DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1, 3-8, and 16-17, and cancelled claim 2 on 04/08/2026.
The 112(b) rejections previously presented are withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Arguments are primarily drawn to the amended claims. The rejection below addresses the amended claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhn (PG-PUB 2011/0243750) in view of Spandley (PG-PUB 2016/0305399).
Regarding claim 1, Gruhn teaches a method for manufacturing a preform part for a wind turbine blade, comprising the steps of:
providing at least one rigid core element (Figure 10A and 10B, item 402), at least one reinforcement structure consisting of a fiber-based material (Figure 10A and 10B, item 602 and [0077] and [0112]), and at least one adhesive sheet (Figure 9A-9B and 10A-10B, item 312, [0077], and [0112]);
arranging the adhesive sheet in between the core element and the reinforcement sheet (Figure 10A and 10B);
bonding the core element to the reinforcement by heating and subsequently cooling of the adhesive sheet for creating an adhesive layer between the core element and the reinforcement structure.
Gruhn teaches the adhesive sheet is a fibrous carrier layer comprising adhesive coating [0112]. Gruhn teaches the adhesive sheet is constructed of one or more fabric materials suitable to facilitate permeation and thereby penetration of bonding resin between individual strength elements or rods and stacked or adjacent individual preform layers [0112]. Gruhn teaches the adhesive coating may be a hot-melt agent or adhesive, or a UV-cured bonding agent or adhesive, an elastomeric adhesive, or adhesive tape [0111].
Gruhn does not teach the adhesive sheet consists of the adhesive and is partially pervious for a liquid, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a plurality of through-holes extending through the adhesive layer between the reinforcement structure and the core element of the preform part configured for receiving liquid resin therein.
Spandley teaches a method of making a wind turbine blade, the method comprising: stacking a plurality of strips of fibre-reinforced polymeric material one on top of another to form a stack of strips; strapping the stack of strips together by means of at least one strap made from a fibrous material, and thereby forming a strapped stack;
infusing the strapped stack with resin; and curing the resin to form an elongate spar structure in which the at least one strap is integrated with the stack of strips. Spandley teaches providing a layer of thermoplastic adhesive material formed into an open web structure [0047]-[0048]. Spandley teaches to permit infusion of resin into and through the layer of adhesive material, such that the bond between overlapping end regions does not affect the infusion process, the layer of adhesive material may be formed as a web, mesh, or grid structure [0022], [0030], [0057]. Spandley teaches the thermoplastic material may be a copolyester, aliphatic polyurethane, or any other suitable thermoplastic adhesive material [0047]-[0048].
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 Gruhn with the meltable adhesive layer of Spandley for the benefit of providing an adhesive layer suitable for bonding reinforcement structures and capable of permitting infusion of resin into and through the adhesive material, as taught by Spandley.
Regarding claim 3, Gruhn in view of Spandley teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the through-holes in the adhesive layer are created during heating and/or cooling of the adhesive sheet and/or the adhesive sheet comprises holes, wherein the holes in the adhesive sheet form the through-holes in the adhesive layer after heating and cooling of the adhesive sheet (Spandley, [0022], [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Gruhn in view of Spandley teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein the adhesive sheet comprises a plurality of interconnected strands, wherein the interconnected strands comprise a mesh, grid, or web (Spandley, [0022] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Gruhn in view of Spandley teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein the core element is balsa wood and the reinforcement structure is glass or carbon fibers (Gruhn, [0063], [0077], [0100]).
Regarding claim 9, Gruhn in view of Spandley teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein at least one further reinforcement consisting of a fiber-based material and at least one further adhesive are provided (Gruhn, Figure 10A and 10B), wherein the further reinforcement structure is stacked on the reinforcement structure and bonded to the reinforcement structure using the further adhesive (Gruhn, [0088], [0111], [0114]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhn (PG-PUB 2011/0243750) in view of Spandley (PG-PUB 2016/0305399), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Burns (PG-PUB 2017/0274577).
Regarding claim 4, Gruhn in view of Spandley teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the adhesive sheet comprises holes. Gruhn teaches the carrier layer is suitable to facilitate permeation and thereby penetrating of bonding resin between individual core elements and stacked or adjacent individual preform layers [0112].
Gruhn in view of Spandley does not explicitly teach the hole density in the adhesive layer is at least 50%.
Burns teaches a process of assembling a stiffened composite structure comprising a step of positioning an interlayer between the plurality of dry fibers and the first side of the pre-preg composite laminate skin element and a step of infusing the plurality of dry fibers with a resin forming a plurality of infused fibers. Burns teaches positioning an interlayer 38 between plurality of dry fibers 27 and first side 34 of pre-preg composite laminate skin element 20 using an permeable barrier material [0027]. Burns teaches the permeable interlayer includes a perforated adhesive film, perforated textured film, perforated bi-layer film, and a veil [0028]. Burns teaches an adhesive film is an interlayer adhesive that is typically supplied in sheet format and is able to chemically bond to components on either side of the adhesive film as well as provide a consistent bond thickness and strength [0028]-[0029], [0035]-[0037]. Burns teaches interlayer 38 defines perforations or pores with a particular perforation or pore size and distribution to control resin permeability, as physical bonding occurs with the resins penetrating perforations of interlayer 38 [0035]. Burns teaches in utilizing permeable interlayer 38, the pore or perforation size is selected to work in conjunction with resin viscosity, and resin viscosity is controlled by temperature cure profile to allow each resin to flow into interlayer 38 but not continue to flow beyond interlayer 38 and mix with a dissimilar resin in instances where the resins are not compatible [0035].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would recognize based on the teachings of Spandley and Burns, the perforation size and distribution control resin permeability of the adhesive layer in a laminate is a result effective variable that influences flow of resin in the preform during resin infusion or injection, as desired by Gruhn.
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 optimize the permeability, or the hole density, of the adhesive sheet of Gruhn in view of Spandley and Burns to provide suitable permeability to allow for complete resin infusion as taught by Spandley and Burns and, in doing so, would have arrived at a hole density of at least 50%.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhn (PG-PUB 2011/0243750) in view of Spandley (PG-PUB 2016/0305399), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Viard (PG-PUB 2024/0123694).
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Gruhn in view of Spandley teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Gruhn in view of Spandley does not teach the adhesive sheet has a thickness between 10 microns and 150 microns.
Gruhn in view of Spandley does not teach the adhesive sheet has a thickness between 50 microns and 100 microns.
Viard teaches a reinforcing material comprising a unidirectional reinforcing web formed of one or a plurality of carbon yarns with a porous polymeric layer (Figure 1 and [0024]-[0027]). Viard teaches the porous polymer layer can be a porous film, scrim, or veil [0033], [0159], [0161]. Viard teaches the polymeric layer has hot-melt quality [0034]-[0036], [0159], [0161], and has a thickness from 0.5 to 200 microns [0037], [0165].
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 Gruhn in view of Spandley with a porous polymeric layer thickness as taught by Viard, a known suitable thickness for porous hot-melt polymeric layer used in laminates.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Given that the prior art range overlaps with the claimed range, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhn (PG-PUB 2011/0243750) in view of Spandley (PG-PUB 2016/0305399), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Udding (PG-PUB 2020/0331254).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Gruhn in view of Spandley teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Gruhn in view of Spandley does not teach the adhesive sheet has a melting temperature between 70°C and 140°C.
Gruhn in view of Spandley does not teach the adhesive sheet has a melting temperature between 80°C and 120°C.
Udding teaches a hot melt adhesive used for durable bonding a surface covering to a panel [0007]. Udding teaches hot melt adhesives commonly have high melting temperatures [0007] and requiring heating at high temperatures during processing, which is not only very uneconomical but also generates the risk of overheating the object such as wood [0008]. Udding teaches a hot melt adhesive having a melting temperature between 50°C and 150°C [0013], [0023], [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gruhn in view of Spandley with the hot melt adhesive of Udding, a known suitable hot melt adhesive for use with wood-based materials, to yield the predictable result of providing a hot-melt-based polymeric film as desired by Gruhn in view of Spandley.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Given that the prior art range overlaps with the claimed range, the claimed range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 at 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