the reasons above, Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed would not disclose to one of ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing and is an issue of new matter.
Claims 2-8, 10-11, and 13-17 depend from one of claims 1 and 12 and inherit all deficiencies of the parent claim.
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.
Claim 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10337490 to Caruso in view of US 7980826 to Hancock.
(a) Regarding claim 1:
(i) Caruso discloses a rotor blade (see title) comprising:
a first shell (one of pressure side segment 44 and suction side segment 46, Fig 7; trailing edge segments 26, Figs 2/12-15, of all embodiments may comprise pressure and suction side segments 44/46; Col 7 Lns 35-42, Col 10 Lns 19-21) and
a second shell (the other one of pressure side segment 44 and suction side segment 46, Fig 7),
forming a first aerodynamic surface (respective outer surface of pressure side segment 44 or suction side segment 46, Fig 7), a second aerodynamic surface (respective other outer surface of pressure side segment 44 or suction side segment 46, Fig 7), a trailing edge (42, Figs 7/15), and a leading edge (40, Figs 7/15);
at least one main support structure for increasing the bending stiffness of the rotor blade (spar caps 48/50/51/53 and shear webs 35, Figs 3/7), in the main support structure is arranged in a central area of the rotor blade (Figs 3/7) and is connected to the first shell (Fig 7) and to the second shell (Fig 7);
at least one connective element (component 52, Figs 2/12-18), and
wherein the connective element is arranged between the first shell and the second shell (Fig 15).
(ii) Caruso does not disclose:
the connective element having at least a first shell support portion, a second shell support portion, and an element support portion,
wherein the first shell support portion is connected to the element support portion by a first arm,
wherein the second shell support portion is connected to the element support portion by a second arm,
a first shell connection between the first shell support portion and the first shell,
a second shell connection between the second shell support portion and the first shell, and
wherein the first arm and the second arm are each angled with respect to a profile direction and a chordwise direction.
(iii) Hancock is also in the field of rotor blades (see title) and teaches a connective element (structure 16, Fig 9) arranged between a first shell and a second shell (first and second blade parts 8/11, Fig 9), the connective element comprising:
a first shell support portion (one of two blade parts 12 of structure 16, Fig 9), a second shell support portion (the other one of two blade parts 12 of structure 16, Fig 9), and an element support portion (horizontally extending portions of reinforcement part 9 adjacent first blade part 8, Fig 9),
wherein the first shell support portion is connected to the element support portion by a first arm (respective one of vertically extending portions of reinforcement part 9 extending between first and second blade parts 8/11 and connected with a blade part 12, Fig 9),
wherein the second shell support portion is connected to the element support portion by a second arm (respective other one of vertically extending portions of reinforcement part 9 extending between first and second blade parts 8/11 and connected with a blade part 12, Fig 9),
a first shell connection (respective one of adhesively bonded contact surfaces 15 between blade part 12 and blade part 11, Fig 9) between the first shell support portion and the first shell (Fig 9),
by a second shell connection (respective other one of adhesively bonded contact surfaces 15 between blade part 12 and blade part 11, Fig 9) between the second shell support portion and the first shell (Fig 9), and
wherein the first arm and the second arm are each angled with respect to a profile direction and a chordwise direction (Fig 9).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one connective element as disclosed by Caruso with the above aforementioned connective element as taught by Hancock for the purpose of ensuring pressure to the contact surfaces during hardening of the adhesive (Col 8 Lns 26-28) and compensating for non-parallelism between the inside surfaces of the first and second shells (Col 9 Lns 1-13).
(v) Caruso as modified by Hancock does not teach wherein the second shell support portion contacts the second shell.
(vi) The Applicant has disclosed no criticality, nor any new or unexpected results, from having the second shell support portion contacting the second shell and the prior art would perform the same having the second shell support portion contacting the second shell. Merely rearranging the second shell support portion to contact the second shell supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
(vii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second shell support portion as taught by the combined teachings of Caruso as modified by Hancock to contact the second shell as claimed through mere rearrangement of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
(b) Regarding claim 2:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1.
(ii) Caruso further discloses wherein the connective element is exclusively arranged in a trailing edge area of the rotor blade (Figs 2/12-18), and/or wherein the connective element is exclusively arranged within the rotor blade in the chordwise direction between 60% to 100 % of a chord length of the rotor blade (Col 2 Lns 53-55; Col 10 Lns 6-10; Fig 15).
(c) Regarding claim 3:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1.
(ii) Caruso further discloses wherein the connective element is extending within the rotor blade in the longitudinal direction in an area from 10% of a blade length of the rotor blade toward the blade tip or up to 98% of a blade length of the rotor blade (reasonably disclosed in Figs 2/12-14).
(d) Regarding claim 5:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1.
(ii) Caruso further discloses wherein the connective element is positioned in the chordwise direction within the rotor blade such that a trailing edge distance between the respective connective element and the trailing edge is determined according to a longitudinal position in longitudinal direction of the respective connective element or according to a chord length of the rotor blade (reasonably disclosed in Figs 12-14).
(e) Regarding claim 6:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 5.
(ii) Caruso further discloses wherein the trailing edge distance varies in the longitudinal direction such that the trailing edge distance and the chord length of the rotor blade are at least partially positively correlating (both trailing edge distance and chord length become smaller from a root side to a tip side in a longitudinal direction as reasonably disclosed in Figs 12-13).
(f) Regarding claim 8:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1.
(ii) Hancock further teaches wherein the connective element is configured such that a maximum height of the connective element in a non-mounted state of the connective element is larger than a maximum height of the connective element when mounted at a designated location thereof between the first shell and second shell (blade parts 12 and reinforcement part 9 are pushed apart by a spring 14 which is compressed during assembly of the rotor blade in order to provide pressure to the contact surfaces 15 during hardening of the adhesive; Figs 7-8, Col 8 Lns 26-28).
(g) Regarding claim 11:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1.
(ii) Hancock further teaches wherein the element support portion comprises an element bridge (horizontally extending portion of reinforcement part 9 adjacent and spaced from first blade part 8, Fig 9) enabling the element connection being embodied as a first element connection (one of two contact surfaces 15 between reinforcement part 9 and first blade part 8, Fig 9) and a second element connection (the other one of two contact surfaces 15 between reinforcement part 9 and first blade part 8, Fig 9), both being connected by the element bridge (Fig 9).
(h) Regarding claim 12:
(i) Caruso discloses a wind turbine (10, Fig 1) comprising:
a tower (12, Fig 1), a nacelle (14, Fig 1) mounted to the tower (Fig 1), and a rotor (hub 18, blades 16, Fig 1) being rotatably supported by the nacelle (Fig 1),
wherein the rotor comprises a hub (18, Fig 1) and at least one rotor blade (16, Fig 1),
the rotor blade comprising:
a first shell (one of pressure side segment 44 and suction side segment 46, Fig 7; trailing edge segments 26, Figs 2/12-15, of all embodiments may comprise pressure and suction side segments 44/46; Col 7 Lns 35-42, Col 10 Lns 19-21) and
a second shell (the other one of pressure side segment 44 and suction side segment 46, Fig 7),
forming a first aerodynamic surface (respective outer surface of pressure side segment 44 or suction side segment 46, Fig 7), a second aerodynamic surface (respective other outer surface of pressure side segment 44 or suction side segment 46, Fig 7), a trailing edge (42, Figs 7/15), and a leading edge (40, Figs 7/15); and
at least one connective element (component 52, Figs 2/12-18), and
wherein the connective element is arranged between the first shell and the second shell (Fig 15).
(ii) Caruso does not disclose:
the at least one connective element having at least a first shell support portion, a second shell support portion, and an element support portion,
wherein the first shell support portion is connected to the element support portion by a first arm,
wherein the second shell support portion is connected to the element support portion by a second arm,
a first shell connection between the first shell support portion and the first shell,
a second shell connection being the second shell support portion and the first shell, and
wherein the first arm and the second arm are each angled with respect to a profile direction and a chordwise direction.
(iii) Hancock is also in the field of rotor blades (see title) and teaches a connective element (structure 16, Fig 9) arranged between a first shell and a second shell (first and second blade parts 8/11, Fig 9), the connective element comprising:
a first shell support portion (one of two blade parts 12 of structure 16, Fig 9), a second shell support portion (the other one of two blade parts 12 of structure 16, Fig 9), and an element support portion (horizontally extending portions of reinforcement part 9 adjacent first blade part 8, Fig 9),
wherein the first shell support portion is connected to the element support portion by a first arm (respective one of vertically extending portions of reinforcement part 9 extending between first and second blade parts 8/11 and connected with a blade part 12, Fig 9),
wherein the second shell support portion is connected to the element support portion by a second arm (respective other one of vertically extending portions of reinforcement part 9 extending between first and second blade parts 8/11 and connected with a blade part 12, Fig 9),
a first shell connection (respective one of adhesively bonded contact surfaces 15 between blade part 12 and blade part 11, Fig 9) between the first shell support portion and the first shell (Fig 9),
by a second shell connection (respective other one of adhesively bonded contact surfaces 15 between blade part 12 and blade part 11, Fig 9) between the second shell support portion and the first shell (Fig 9), and
wherein the first arm and the second arm are each angled with respect to a profile direction and a chordwise direction (Fig 9).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least one connective element as disclosed by Caruso with the above aforementioned at least one connective element as taught by Hancock for the purpose of ensuring pressure to the contact surfaces during hardening of the adhesive (Col 8 Lns 26-28) and compensating for non-parallelism between the inside surfaces of the first and second shells (Col 9 Lns 1-13).
(v) One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand that a nacelle of a wind turbine may be rotatably mounted to the tower.
(vi) Caruso as modified by Hancock does not teach wherein the second shell support portion contacts the second shell.
(vii) The Applicant has disclosed no criticality, nor any new or unexpected results, from having the second shell support portion contacting the second shell and the prior art would perform the same having the second shell support portion contacting the second shell. Merely rearranging the second shell support portion to contact the second shell supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
(viii) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second shell support portion as taught by the combined teachings of Caruso as modified by Hancock to contact the second shell as claimed through mere rearrangement of parts, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
(i) Regarding claim 13:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1.
(ii) Caruso as modified by Hancock further teaches a method for manufacturing a rotor blade (Caruso: Col 3 Lns 28-30) according claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), the method comprising:
positioning the element support portion on an inner surface of the second shell (Hancock: strengthening structure 16 is attached to the first blade part 8 before the first and second blade parts are brought in contact with each other, i.e. its position is fixed prior to assembly of the second shell, Col 4 Lns 1-4/10-13; Col 6 Lns 48-52; claim 16); and
connecting the first shell and the second shell (Caruso: Col 7 Lns 39-41, Fig 7; Hancock: Col 4 Lns 1-4/10-13; Col 6 Lns 48-52; claim 16), and
placing adhesive on a surface of the first shell support portion and on a surface of the second shell support portion (Hancock: contact surfaces 15, Col 3 Lns 31-34, Col 5 Lns 35-36, Col 8 Lns 18-20),
wherein the respective surfaces adjoin an inner surface of the first shell (Hancock: Fig 9).
(j) Regarding claim 14:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the method according to claim 13.
(ii) Hancock further teaches wherein the step of positioning of the element support portion comprises firmly establishing the element connection prior to connecting the first shell and the second shell (Hancock: strengthening structure 16 is attached to the first blade part 8 before the first and second blade parts are brought in contact with each other, i.e. its position is fixed prior to assembly of the second shell, Col 4 Lns 1-4/10-13; Col 6 Lns 48-52; claim 16).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10337490 to Caruso as modified by US 7980826 to Hancock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10137542 to Upton.
(a) Regarding claim 4:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1.
(ii) Caruso as modified by Hancock further teach an element length of the connective element (Caruso: chordwise length of flanges 70/72, Fig 15; Hancock: chordwise length between first and second shell connection points, Fig 9).
(iii) Caruso as modified by Hancock do not explicitly teach wherein an element length of the connective element varies in a longitudinal direction such that the element length and a chord length of the rotor blade are at least partially positively correlating.
(iii) The Applicant has disclosed no criticality, nor described any new or unexpected results, from having the element length that varies in a longitudinal direction that at least partially correlates to a chord length of the rotor blade and the rotor blade of Caruso as modified by Hancock would perform the same having an element length that varies in a longitudinal direction that at least partially correlates to a chord length of the rotor blade. Mere changes in proportion or shape are obvious modifications to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A-B). Further it is well known in the art to have a connecting element with an element length that varies in a longitudinal direction that at least partially correlates to a chord length of the rotor blade as evidenced by Upton (connecting element comprising shear web 125 and spar cap 126, Fig 3, has an element length W2 that tapers in a longitudinal direction corresponding to length L2, Fig 4A, in that it becomes smaller as does chord length W1 from a root end of the blade towards a tip of the blade, Figs 2/4A, Col 7 Lns 50-53).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the element length as taught by Caruso as modified by Hancock to vary in a longitudinal direction such that it at least partially correlates to a chord length of the rotor blade as claimed as an obvious matter of design choice arriving at a configuration well known in the art as evidenced by Upton, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A-B).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10337490 to Caruso as modified by US 7980826 to Hancock as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 11840038 to Bech.
(a) Regarding claim 7:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 5.
(ii) Caruso as modified by Hancock do not teach wherein the connective element is positioned such in the chordwise direction within the rotor blade that:
if arranged in a longitudinal range between 10% to 50% of a blade length of the rotor blade, the trailing edge distance between the connective element and the trailing edge does not exceed 25% of a respective chord length and is not less than 15% of the respective chord length,
if arranged in a longitudinal range between 50% to 70% of the blade length of the rotor blade, the trailing edge distance between the connective element and the trailing edge does not exceed 20% of the respective chord length and is not less than 10% of the respective chord length, and/or
if arranged in a longitudinal range between 70% to 90% of the blade length of the rotor blade, the trailing edge distance between the respective connective element and the trailing edge does not exceed 15% of the respective chord length and is not less than 5% of the respective chord length.
(iii) Bech is also in the field of wind turbines (see title) and teaches wherein the chordwise positioning of a connective element significantly affects the bond line thicknesses between the connective element and a respective blade shell (Col 1 Lns 49-52), thereby establishing it as a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connective element as disclosed by Caruso to be within the claimed ranges through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(b) Regarding claim 15:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 5.
(ii) Caruso as modified by Hancock do not teach wherein the connective element is positioned such in the chordwise direction within the rotor blade that:
if arranged in a longitudinal range between 10% to 50% of a blade length of the rotor blade, the trailing edge distance between the connective element and the trailing edge is not less than 15% of the respective chord length,
if arranged in a longitudinal range between 50% to 70% of the blade length of the rotor blade, the trailing edge distance between the connective element and the trailing edge is not less than 10% of the respective chord length, and/or
if arranged in a longitudinal range between 70% to 90% of the blade length of the rotor blade, the trailing edge distance between the respective connective element and the trailing edge is not less than 5% of the respective chord length.
(iii) Bech is also in the field of wind turbines (see title) and teaches wherein the chordwise positioning of a connective element significantly affects the bond line thicknesses between the connective element and a respective blade shell (Col 1 Lns 49-52), thereby establishing it as a result effective variable. Routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the connective element as disclosed by Caruso to be within the claimed ranges through routine optimization of a result effective variable, see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10337490 to Caruso as modified by US 7980826 to Hancock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 8043067 to Kuroiwa.
(a) Regarding claim 10:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1.
(ii) Caruso as modified by Hancock do not teach:
wherein the first shell and/or the second shell comprise at least one sandwich structure portion having an outer skin laminate, an inner skin laminate, and a core material enclosed by the outer skin laminate and the inner skin laminate thereby forming the at least one sandwich structure portion,
wherein the first shell and/or the second shell further comprise(s) at least one monolithic portion having an outer skin laminate and not having a core material, and
wherein the first shell connection, the second shell connection, and/or the element connection is/are positioned at the at least one monolithic portion and not at the at least one sandwich structure portion.
(iii) Kuroiwa is also in the field of rotor blades (see title) and teaches:
a connecting element (beam member 6 closest to trailing edge, Figs 2/10-12) connecting a first and second shell (suction or pressure side shell walls of outer skin layer 1, Figs 1/3A-4/10-12) via a first/second shell connection (where beam member 6 connects with top shell wall of outer skin layer 1, Figs 1/3A-4/10-12) and an element connection (where beam member 6 connects with top shell wall of outer skin layer 1, Figs 1/3A-4/10-12),
wherein the first shell and the second shell comprise at least one sandwich structure portion (core members 3/5, Figs 1/3A-4/10-12) having an outer skin laminate (outer skin layer 1 which may comprise fiber clothes 21, Figs 3A-4/7-9), an inner skin laminate (inner skin layer 7, Figs 3A-4/7-9), and a core material (core members 3/5 formed of low density material such as resin foam such as PVC or wood such as balsa, Col 4 Lns 58-63) enclosed by the outer skin laminate and the inner skin laminate (Figs 3A-4/7-9) thereby forming the at least one sandwich structure portion (Figs 3A-4/7-9; Col 2 Lns 41-42, Col 6 Lns 33-35), wherein the first shell and/or the second shell further comprise(s) at least one monolithic portion (main structural members 2/4, Figs 1/3A-4/10-12) having an outer skin laminate (fiber clothes 21/22, Figs 7-9) and not having a core material (Figs 1/3A-4/7-9),
wherein the first/second shell connection, and/or the element connection is/are positioned at the at least one monolithic portion (Figs 1/4/10-12) and not at a sandwich structure portion (Figs 1/4/10-12).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and/or second shell as taught by Caruso as modified by Hancock with the above aforementioned sandwich structure portion and monolithic portion as taught by Kuroiwa for the purpose of providing a turbine blade that is both lightweight and high strength at a low cost (Col 1 Lns 64-67), as well as enhancing the strength to the compressive stress in the direction perpendicular to the blade cross section of the wind turbine blade with a minimum weight increase (Col 2 Lns 15-21).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10337490 to Caruso as modified by US 7980826 to Hancock as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of US 20110176928 to Jensen.
(a) Regarding claims 16-17:
(i) Caruso as modified by Hancock teaches the rotor blade according to claim 1 and the wind turbine according to claim 12.
(ii) Caruso as modified by Hancock suggests (angled arms at means for compensating for non-parallelism 23, Fig 9) but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first arm is continuously angled towards the leading edge, and
wherein the second arm is continuously angled towards the trailing edge.
(iii) Jensen is also in the field of wind turbines (see title) and teaches:
a connective element (girders 26 and 28, Fig 4) comprising a first arm (arm between feet 36 of girder 26, Fig 4) and a second arm (arm between feet 36 of girder 28, Fig 4),
wherein the first arm is continuously angled towards the leading edge (Fig 4), and
wherein the second arm is continuously angled towards the trailing edge (Fig 4).
(iv) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second arms as taught by the combined teachings of Caruso as modified by Hancock to be continuously angled towards the leading and trailing edges, respectively, as taught by Jensen for the purpose of strengthening the shell against transverse shear distortion (see abstract; Par 0040), increasing the torsional stiffness of the blade thereby improving the aero-elastic stability of the blade (Par 0041), increase the blades resistance to crushing pressure thereby increasing the ultimate strength of the blade (Par 0081), and increase reliability of the blade (Par 0082).
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 Justin A Pruitt whose telephone number is (571)272-8383. The examiner can normally be reached T-F 8:30am - 6:30pm.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUSTIN A PRUITT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights