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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/11/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 2, 3, 5-8, 16, and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “an adhesive layer”.
Claim 3 recites “an adhesive sheet”
Claim 6 recites “an adhesive sheet”.
Claim 7 recites “a meltable adhesive”.
Claim 8 recites “a core element” and “a reinforcement structure”.
Claim 16, dependent on claim 6, recites “an adhesive sheet”.
Claim 17, dependent on claim 7, recites “a meltable adhesive”.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 16, and 17 appear to have clarity issues as it is unclear if the claims are in reference to the adhesive layer, adhesive sheet, and meltable adhesive of claim 1 or different elements.
For examination purposes, the following interpretations will be made:
claim 2 limitation “an adhesive layer” will be interpreted as –the adhesive layer-;
claim 3 limitation “an adhesive sheet” will be interpreted as –the adhesive sheet-;
claim 6 limitation “an adhesive sheet” will be interpreted as –the adhesive sheet-;
claim 7 limitation “a meltable adhesive” will be interpreted as –the meltable adhesive-;
claim 8 limitation “a core element” and “a reinforcement structure” will be interpreted as –the core element- and -the reinforcement structure--;
claim 16 limitation “an adhesive sheet” will be interpreted as –the adhesive sheet-; and
claim 17 limitation “a meltable adhesive” will be interpreted as –the meltable adhesive-;
Claim 5 recites “a perforated foil and/or a plurality of interconnected strands, in particular a mesh, a grid, a web, and/or a fleece, of the meltable adhesive is used as adhesive sheet.”
The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
It is unclear if “used as adhesive sheet” is in reference to the adhesive sheet of claim 1 or another adhesive sheet. For examination purposes, “adhesive sheet” will be interpreted as –the adhesive sheet-.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 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 Stecher (PG-PUB 2019/0226447A1).
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 does not teach the adhesive sheet consists of the adhesive and is partially pervious for a liquid.
Stecher teaches a balsa wood panel for a rotor blade of a wind turbine, comprising a rigid core element in the form of balsa wood and a polymer film (Figure 4).
Stecher teaches balsa wood panels conventionally are formed with a glass fiber mesh or net, in particularly in the form of a scrim cloth, wherein a wet glue is applied to the fiber mesh [0004]. Stecher teaches using a polymer film instead of a fiber mesh provides advantages, including greater adhesion area [0007]. Stecher teaches the polymer film had adhesive properties when heated [0013]. Stecher teaches the polymer film may be a thermoplastic or hot melt [0021], [0023]. Stecher teaches the polymer film may be perforated in a uniform pattern [0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gruhn, in particularly the adhesive carrier layer of Gruhn, with a perforated polymer film as taught by Stecher, a known suitable carrier layer for adhering to balsa core elements.
Regarding claim 2, Gruhn in view of Stecher teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein the adhesive layer includes holes which are passable by a liquid (Stecher, [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Gruhn in view of Stecher teaches the method as applied to claim 1, wherein a perforated foil or mesh is used as the adhesive sheet (Stecher [0004], [0021]-[0023]).
Regarding claim 8, Gruhn in view of Stecher 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 Stecher 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) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhn (PG-PUB 2011/0243750) in view of Stecher (PG-PUB 2019/0226447A1), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Richter (PG-PUB 2014/0003955).
Regarding claim 3, Gruhn in view of Stecher teaches the process as applied to claim 2, 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 Stecher does not explicitly teach the holes in the adhesive sheet form the holes in the adhesive layer after heating and cooling of the adhesive sheet.
Richter teaches a preform comprising non-continuous layer of resin (Figure 3). Richter teaches the resin is distributed in a non-continuous layer to allow for gas to escape from the pre-form orthogonal to the direction of the fiber tows [0072]. With a non-continuous layer of resin is intended a layer of resin that allows gas to escape in a
Vertical direction through the laminate, that is in the thickness direction of the laminate [0072]. Richter teaches the resin may be provided as a separate sheet which is perforated or by application of resin in a pattern, for instance as strings extending in an oblique or transversal direction with respect to the length direction of the laminate. Richter teaches the pre-form to be pre-consolidated is having at least one non-continuous layer of resin, through which gas may be removed during the pre-consolidation process; hence, the gas need not be removed from the pre-form in a plane of a layer of resin or in a plane of a layer of fibers. Richter teaches the transportation distance and risk of having trapped gas inside the pre-consolidated pre-form is greatly reduced [0072].
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 Stecher to allow for holes after heating and cooling of the adhesive sheet for the benefit of air permeability to prevent trapped gas in the laminate as taught by Richter and allow for resin distribution as desired by Gruhn.
Regarding claim 4, Gruhn in view of Stecher teaches the process as applied to claim 2, 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 Stecher does not explicitly teach the hole density in the adhesive layer is at least 50%.
Richter teaches a preform comprising non-continuous layer of resin (Figure 3). Richter teaches the resin is distributed in a non-continuous layer to allow for gas to escape from the pre-form orthogonal to the direction of the fiber tows [0072]. With a non-continuous layer of resin is intended a layer of resin that allows gas to escape in a
vertical direction through the laminate, that is in the thickness direction of the laminate [0072]. Richter teaches the resin may be provided as a separate sheet which is perforated or by application of resin in a pattern, for instance as strings extending in an oblique or transversal direction with respect to the length direction of the laminate. Richter teaches the pre-form to be pre-consolidated is having at least one non-continuous layer of resin, through which gas may be removed during the pre-consolidation process; hence, the gas need not be removed from the pre-form in a plane of a layer of resin or in a plane of a layer of fibers. Richter teaches the transportation distance and risk of having trapped gas inside the pre-consolidated pre-form is greatly reduced [0072].
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 Richter, the permeability of a resin layer in a laminate is a result effective variable that influences the ability to remove trapped air from a laminate. 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 Stecher to provide suitable permeability to allow for removing trapped gas as taught by Richter and allowing resin permeability throughout the layers as desired by Gruhn 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 Stecher (US20190226447A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Viard (PG-PUB 2024/0123694).
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Gruhn in view of Stecher teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Gruhn in view of Stecher does not teach the adhesive sheet has a thickness between 10 microns and 150 microns.
Gruhn in view of Stecher 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 Stecher 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 Stecher (PG-PUB 2019/0226447A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Udding (PG-PUB 2020/0331254).
Regarding claim 7 and 17, Gruhn in view of Stecher teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Gruhn in view of Stecher does not teach the adhesive sheet has a thickness between 70°C and 140°C.
Gruhn in view of Stecher does not teach the adhesive sheet has a thickness 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].
Gruhn in view of Stecher is silent to the particular hot melt adhesive used, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gruhn in view of Stecher 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 Stecher.
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
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
/HANA C PAGE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745