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 Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed on 3/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1 relying on reference Lull, in paragraph 2 of page 9 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.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1 relying on reference Akhtar, in paragraph 3 of page 11 through paragraph 1 of page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s remarks are directed to that he maintains his arguments filed in the Applicant’s Remarks filed on 9/23/2025 and to that Applicant has not admitted that “Akhtar’s spar caps may be not equal”. It is maintained that the Applicant’s 9/23/2025 arguments are not persuasive as discussed in the office action mailed on 10/15/2025 and it is acknowledged that Applicant has not admitted that “Akhtar’s spar caps may be not equal”. It is noted that maintaining that the 9/23/2025 arguments are not persuasive is not dependent on the statement “Applicant clearly acknowledges that Akhtar’s spar caps may be not equal” in the 10/15/2025 response to arguments.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1 relying on reference Akhtar, in paragraph 2 of page 13 through paragraph 2 of page 14 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.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive insofar as the amendments do overcome the previously formulated claim 1 rejection of the previous office action. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for amended claim 1 using the same prior art, as identified below; please see the action below for details of new rejections.
Regarding new claim 15, please see the action below for any relevant details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 13, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20200217210 A1 (hereinafter Lull).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
701
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 5a
PNG
media_image2.png
457
800
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 6c
Regarding claim 1, Lull discloses:
A blade (10; Fig 5) for a wind turbine (abstract),
the blade extending in a lengthwise direction (direction from root to tip in Fig 6) between a root end (Fig 6 shows this) and a tip end (Fig 6 shows this) of the blade,
the blade comprising:
a leeward shell portion (annotated Fig 5a) and a windward shell portion (annotated Fig 5a),
each of the shell portions defining respective inner and outer surfaces (Fig 5 shows this) extending in a chordwise direction between a leading edge of the blade and a trailing edge of the blade (Fig 5 shows this),
wherein the blade extends in a thickness direction (vertical direction in Fig 5) between the leeward shell portion and the windward shell portion (Fig 5 shows this);
a first windward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 5a) internally within the blade (Fig 5 shows this),
the first windward reinforcement structure engaging the windward shell portion (Fig 5 shows this);
a first leeward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 5a) internally within the blade (Fig 5 shows this),
the first leeward reinforcement structure engaging the leeward shell portion (Fig 5 shows this);
wherein:
the first windward and first leeward reinforcement structures extend in the lengthwise direction of the blade (Fig 6 shows this) and have a thickness in the thickness direction of the blade (Fig 5 shows this);
the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure initially starts to decrease at a first location (annotated Fig 6c) in the lengthwise direction of the blade,
a first region (annotated Fig 6c) of the first leeward reinforcement structure being defined between the first location and a tip end of the first leeward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 5a, wherein this may span an entire length of the structure) (Figs 5 combined with 6 show all this);
the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure initially starts to decrease at a second location (annotated Fig 6c) in the lengthwise direction of the blade,
a second region (annotated Fig 6c) of the first windward reinforcement structure being defined between the second location and a tip end of the first windward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 5a, wherein this may span an entire length of the structure) (Figs 5 combined with 6 show all this);
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 6c shows this) in the lengthwise direction;
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 (Fig 6 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 (30; Fig 5; Fig 6);
the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure decreases in steps (Fig 6 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 6 shows this);
and the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure decreases in steps (Fig 6 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 6 shows this).
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 consists of the first 32 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, Lull further discloses:
the first section of the blade extends at least 25 percent of the length of the blade in the lengthwise direction (annotated Fig 6a shows this).
PNG
media_image3.png
252
565
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 6a
Regarding claim 6, Lull further discloses:
a first step of the steps of the first windward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 6b) a second step of the steps of the first leeward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 6b) are mutually displaced (Fig 6; mutually displaced along the lengthwise direction).
Examiner’s note: a broadest reasonable interpretation of “mutual” is “of or relating to each of two or more; held in common; shared” per https://www.dictionary.com/browse/mutual.
PNG
media_image4.png
256
567
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6b
Regarding claim 7, Lull further discloses:
a plurality of the steps of the first windward and the first leeward reinforcement structures (annotated Fig 6b shows multiple steps of the first windward reinforcement structure and multiple steps of the first leeward reinforcement structure) are mutually staggered (Fig 6 clearly shows this).
Regarding claim 13, Lull 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 (individual layers 30; Fig 6) of the plurality of layers at different termination positions along the blade in the lengthwise direction (Fig 6 clearly shows this).
Regarding claim 14, Lull further discloses:
the plurality of layers of the first windward reinforcement structure and the first leeward reinforcement structure comprise pultruded strips (e.g., abstract).
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.
Examiner's note: The below parallel rejection of claim 1 is made to address elements of Applicant’s claim 8.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable 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 does 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 between the first location and a 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 between the second location and a 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 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 figure. One having ordinary skill in the art, armed with Akhtar’s disclosure, may reasonably conclude that the other of 40 or 44 would have a thickness profile 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). Armed with Akhtar’s disclosure, one would not require motivation to have a first spar cap (e.g. spar cap 40) with a fist thickness profile (e.g. Fig 8) and a second spar cap (e.g. spar cap 44) with a second thickness profile (e.g. Fig 10), because this would be an inherent necessity.
This would result in each spar cap having dissimilar thickness profiles and result in reading on the limitations above, with the mapping as follows:
the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure initially starts to decrease at a first location (annotated Fig 8-10b) in the lengthwise direction of the blade,
a first region (annotated Fig 8-10b) of the first leeward reinforcement structure being defined between the first location and a tip end of the first leeward reinforcement structure (an end of the structure in the chord-wise direction of the blade, that is into and out of the page of e.g. Figs 8, 10) (annotated Fig 8-10b shows all this);
the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure initially starts to decrease at a second location (annotated Fig 8-10b) in the lengthwise direction of the blade,
a second region (annotated Fig 8-10b) of the first windward reinforcement structure being defined between the second location and a tip end of the first windward reinforcement structure (an end of the structure in the chord-wise direction of the blade, that is into and out of the page of e.g. Figs 8, 10) (annotated Fig 8-10b shows all this);
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 8 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 8 shows this, wherein in step shown may correspond to a local layer of the material 50, 52);
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, wherein in step shown may correspond to a local layer of the material 50, 52).
PNG
media_image5.png
564
877
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8-10b
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 consists of the first 32 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 first section of the blade extends at least 25 percent of the length of the blade in the lengthwise direction (Fig 8 shows this).
Regarding claim 6, Akhtar further discloses:
a first step of the steps of the first windward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 8-10a, wherein the first windward reinforcement structure has the thickness profile shown in Fig 10) and a second step of the steps of the first leeward reinforcement structure (annotated Fig 8-10a, wherein the first leeward reinforcement structure has the thickness profile shown in Fig 8) are mutually displaced (mutually displaced along the lengthwise direction).
PNG
media_image6.png
370
752
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8-10a
Regarding claim 7, Akhtar further discloses:
a plurality of the steps of the first windward and the first leeward reinforcement structures are mutually staggered (Fig 8 and Fig 10 clearly shows that one spar, having the thickness profile shown in Fig 8, and another spar, having the thickness profile shown in Fig 10, each have multiple steps which are mutually staggered).
Regarding claim 8, Akhtar further discloses:
at at least a second position along the length of the blade (e.g. either position at either range of lengthwise overlap in annotated Fig 8-10c),
the thickness of the first leeward reinforcement structure (wherein the first leeward reinforcement structure has the thickness profile shown in Fig 8) is equal to the thickness of the first windward reinforcement structure (wherein the first windward reinforcement structure has the thickness profile shown in Fig 10) along a range of lengthwise overlap (either range of lengthwise overlap 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_image7.png
359
751
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 8-10c
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 (Fig 8 and Fig 10 clearly show this).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
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