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
Claims 1-3 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 14, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on January 14, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s arguments are against a restriction by the previous examiner; however, this examiner will address them, which may be identified by “the examiner” (previous examiner) and this examiner (current.) The traversal is on the ground(s) that a) the European Body did not provide a Lack of Unity rejection (Page 5) b) an argument against the Special technical feature supporting the lack of unity (Pages 5-7, c) an alleged lack of serious search burden (pages 7-8), and an alleged sub-combination/combination essentiality (Page 8). This is not found persuasive because:
A) The office is not bound to or required to follow the same restriction as a previous body (or lack of restriction) and the decision to provide a restriction must be based upon the examiner’s individual judgement and review of the art. This examiner does not find persuasive, an allegation that a different examining body did not in their search provide identical art/restriction as each examination body and process is individual, as evidenced by the fact that an allowance or rejection before one examination body does not automatically reject/allow the art before every other global examination body.
B) Applicant’s lack of specific technical features appears to ignore elements of the previous restriction and identified prior art or dismiss them, without sufficient support. Applicant argues that the examiner is only looking at a partial recitation of the features. Applicant then argues the reading on claim 1 and its dependents is only partial. Respectfully, the examiner placed their lack of unity upon anticipation of claim 12, not claim 1. A lack of unity must exist between two claims if one of the two claims can be anticipated as it must not include some special technical feature that is present in the other claim, else they’d have been simultaneously found to be anticipated. As it lacks that feature, it must lack unity. In this instance, this examiner has not identified a feature absent from claim 12, in the Lack of Unity argument, that would preclude its anticipation by the previously identified foreign art, WO 2020/169160 A1 to Skovgaard (S1). Applicant argues that Skovgaard only discusses stacking in a generalized manner, respectfully the claims require no further specificity than generalized, so this Examiner is not identified of an error when the prior art clearly as even Applicant has acknowledged discloses stacking. Similarly to the preform and blade for wind turbine language. A preform, in this instance is a mat which is a pre-form to the final blade form, this examiner is not persuaded. Applicant alleges there’s no discussion of the alternating patterns, yet the previous examiner clearly indicated in the foreign prior art by highlight Page 1, ll. 10-15 of strips of resin on the fiber mat (i.e. stripes with a binding agent). These stripes are clearly shown in Figure 2, are parallel a pattern recognized by Applicant in their own claim 3, 14, and Instant Application Figure 6 and 7A. The previous examiner also highlighted Page 3, ll. 5-6 of the prior art note the resin is applied to the fibres. Page 11, ll. 20-21, also note the resin enters the fibers in the stripe region only. This examiner finds no evidence of Applicant’s alleged failings of the prior art identified by the previous examiner to meet claim 12, as it meets claim 12, there is a lack of unity, given the alleged special technical feature of the claim is anticipated.
C) With regards to the “serious search burden” this examiner must respectfully note, this is not a requirement for lack of unity, as it is for more traditional restrictions before the US patent office, as such the Examiner cannot find a mere allegation of no such burden persuasive. This examiner notes, further, per the MPEP discussion of Lack of Unity, 1850 Section IV, the distinction is if little or no additional search burden,” is present. This search burden can include the writing of opinions and actions, per the same section. Respectfully the method claim section (now only three claims long) requires a search of molding, as well as heating and resin impregnation that are not specifically required in the claim 12. Claim 12 and its dependents, now include a series of specific claims towards binding agents, width of strips/patterns, and sizes none of which are required in the method claims, therefore the examiner sees a search burden between these two that rises above the distinction of “little or no,” and would likely meet the more conventional serious search burden, though again, such a determination is neither made, nor required in a lack of unity rejection.
D) Applicant arguments to the combination/sub-combination are not persuasive, per MPEP 1850 Section III A, in particular, “A process is specially adapted for the manufacture of a product if it inherently results in the product and an apparatus or means is specifically designed for carrying out a process if the contribution over the prior art of the apparatus or means corresponds to the contribution the process makes over the prior art.” As the examiner has discussed in the section B above, there is no contribution in the two sets of claims over the prior art, thus the combination/sub-combination arguments are not persuasive over the lack of unity restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 6, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by US 2009/0269557 to Stiesdal (S1).
In Re Claim 12:
S1 shows:
A preform for a wind turbine blade part(Fig. 1, 9), the preform comprising a plurality of layers (Fig. 2 and 15, 19) consolidated to a stack of layers (Fig. 5, 15 +13), wherein one or more of the layers(13) is formed by a fabric (Fig. 6, 13, 23 + 24) comprising a fibre material treated with a binding agent, the fabric comprising an alternating pattern of first sections (23) of fibre material free from binding agent and second sections (24) of fibre material treated with binding agent. [ Page 4, ¶47-50 notes the fibre layers and stacks to form for example a spar, i.e. a wind turbine part or skins. ¶49 notes these layers 13, are fiber reinforced fabric partially reinforced with resin, i.e. a binding agent. ¶53 notes there are dry fibre material sections and partially resin impregnated sections.]
In Re Claims 6, 10-11, 13-15:
S1 shows:
The preform according to claim 12, wherein:
(Claim 6) the binding agent comprises a polyester and/or a vinyl ester. [Page 4, ¶50 notes the resin is a polyester.]
(Claim 10) at least 5% of all layers of the stack of layers is formed by the fabric. [As Figure 5 shows, there are three layers of (19) to a layer of the fabric, as such at least one embodiment is 25% of the stacks in 15 is the fabric. Examiner further notes, Page 4, ¶48 there is a clear intention of optimize the numbers, wherein the fibre reinforced layers can be as high as possible to layers of wrinkle prevention (the fabric.)]
(Claim 11) the binding agent is distributed uniformly across the one or more layers formed by the fibre material treated with the binding agent. [Figure 6 shows a regular pattern (i.e. uniform) distribution of the resin binding. Further, per the ¶49 in a later stage of forming the blade, the resin becomes uniformly distributed across all layers during vacuum mold impregnation to form the final blade. Given the claim language, this is also an acceptable interpretation.]
(Claim 13) the first and second sections comprises bands or strips. [See Fig. 6 for the strips/bands 23/24.]
(Claim 14) claim 13, the fabric has a longitudinal direction and said bands or strips are oriented parallel to the longitudinal direction of the fabric. [Page 3, ¶28-31 and 41, and Page 4, ¶52-54, note the longitudinal direction of the blade requires the highest stiffness, and flexibility in the layers along the orthogonal direction, and that the higher stiffness direction is the direction the strips run, so their alternating spacing permits less stiffness, i.e. flexibility in the orthogonal direction (i.e. along the curve of the blade as opposed to the longitudinally extending spar.]
(Claim 15) the fabric forms the uppermost and/or lowermost layer of the stack of layers. [Page 4, ¶49 nots a wrinkle preventing patterned layer can be under the lowermost of the other fabrics, and/or along the outermost.]
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) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 in view of US 2011/0211971 to Bendel (B1).
In Re Claim 4:
S1 teaches:
The preform according to claim 12, wherein, the fabric has a thickness. [See Claim 12 for fabric, as these are 3 dimensional objects they have a thickness.]
S1 is silent as to:
The thickness of the fabric having any value, or more specifically 0.3-0.7 mm.
B1 teaches:
When using stacks of fabric to form a spar cap Fig. 4 a and b, one of ordinary skill would understand the strongest and thinnest fabrics possible for the belts/spars should include uniaxial fabrics aligned along the 0 degree direction, and glass layers of 0.7mm or carbon fiber layers of 0.45 mm thickness as a known in the art manner of forming with sufficient strength as required by the turbine. [Page 1, ¶7-11.]
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 fabric layers of S1, to include uniaxial fiber orientations forming fabric layers of selected thicknesses for glass or carbon, and composing such layers of said glass or carbon as taught by B1, with the expectation of successfully providing a known in the art material and thickness suitable which would meet the needs of S1 with an expectation of success in forming the spar made of stacked fabric layers in a preform, as the listed 0.7mm glass fiber or 0.45mm carbon fiber in uniaxial arrangement is known to be useful for forming the spar region with sufficient strength as required by the turbine. [Page 1, ¶7-11.]
In Re Claim 7:
S1 teaches:
The preform according to claim 12, wherein, the fabric has a fibers. [See Claim 12.]
S1 is silent as to:
The fabric is formed of a uniaxial fiber material.
B1 teaches:
When using stacks of fabric to form a spar cap Fig. 4 a and b, one of ordinary skill would understand the strongest and thinnest fabrics possible for the belts/spars should include uniaxial fabrics aligned along the 0 degree direction, and glass layers of 0.7mm or carbon fiber layers of 0.45 mm thickness as a known in the art manner of forming with sufficient strength as required by the turbine. [Page 1, ¶7-11.]
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 fabric layers of S1, to include uniaxial fiber orientations forming fabric layers of selected thicknesses for glass or carbon, and composing such layers of said glass or carbon as taught by B1, with the expectation of successfully providing a known in the art material and thickness suitable which would meet the needs of S1 with an expectation of success in forming the spar made of stacked fabric layers in a preform, as the listed 0.7mm glass fiber or 0.45mm carbon fiber in uniaxial arrangement is known to be useful for forming the spar region with sufficient strength as required by the turbine. [Page 1, ¶7-11.]
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 and a Design Choice..
In Re Claim 5:
S1 teaches:
The preform according to claim 12, wherein there is fiber material and binding agent in the fabric. [See Claim 12.]
S1 is silent as to:
The weight ratio of fiber material to binding agent, being between 50:1 and 300:1.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a weight ratio of fiber material to binding agent between 50:1 and 300:1 because Applicant has not specifically disclosed that this claimed feature provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the other weight ratios of fiber material and binding agent such as S1 would use. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the weight ratio of fiber material to binding agent to be between 50:1 and 300:1 to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 5.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 and a WO 2021/223887 to Razeghi et al. (R1) .
In Re Claim 5:
S1 teaches:
The preform according to claim 12, wherein there is fiber material and binding agent in the fabric. [See Claim 12.]
S1 is silent as to:
The weight ratio of fiber material to binding agent, being between 50:1 and 300:1.
R1 teaches:
When placing preforms in a mold, it can be desirable for the preform in include a ratio of wt% of binding agent to fabric between. 0.1 and 15 2wt%. Thus, the weight ratio (dividing by 100 to remove the % is between 0.001 and .15. Given this is the reverse of Applicant’s fiber to binding agent, this would yield a range of 6-1000. Thus, there are values within this that would meet the claimed ratio of 50-300:1. These are an known in the art value for forming the spar cap structure. [Page 5, ll. 0-9.]
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 S1 to include a binding fiber material to binding agent weight ratio of for example, 6 to 1000 as taught by R1, with the expectation of providing a known in the art obvious to try weight ratio with an expectation of success, given S1 places no specific restrictions or requirements on such, and R1 teaches the known in the art ratio on Pages 5, ll. 0-9, this would yield the limitation of values including those in the 50:1 to 300:1.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0243750 to Gruhn et al. (G1).
In Re Claim 8:
S1 discloses:
Preforms for forming spars of a wind turbine blade during a moulding process, including fabrics. [See Claim 12.]
S1 is silent as to:
The lengths of the fabrics and preform being between 15m and 50m.
G1 teaches:
Forming Spars in spar cap molds, 30-50m for the 30-50m spars. [See Page 2, ¶10.]
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 S1 which is silent as to the needs of the length of fabric and spars being formed, to use the known in the art values provided by G1, of 30-50m, to provide a known in the art fabric and spar length suitable for forming a known in the art spar with an expectation of success as taught by G1, Page 2, ¶10. This would yield the limitation of a spar cap preform and fabrics being between 30 and 50m.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0398459 to Krsitial Lehmann teaches forming strips of alternating flexible and inflexible material parallelly patterned to the longitudinal for preforms (Fig. 8.) US 2004/0142143 to Corden teaches alternating dry (18a) and resin impregnated (16a) sections of fibrous material in Fig. 1.
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