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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 2 recites “F2theor” this appears to be a typo of “F2 the/or” or “F2 the or” though examiner notes neither of these is any clearer, see 112 rejection below.
Line 3 lacks a period, Examiner notes a claim should end with a period.
Line 3 further claim 8 recites, “a relationship of elastic modules” this is an unusual and unclear method of referring to a “Ratio” as application more correctly labels it in claim 9. Given they refer to the same type of relationship, it would be more appropriate to use the same term throughout the claims, in this instance, examiner strongly recommends “ratio.”
Line 3 recites, “a relationship of the elastic modules” this appears to incorrectly apply the plural of module, rather than modulus. The plural of modulus is moduli, as such it should read, “the moduli of elasticity”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 2-3 recites, “a relationship of the elastic modules” this appears to incorrectly apply the plural of module, rather than modulus. The plural of modulus is moduli, as such it should read, “the moduli of elasticity”.
Line 2 recites, “F2limit” it appears a space is missing form this and it should be “F2 limit” unless this is a variable in which case it should be defined more clearly, with a 112 rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6-10 are 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.
In Re Claim 6, Examiner notes the following 112 issues:
Applicant recites, “its” (line 2 and line 3) and “it” (line 4 and line 5) throughout in the claim in such a manner as to render the actual meaning of the term unclear. In line 2 for example it follows a discussion of the laminate cap and the laminate joining area, rendering the claim unclear as to if “its” is referring to the cap or the joining area. This is repeated in line 3. It is further hampered as in line 4 and line 5, “it” could further be referring to a variable rigidity, a distribution arc, a non-homogenous hybrid laminate, or metallic parts, all which precede them. Examiner based upon examination of the specification suggests clarification such as in line 2, “its” being replaced with, “the laminate of the joining area” similarly this should apply to the its in line 3. Examiner believes these should be applied to the “it” in line 4 and 5, but notes, he is not entirely sure if these are not instead referring to other features. For compact prosecution, Examiner will treat all instances as referring to the “the laminate of the joining area.”
Applicant recites, “housing its metallic parts inside” this is unclear language. The examiner is not certain if applicant is intending that there are metallic elements contained within a laminate joining structure, if there are metallic fibers in the laminate layers, if there are metallic fibers sandwiched in the layers, if a metal element is contained within a space inside a 3-dimenisoal structure of the defined by the joining, and as there is no antecedence for any metallic parts rendering the claim uncertain, and housing inside is a very unclear structural claim language term, an action rather than a structural statement of location/place.
Applicant recites “variable rigidity” in lines 3-4, while Examiner presumes this means the rigidity is varying/changing, examiner notes, given the indefinites of the claim as presented, it is possible this could mean a rigidity variable such Rigidity = R, examiner would request varying rigidity be used if that is the intended interpretation to improve clarity given the already unclear nature of this claim.
The terms “very high” and “very low” in claim 6 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “very high” and “Very low” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant would be best served by incorporating claims 8 or 9, which appear to provide a relative scope between the values which can be clearly examined.
Lines 4-5 recite “with an area at the ends, where” and “an area in the center were” Examiner notes given the lack of clarity in this claim, it is not absolutely center if this is the end and center of a width or a length or thickness, of the spar cap or the joining area, as such these would be better represented with a clear feature such as, “with an area at the ends of the width of the laminate of the joining area” and “n area in the center of the width of the laminate of the joining area.” For compact prosecution it will be examined as such based upon the Instant Application Figures 4a-4b which appear to be directing this to a center of a width of a transitional end region of the spar cap in a joining area.
Line 6 recites, “a length variable with respect to the cap,” as noted above, it is unclear if this means a length variable, such as Length = L or a varying length with respect to the cap width.
Applicant recites “most optimal design angle to transfer the load” this is unclear as this appears to be a term or relative degree similar to very high and very low above, that appears to be further worded as a function rather than a structural term, but is unclear as to what the structure yielding the function is. Further given the placement of the terms it is unclear if αis the angle or the load.
Claim 7 contains all the issues of claim 6 from which it depends, and:
With contains an additional reference to “the center” that contains the same issues as center above under claim 6.
Further it recites, “the sides,” without any antecedent basis but appears to mean “the area at the ends” from claim 6, which would also need to be refined as they were above in claim 6. The sides in this instance being unclear as to which sides of what.
Further the recitation of “wherein the non-homogenous hybrid laminate where the unidirectional carbon or glass fiber is replaced by biaxial glass fiber or unidirectional glass fiber in the case of carbon fiber laminates,” is replete with antecedence issues, there has been no previously established unidirectional carbon or glass fiber, so to what is this claim referring.
It is further unclear how replacing applies to a structural claim, wherein a method step of replacing is not required or read into the claim.
It is unclear how unidirectional glass fiber could be replaced by unidirectional glass fiber, as these can be present in carbon fiber laminates when using hybrid laminates as mentioned in claim 6.
Applicant also uses high density and “predominates” again these are relevant terms see the rejection of claim 6 above with discussion of “very high” and “very low” as to the indefinites of this language.
Claim 8 contains all the issues of claim 6 from which it depends, and further:
The claim recites, “the non-homogenous hybrid laminate flattens the load distribution per element F2, overlapping it with” examiner is unclear if these are intended method claim steps, or a statement of a function resulting from a clear structure, in which case the structure should be provided then indication that this structure results in the functions of “flattening” and overlapping.”
The claim recites, “element F2” there is no antecedence for this limitation, and the office is unclear what if anything F2 refers to given the claim does not clarify.
There is a reference to a theoretical load distribution, the examiner is unclear what this is meant to determine or refer to since this is a purely theoretical non structural limitation, and any theoretical load distribution could be artificially generated with no requirement or tie in the language to an actual structure or existing load distribution or model.
Further per the claim objection above, claim 8 includes “F2 the or” or “F2 the/or” once corrected for the missing spaces, the examiner is absolutely unclear as to the meaning or interpretation of this feature.
Applicant recites E2int, there is no antecedence for this term, as the only other term cited above was E2’int, rendering the claim unclear as to if this is a new variable referring a different moduli of elasticity or an entirely new element.
Claim 9 contains all the issues of claim 6 from which it depends, and further:
The claim recites, “flattening the load distribution per element” examiner is unclear if this is an intended method claim steps, or a statement of a function resulting from a clear structure, in which case the structure should be provided then indicate that this structure results in “flattening.”
The claim recites, “element ”and “F2limit” there is no antecedence for either limitation, and the office is unclear what if anything these elements are referring to given the claim does not clarify.
Applicant recites E2int, there is no antecedence for this term, as the only other term cited above it in the claim dependency tree was E2’int, rendering the claim unclear as to if this is a new variable referring a different moduli of elasticity or an entirely new element.
Claim 10 contains all the issues of claim 6 from which it depends, and further:
The angle α is recited , lacks antecedent basis. There is no prior recitation of an angle α, as claim 6 either recites a “design angle to transfer the load α” or “the load α” neither of which is an “angle α” it is unclear if this is a new angle, distance from a design angle, or an angle tied to a load.
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) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US 2020/0300216 to Girolamo et al. (G1) in view of US 2023/0358208 to Razeghi (R1) and US 2018/0051672 to Merzhauser et al. (M1)
In Re Claim 6:
In so far as Claim 6 is definite:
G1 teaches:
A transition of composite laminates (Fig. 6, 41.1 and 41.2) for a modular blade, between a laminate of the cap (41.1) and a laminate of the joining area (region indicated in Annotated G1 Fig. 6) characterized by having a non-homogenous hybrid laminate along its width, with a distribution of variable rigidity along the width, [Per Annotated G1 Fig. 6 it can be seen that the outer ends of the laminate at the transition slice taken by Examiner, the outer ends are pure 41.2, the outer spar cap, while the interior is a mix of 41.2 and 41.1 laminate the transition shown in Fig. 5. Further as the center is a interwoven mesh of the two, and the outer ends are a pure laminate of the second, they will have differing moduli of elasticity, given one is a pure carbon fiber plastic composite and the other is a class fiber plastic composite.]
With an area at the ends (pure 41.2 spar cap tip composite) where there is a modulus of elasticity, E exterior, and an area in the center where the modulus of elasticity E interior is present, and because it has a length variable with respect to the cap width, the width of the joint and the most optimal design angle to transfer the load. [As noted above, the center is interwoven mesh of inner and outer spar cap and outer ends are pure outer spar cap and thus each having a designated modulus of elasticity. Further per the 112 above, the language is unclear as to the “optimal design angle to transfer the load” noting per Fig. 2, there is an alpha angle of offset between the two transition joining composite region per the base region, given the lack of clarity, and the having of what is present in the claims the function has been met.]
PNG
media_image1.png
274
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated G1 Fig. 6
G1 does not teach:
The Composite spar/transition housing metallic parts inside, and characterized wherein the exterior is very high and the interior is very low, in so far as this is definite per the 112 claim rejection above such that the exterior is larger than the interior.
R1 teaches:
One of ordinary skill would recognize that spar caps can include steel fibres/fibers, i.e. metallic parts inside the composite within the skin and resin composite. [Page 4, ¶49.] Further it is known to include metallic forming alignment elements(Fig. 6) for improving stability of the spars made of sheet metal. [Page 3, ¶31-34.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention to include steel fibers inside the composites, as taught by R1, that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that steel fibers would be an obvious composite element to include in a spar cap as known. This would yield the limitation of metallic elements inside the housing. Further It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of G1 to include sheet metal alignment elements within the spar cap skin as taught by R1, with the expectation of successfully improving structural strength and assembly of said elements, [Page 3, ¶31-34.] This would yield the limitation of additional metallic elements inside the housing.
G1 as modified by M1 does not teach:
Wherein the exterior is very high and the interior is very low, in so far as this is definite, per the 112 claim rejection above such that the exterior is larger than the interior.
M1 teaches:
When using a spar cap in a root and a spar cap in a tip region, one of ordinary skill would recognize the advantage of providing the second composite material of the tip cap(80) having a higher modulus of elasticity than the composite of the first composite material of the root cap (60), in particular that this allows the second composite region to use a thinner spar cap in the smaller end region of the blade. [Pages 4-5, ¶34-37.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of G1 which is silent as to the relative moduli of elasticity of the root and spar cap to use a higher moduli spar cap composite for the tip spar cap, as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully reducing the size of the spar cap in the smaller tip end, this would yield the limitation of the outer end, which is composed of pure spar cap 2, to have a higher moduli of elasticity, than the interior of the transition region which is composed of an interweaving mesh of spar cap 2 and spar cap 1 which has a lower moduli of elasticity.
In Re Claims 6-10:
R1 as modified by G1 and M1 teaches:
The transition of laminate widths according to claim 6, further comprising:
(Claim 7) the non-homogenous hybrid laminate where the unidirectional carbon of glass fiber is replaced by biaxial glass fiber or unidirectional glass fiber in the case of carbon fiber laminates, the sides being the area with high density of unidirectional fiber and the center where biaxial glass fiber predominates or unidirectional glass fiber in the case of carbon fiber laminates. [Per R1, Page 2, ¶19 the center region which will include the first carbon mate, can include unidirectional carbon fibers of a pultruded carbon fiber mat, and the outer ends formed of the pure mat 2, are unidirectional glass fiber which forms the new outer end replacing the previous outer end of spar cap 1 of unidirectional carbon fiber. Given the unclear language of said claim, this appears to show the outer part of the spar pure root spare through transition to pure spar 2 replaces unidirectional carbon fiber with unidirectional glass fiber on the exterior but maintains unidirectional carbon fiber in the center through transition.]
(Claim 8) R1 as modified by G1 and M1 teaches:
The non-homogenous hybrid laminate flattens the load distribution per element5 F2, overlapping it with the theoretical load distribution per element F2 through a ratio of elastic moduli of interior to exterior in a range. [It is silent as to the particular values, but notes, for example, in R1, that such a ratio of pure spar cap 2 to pure spar cap one can be greater than 30% [Page 5, ¶36.] but is silent as to their mixture being explicitly 60%-80% of the purely higher moduli root spar cap/outer transition range moduli.[
Examiner notes: Examiner notes greater than 30% can include values whereby the mix of the two can be about 60% less than purely the larger spar cap moduli. Further, Examiner notes, Per R1, 30% moduli can result in a 30% specific strength, and a 30% change in relative thickness. [Pages 5, ¶36-37.] It is noted that the thickness reduction is a results effective variable of the relative moduli of elasticity between the two spar cap elements (See the same citation.] Thus, the relative moduli of elasticity of the two spar caps, meets the requirement of a results effective variable In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). R1 further teaches further reductions in thickness are desirable such as 50% or greater or 70% or greater. [Page 5, ¶37.]
Based on the teachings above that the relative moduli of elasticity of the two spar caps is a result effective variable based on the desired relative thickness of the two spar caps, and thus reduced space/material in the tip spar cap, and thus it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention to design the ratio of the moduli of elasticity of the root and tip spar caps, such that the root tip moduli at the exterior of the transition region was greater, great enough, for example, that the pure root cap would be 60% greater a moduli of elasticity, than the interwoven region featuring the larger and smaller moduli of elasticity mixed, at the center of the transition region, It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of the ratio of E interior over E exterior to about 60%-80%.
(Claim 9) R1 as modified by G1 and M1 teaches:
Flattening the load distribution per element bring it closer to the f2 limit through a ratio of elastic moduli in a range. [It is silent as to the particular values, but notes, for example, in R1, that such a ratio of pure spar cap 2 to pure spar cap one can be greater than 30% [Page 5, ¶36.] but is silent as to their mixture being explicitly 40%-60% of the purely higher moduli root spar cap/outer transition range moduli.[
Examiner notes: Examiner notes greater than 30% can include values whereby the mix of the two can be about 60% less than purely the larger spar cap moduli. Further, Examiner notes, Per R1, 30% moduli can result in a 30% specific strength, and a 30% change in relative thickness. [Pages 5, ¶36-37.] It is noted that the thickness reduction is a results effective variable of the relative moduli of elasticity between the two spar cap elements (See the same citation.] Thus, the relative moduli of elasticity of the two spar caps, meets the requirement of a results effective variable In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B). R1 further teaches further reductions in thickness are desirable such as 50% or greater or 70% or greater. [Page 5, ¶37.]
Based on the teachings above that the relative moduli of elasticity of the two spar caps is a result effective variable based on the desired relative thickness of the two spar caps, and thus reduced space/material in the tip spar cap, and thus it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention to design the ratio of the moduli of elasticity of the root and tip spar caps, such that the root tip moduli at the exterior of the transition region was greater, great enough, for example, that the pure root cap would be 60% greater a moduli of elasticity, than the interwoven region featuring the larger and smaller moduli of elasticity mixed, at the center of the transition region, It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of the ratio of E interior over E exterior to about 40%-60%.
(Claim 10) Wherein the angle alpha is in the range of 5 to 10 degrees. [In so far as this is definite, G1 discloses, an angle (Alpha) in Fig. 2 between the root region and the tip region, such that it must occur across the transition region, and said angle can include values between 5 and 10 degrees. As noted in Page 2, ¶18]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0245566 to Sawada teaches It Is well-known in the art to provide spar caps with a transitioning moduli of elasticity, across the width dimension. [Figure 10, and Page 4, ¶45.]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-9968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/JOSHUA R BEEBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745