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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed on 8/04/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1 relying on reference Lull, in paragraph 3 of page 8 through paragraph 2 of page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
Upon consideration of the amended claim 1, it is determined that the amendment does overcome the prior art reference Lull and therefore the previous 102 rejection using Lull is hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1 relying on reference Akhtar, in paragraph 3 of page 11 through paragraph 2 of page 14 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that Akhtar does not disclose a blade in which one spar cap is given the Fig. 8 profile and the opposing spar cap is given the Fig. 10 profile. The arguments have already been addressed in detail in the office action mailed on 10/15/2025 as not persuasive, and that position is maintained herein. The arguments have also been, and still are, addressed within the Akhtar rejection below (discussion regarding Akhtar “identifies throughout the disclosure that the first spar cap 40 and second spar cap 44 may be not identical” within the Akhtar rejection).
Applicant further provides remarks directed towards that Examiner articulates no reason why someone would select the particular combination of one spar cap having the profile of Fig 8 and the other spar cap having the profile of Fig 10. In response, it is noted that Akhtar is pointed to as a single-reference rejection of claim 1, wherein Akhtar discloses various configurations including the required configuration (i.e. Applicant’s claimed configuration) and thus no motivation is required for someone to select that required configuration from Akhtar’s disclosure. In other words, it would be obvious to select any of the various configurations from Akhtar’s disclosure, including Applicant’s claimed/required configuration. This is inherently an "Obvious to Try” rationale which, for the sake of explicitly addressing Applicant’s remarks with an explicitly identified rationale, is identified in the Akhtar rejection below.
Applicant further provides remarks directed towards Examiner’s use of the word “may”. It is noted that Examiner’s use of the term is merely meant to convey an interpretation for mapping purposes, i.e. for mapping Applicant’s claimed elements to the prior art’s elements, and not to speculate what might be factual with regard to Akhtar’s structure/disclosure/process, etc., or what Akhtar’s structure/disclosure/process, etc. might show/identify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2, 6-8, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100143147 A1 (hereinafter Akhtar).
Regarding claim 1, Akhtar discloses:
A blade (18; Fig 2) for a wind turbine (abstract),
the blade extending in a lengthwise direction (direction from root to tip in Fig 2) between a root end (20; Fig 2) and a tip end (22; Fig 2) of the blade,
the blade comprising:
a leeward shell portion (42 combined with 26; Fig 3) and a windward shell portion (46 combined with 28; Fig 3),
each of the shell portions defining respective inner and outer surfaces (Fig 3 shows this) extending in a chordwise direction between a leading edge of the blade and a trailing edge of the blade (Fig 3 shows this),
wherein the blade extends in a thickness direction (vertical direction in Fig 3) between the leeward shell portion and the windward shell portion (Fig 3 shows this);
a first windward reinforcement structure (44; Fig 3) internally within the blade (Fig 3 shows this),
the first windward reinforcement structure engaging the windward shell portion (Fig 3 shows this);
a first leeward reinforcement structure (40; Fig 3) internally within the blade (Fig 3 shows this),
the first leeward reinforcement structure engaging the leeward shell portion (Fig 3 shows this);
wherein:
the first windward and first leeward reinforcement structures extend in the lengthwise direction of the blade (Fig 3 shows this) and have a thickness in the thickness direction of the blade (Fig 3 shows this);
Akhtar may not explicitly disclose:
the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure initially starts to decrease at a first location in the lengthwise direction of the blade,
a first region of the first leeward reinforcement structure being defined in the lengthwise direction between the first location and a lengthwise tip end of the first leeward reinforcement structure;
the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure initially starts to decrease at a second location in the lengthwise direction of the blade,
a second region of the first windward reinforcement structure being defined in the lengthwise direction between the second location and a lengthwise tip end of the first windward reinforcement structure;
the first region of the first leeward reinforcement structure and the second region of the first windward reinforcement structure overlap in an overlap region in the lengthwise direction;
and in the overlap region, a decrease of the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure is staggered in the lengthwise direction with respect to a decrease of the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure.
While Akhtar may not explicitly disclose this configuration expressed in a manner so particularly clear that it rises to the disclosure standards of a 102 anticipatory rejection, the required configuration is implied such that it would be apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art, thereby congruent with a single-reference 103 obviousness rejection. Discussion follows.
Akhtar clearly shows that his blade has 2 spar caps (Fig 3; para 0024: “a first sparcap 40 is positioned on and coupled to an inner surface 42 of first blade section 26. A second sparcap 44 is positioned on and coupled to an inner surface 46 of second blade section 28.”), and identifies throughout the disclosure that the first spar cap 40 and second spar cap 44 may be not identical. For example, as identified by the term “or” in “first sparcap 40 and/or second sparcap 44 has a thickness distribution as shown in FIG. 11.” (para 0028), and as identified by the term “or” in “A thickness of first sparcap 40 and/or second sparcap 44 varies” (para 0029), and as identified by the term “one of” in “wherein at least one of a thickness of said first sparcap and a thickness of said second sparcap varies” (claim 15).
Therefore, in the case where spar cap 40 and spar cap 44 are not identical, it clearly follows, as one having ordinary skill in the art would understand, that Akhtar’s labeling of “40/44” in Figs 4-10 (the following is directed at Figs 4-10) cannot possibly be taken to mean that any single figure depicts both spar caps 40 & 44. Rather, by necessity, this must indicate that any single figure shows only one of 40 or 44 but not both, and that the other of 40 or 44 must have a thickness profile that is not shown in that particular figure. One having ordinary skill in the art, armed with Akhtar’s disclosure, would reasonably conclude that the other of 40 or 44 would have a thickness profile explicitly shown in any one of Akhtar’s other figures, particularly because Akhtar’s disclosure is entirely directed toward maximizing a spar cap’s stiffness (para 0005) while minimizing the thickness (para 0005) along the span of the blade (Figs 4-10).
In other words, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, recognizing that each of Akhtar’s spar caps must have some kind of a thickness profile, to try options regarding what/which thickness profile each of Akhtar’s spar caps have, in order to discover a combination which meets desired requirements. There are finite possible options as one having ordinary skill in the art armed with Akhtar’s disclosure would recognize: those explicitly disclosed within Akhtar’s disclosure. One having ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions, identified explicitly within figures 4-10 of Akhtar’s disclosure, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143 I. E.
This would result in each spar cap having dissimilar thickness profiles and result in reading on the limitations above, with the detailed mapping as follows.
the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure initially starts to decrease at a first location (annotated Fig 8-10b, wherein the first leeward reinforcement structure has the thickness profile shown in Fig 8) in the lengthwise direction of the blade,
a first region (annotated Fig 8-10b) of the first leeward reinforcement structure being defined in the lengthwise direction between the first location and a lengthwise tip end of the first leeward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 8-10b);
the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure initially starts to decrease at a second location (annotated Fig 8-10b, wherein the first windward reinforcement structure has the thickness profile shown in Fig 10) in the lengthwise direction of the blade,
a second region (annotated Fig 8-10b) of the first windward reinforcement structure being defined in the lengthwise direction between the second location and a lengthwise tip end of the first windward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 8-10b);
the first region of the first leeward reinforcement structure and the second region of the first windward reinforcement structure overlap in an overlap region (annotated Fig 8-10b) in the lengthwise direction;
and in the overlap region, a decrease of the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure is staggered in the lengthwise direction with respect to a decrease of the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 8-10b shows all this) (wherein a broadest reasonable interpretation of “staggered” is “arranged so as to alternate on either side of a center” as identified by https://www.dictionary.com/browse/staggered);
the first windward reinforcement structure and the first leeward reinforcement structure are each formed by a plurality of layers (e.g. Figs 8, 10 clearly show material 50 combined with 52 existing in layers comprising steps);
the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure decreases in steps (Fig 10 clearly shows this),
each step of the first windward reinforcement structure corresponding to one layer of the plurality of layers of the first windward reinforcement structure (Fig 10 shows this);
and the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure decreases in steps (Fig 8 clearly shows this),
each step of the first leeward reinforcement structure corresponding to one layer of the plurality of layers of the first leeward reinforcement structure (Fig 8 shows this).
PNG
media_image1.png
534
877
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8-10b (Fig 8 = Leeward; Fig 10 = Windward)
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 consists of the first 30 lines of claim 1 (claim 15 excludes the last 8 lines of claim 1). Claim 15 is therefore similarly rejected as the corresponding portions of claim 1 above. See claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Akhtar further discloses:
the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure and the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure decrease towards the tip end of the blade in a first section of the blade (this may be for example the overlap region shown in annotated Fig 8-10b),
the first section of the blade extends at least 25 percent of the length of the blade in the lengthwise direction (Figs 8, 10 show this).
Regarding claim 6, Akhtar further discloses:
a first step of the steps of the first windward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 8-10a) and a second step of the steps of the first leeward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 8-10a) are mutually displaced (mutually displaced along the lengthwise direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
368
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8-10a (Fig 8 = Leeward; Fig 10 = Windward)
Regarding claim 7, Akhtar further discloses:
a plurality of the steps of the first windward and the first leeward reinforcement structures are mutually staggered (Figs 8 and Fig 10 clearly show this).
Regarding claim 8, Akhtar further discloses:
at at least a second position along the length of the blade (e.g. the position of “a range of lengthwise overlap A” or “a range of lengthwise overlap B” in annotated Fig 8-10c), the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure is equal to the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure along a range of lengthwise overlap (“a range of lengthwise overlap A” or “a range of lengthwise overlap B” in annotated Fig 8-10c) between respective steps of the steps of the first leeward and first windward reinforcement structures (Figs 8 and 10 show this).
PNG
media_image3.png
359
751
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8-10c (Fig 8 = Leeward; Fig 10 = Windward)
Regarding claim 13, Akhtar further discloses:
the decrease of the respective thicknesses of the first leeward reinforcement structure and the first windward reinforcement structure is achieved by terminating layers of the plurality of layers at different termination positions along the blade in the lengthwise direction (Figs 8 and 10 show this).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of US 20190270261 A1 (Randall), as evidenced by US 20160146185 A1 (hereinafter Yarbrough).
Regarding claim 14, Akhtar discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
the plurality of layers of the first windward reinforcement structure and the first leeward reinforcement structure comprise pultruded strips.
However, it is well known in the art to create spar caps of wind turbine blades from pultruded strips. As an example, Randall, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches a wind turbine blade having spar caps, wherein each spar cap 36 is formed from pultruded strips of carbon-fibre, preferably a stack of pultruded strips 42, in order to create spar caps which are effectively integrated and conformed with the curved blade outer shell 24 (e.g. para 0054-0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Akhtar to include Randall’s teachings as described above, having Akhtar’s spar caps comprise pultruded strips, in order to create spar caps which are effectively integrated and conformed with the curved blade outer shell 24 (e.g. para 0054-0055).
It is further noted that Akhtar’s spar caps are shown to comprise distinct steps/layers (see e.g. his Figs 8, 10, vertical lines/ends forming steps) which appear to correspond well with structures made of pultruded strips. Spar caps 20 comprising pultrusions 40 and ends 42, shown in Yarbrough’s Fig 4 for example, provides such evidence. See for example the similarity between the steps/layers of Akhtar’s spar caps (e.g. Figs 8, 10) and Yarbrough’s spar caps comprising pultruded strips (e.g. Fig 4) and Applicant’s spar caps comprising pultruded strips (e.g. Fig 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights