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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn. Applicant argues that there is not a serious burden, but does not address the sources of burden stated in the restriction requirement. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claims 1-5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Bech (US 10786952).
Regarding claim 1, Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 4(a-e), 7(a-f), 5, 8, 12,
a method for manufacturing at least a part of a wind turbine blade (e.g., item 18 in Fig. 3 (col. 4, lines 43-47); it is noticed that, as illustrate din Fig. 3, the outer shell 38 is a laminate structure of composite construction and is fabricated from two half shells: a leeward shell 42 and a windward shell 44 (col. 4, lines 47-49)) in a resin- based casting process using a mold (ABSTRACT, lines 1-4 (i.e., a blade mould (82)); col. 10, lines 39-51), wherein at least one preform element, at least one further preform element (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 4a, this is a schematic plan view of a dry ply 66 and a prepreg ply 68, which are used to form laminate layers (i.e., including multiple preforms) of the hybrid blade shell structure (col. 5, lines 48-50); it is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 4b, this shows the prepreg ply 68 arranged on top of the dry ply 66 to form a preform 74 (col. 6, lines 9-10); e.g., as illustrated in Fig, 12, in a longitudinal ‘spanwise’ direction S (col. 4, lines 33-34), the multiple preforms are disposed and in a transverse ‘chordwise’ direction C (col. 4, line 35), multiple preforms are disposed as well; here, the transverse ‘chordwise’ direction C of the shell 38 can be considered to cover the entire circumference of the blade part) and at least one laminate supporting element (e.g., as illustrated in Fig. 3, the structural elements 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, and 50 are all supporting the shell 38 (col. 5, lines 1-39)) are arranged in the mold, wherein the preform element is arranged on a molding surface (e.g., item 84 in Fig. 5 (col. 6, lines 53-55)) of the mold and extends over a section of the circumference of the blade part to be manufactured, wherein the laminate supporting element is arranged on the preform element and the further preform element is arranged on the laminate supporting element, wherein the preform element and the further preform element extend over the entire circumference of the blade part to be manufactured, wherein the preform elements are at least partly infused with a resin for casting of the blade part (col. 10, lines 39-51).
Regarding claims 2, 3, Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 5, the mould surface 84 is covered by a gel coat 85 and a layer of triax prepreg 86 (col. 6, lines 55-57). Here, the triax prepreg 86 is considered as one fiber mat being arranged adjacently to the at least one preform element and the at least one further preform element in a longitudinal direction of the blade part (i.e., the above longitudinal ‘spanwise’ direction S) between the molding surface and at least the multiple preforms being abutted in a circumferential direction (i.e., the above transverse ‘chordwise’ direction C) (related to claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7b, it also results in the preforms 106a-h being staggered in the chordwise direction C (i.e., the circumferential direction) in that corresponding spanwise edges 72 of the adjacent preforms 106a-h are offset from one another in the chordwise direction C (col. 8, lines 15-19).
Regarding claim 5, Bech discloses that, in other embodiments both the chordwise and spanwise edges 70, 72 of the respective plies 66, 68 may be substantially aligned such that the plies 66, 68 forming the preform 74 are not staggered (col. 8, lines 18-21). Thus, Bech discloses that, the abutting edges of a pair of abutting preform elements form a joint connection.
Regarding claim 10, Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 6, the layup of the outer skin 48 continues by assembling a first hybrid shell structure 104 in the root end portion 98 of the mould 82. The hybrid shell structure 104 is assembled by arranging a series of preforms similar to the preform 74 shown in Fig. 4b in the mould 82 (col. 7, lines 19-24).
Bech discloses that, in other embodiment, the hybrid structure 104 may be assembled from preforms comprising more than two plies 66, 68 or the entire hybrid structure 104 may be assembled outside the mould 82 before being lifted into the mould 82 in a single step (col. 7, lines 46-50).
Thus, by using a lifter (or means), Bech discloses that, the multiple preforms are arranged on the molding surface supported by the laminate supporting element.
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.
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.
Claims 6, 7, 8, 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bech (US 10786952) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Vuillaume et al. (WO 2012042261).
Regarding claims 6, 7, Bech discloses that, in other embodiments both the chordwise and spanwise edges 70, 72 of the respective plies 66, 68 may be substantially aligned such that the plies 66, 68 forming the preform 74 are not staggered (col. 8, lines 18-21).
As illustrated in Fig. 7a, a stack of plies forming a hybrid structure (col. 3, lines 60-61). Thus, at least Bech discloses that, the plurality of preforms includes a core segment arranged between at least one inner layer and at least one outer layer of a fiber material are used.
However, Bech does not explicitly disclose what type of the joint between the two abutting preforms.
In the same field of endeavor, wind blade, Vuillaume discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 9, the first fiber glass layer 16, the intermediate layer 40, and the second fiber glass layer 16’are winded (page 15, lines 4-13) to fabricate the preforms 28.
Vuillaume discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 10, one end of the second preform 28’ overlaps one end of the first preform 28 within a central overlapping region 42 extending over a length of between 500 mm and 1000 mm (page 15, lines 19-21) (in a length direction of the blade part (page 15, lines 15-23)).
Here, the two abutting layers can have a butt joint and different layers are arranged at least with a longitudinal offset towards each other.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Bech to have the multiple preforms for fabricating the blade part as Vuillaume teaches that it is known to have one end of the second preform 28’ overlaps one end of the first preform 28 within a central overlapping region 42 extending over a length. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the shell 38 is a laminate structure of composite construction and is fabricated from two half shells: a leeward shell 42 and a windward shell 44 (col. 4, lines 47-49). As illustrated in Fig. 4a, a dry ply 66 and a prepreg 68 are used to form laminate layers of the hybrid blade shell structure (col. 5, lines 48-50). As illustrated in Fig. 4b, this shows the prepreg ply 68 arranged on top of the dry ply 66 to form a preform 74 (col. 6, lines 9-10). Thus, for the laminate structure of the shell of the blade part, Bech discloses that, at least the two further preform elements are arranged in a circumferential direction offset (col. 8, lines 15-19).
However, Bech does not explicitly disclose that, the two further preform elements are arranged in a circumferential direction offset from a peak of the circumference of the part being manufactured.
As illustrated in Fig. 8 in the teachings of Vuillaume, four moulded quadrants are attached together in accordance a preferred embodiment. Here, the two top further preform elements are arranged in a circumferential direction offset from a peak of the circumference of the part being manufactured.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Bech to have the multiple preforms for fabricating the blade part as Vuillaume teaches that it is known to have the two further preform elements are arranged in a circumferential direction offset from a peak of the circumference of the part being manufactured. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 9, Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 3, the structural elements 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64, and 50 are all supporting the shell 38 (col. 5, lines 1-39). Thus, Bech discloses that, at least the multiple preforms 74 (i.e., including the one preform and the one further preform) are supported by the supporting elements 52, 54, 56, and 58 in a shape corresponding to a shape of the multiple preforms 74.
However, Bech does not disclose separate supporting structures during assembling the blade part.
As illustrated in Fig. 8, Vuillaume discloses that, the quadrants 38 are lowered into an assembly jig 39 (page 14, lines 28-33). Here, the assembly jig 39 is supporting the quadrants 38.
Further, as illustrated in Fig. 14 (b), Vuillaume discloses that, the mandrel 14 is then lowered on to a plywood support tray 52 (page 16, lines 16-17) in which have a shape to support the preform 43 (e.g., as shown in Fig. 14 (g)).
It would have been obvious to use the method of Bech to have the multiple preforms for fabricating the blade part as Vuillaume teaches that it is known to have separate supporting structures for assembling the preforms prior to for building a blade part. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 13, Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the root end of the blade part 18 is only extending a small portion of its total length of along the longitudinal ‘spanwise’ direction S. However, Bech does not disclose how much portion will be.
Vuillaume discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 1, the root section 8 typically extends over about one fifth of the total length of the blade 7 (page 1, lines 24-25) (overlapping the claimed 10 % to 30 %).
For one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Vuillaume overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to use the method of Bech to have the root end of the blade part 18 is only extending a small portion of its total length of along the longitudinal ‘spanwise’ direction S as Vuillaume teaches that it is known to have the root section 8 typically extends over about one fifth of the total length of the blade 7 (overlapping the claimed 10 % to 30 %). It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bech (US 10786952) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 11, 12, Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 11, third and fourth CFRP strips 130b, 132b are arranged on top of the foam panels 50 at the leading and trailing edges 90, 92 of the mould 82 (col. 10, lines 10-12). Bech discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 12, parts of the third and fourth hybrid structures 122a, 124a of the inner skin 36 overlie the root ends 134, 136 of the respective third and fourth CFRP strips 130b, 132b of the leading- and trailing-edge stringers (col. 10, lines 29-34). Thus, at least the strips 130b and 132b are connected with the root segment and is considered as one component being connected/embedded with the root end portion of the blade part (related to claim 12).
However, Bech does not explicitly disclose that, the strips 130b, 132b are at least a pre-casted component.
Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979). Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 USC 102/103 rejection is made, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference. “The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974).
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP § 2113.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIBIN LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on 571 270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744