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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 29-39 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 42-48 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/2026.
Claims 40-41 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 34 and 35 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.
Claim 34 recites the term “substantially” in line 3 and it is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is 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.
Claim 35 recites the term “substantially” in line 3 and it is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is 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.
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 (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 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 29-35 and 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jespersen et al. US 11486350.
Regarding claim 29, Jespersen discloses: A spar cap for a wind turbine blade (Fig 3: 41), the wind turbine blade extending along a longitudinal blade axis from a root (Fig 1: 16) to a tip (14), the wind turbine blade comprising a root region (Region of 14) and an airfoil region with the tip (Region 10 with 14), the wind turbine blade comprising a chord line extending between a leading edge (Fig 2: 18) and a trailing edge (20), the wind turbine blade comprising an aerodynamic exterior blade surface including a pressure side (36) and a suction side (38), the spar cap extending along a longitudinal axis (LSC) configured to be parallel to the longitudinal blade axis (L) when the spar cap forms part of the wind turbine blade (Spar extends along the spanwise of the blade), the spar cap comprising a load-carrying structure (Fig 6: 80/82), the load-carrying structure comprising:
a primary laminate (80) comprising a plurality of first fibre layers embedded in a first polymer matrix (Col 1, line 36-45: spar caps are made from fibre reinforced stacked layers); and
a secondary laminate (82) comprising a plurality of second fibre layers embedded in a second polymer matrix (Col 1, line 36-45: spar caps are made from fibre reinforced stacked layers);
wherein a width (WPL) of the primary laminate and a width (WSL) of the secondary laminate extend between a trailing edge side and a leading edge side of the respective one of the primary laminate and the secondary laminate, the width (WSL) of the secondary laminate being at least 1.1 times greater than the width (WPL) of the primary laminate (Col 4, line 66-Col 5, line 7: the width of 82 is more than 10% longer than the width of 80),
wherein the primary laminate and the secondary laminate overlap in the longitudinal axis (LSC) of the spar cap (80 and 82 overlap the axis of the full spar cap).
Regarding claim 30, Jespersen discloses:
wherein the spar cap is a separately moulded spar cap (Col 3, line 47-59: Spar caps are pre formed).
Regarding claim 31, Jespersen discloses:
wherein a bottom surface of the secondary laminate is arranged on a top surface of the primary laminate (Fig 6: Depending on the orientation of the blade and view the bottom of 82 is on the top of 80).
Regarding claim 32, Jespersen discloses:
wherein a bottom surface of the primary laminate is arranged on a top surface of the secondary laminate (Fig 6: Depending on the orientation of the blade and view the bottom of 80 is on the top of 82).
Regarding claim 33, Jespersen discloses:
a first core material (Fig 6: 67/69) arranged adjacent to at least a longitudinal section of one of the leading edge side and the trailing edge side of a body section (67/69 is adjacent to the leading edge and trailing edge side) so that a top surface of the first core material is aligned with an adjacent top surface of the body section (67/69 are aligned with the top surfaces of each other),
wherein the first core material is co-embedded in at least one of the first polymer matrix and/or the second polymer matrix (67/69 is embedded with the skin 65 which has 80 and 82 embedded within),
wherein the secondary laminate extends beyond the primary laminate and onto the top surface of the first core material 82 extends beyond 80 and over the top of 67/69).
Regarding claim 34, Jespersen discloses:
wherein at least one of the width (WPL) of the primary laminate or the width (WSL) of the secondary laminate is substantially constant along the longitudinal axis (LSC) from the tip end to the root end of the respective one of the primary laminate and the secondary laminate and/or along a height (HSC) of the spar cap (Fig 6: the width of 80 and 82 are substantially constant in all cross sections of the blade).
Regarding claim 35, Jespersen discloses:
wherein at least one of the width (WPL) of the primary laminate or the width (WSL) of the secondary laminate is substantially constant along a height (HSC) of the spar cap (Fig 6: the width of 80 and 82 are substantially constant in all cross sections of the blade).
Regarding claim 37, Jespersen discloses:
wherein the first core material (Fig 6: 67) and/or a second core material (69) each comprises a primary section (Main area of the cores 67/69) and a tapering section (Tapered end of 67/69) extending from the primary section to the primary laminate (Tapered end 67/69 extends from 80),
wherein the tapering section tapers in thickness from the height (HSC) of the primary section to the height (HSC) of the respective one of the leading edge side and the trailing edge side of the primary laminate (Tapered ends of 67/69 tapers in thickness from the main are of the core to the leading and training edge of 80),
wherein the secondary laminate extends beyond the primary laminate and on to at least the tapering section of the first core material and/or second core material (82 extends beyond 80 and on the tapers of 67/69).
Regarding claim 38, Jespersen discloses:
wherein a height (HSL) of the secondary laminate tapers off towards one of a root end or a tip end of the secondary laminate (Fig 7; Col 3, line 32-37: A transition region of the spar cap is at an angle (taper) along the longitudinal axis).
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.
Claims 36 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jespersen et al. US 11486350.
Regarding claim 36, Jespersen discloses:
wherein a width (WPL) of the primary laminate and a width (WSL) of the secondary laminate extend between a trailing edge side and a leading edge side of the respective one of the primary laminate and the secondary laminate, the width (WSL) of the secondary laminate being greater than the width (WPL) of the primary laminate (Col 4, line 66-Col 5, line 7: the width of 82 is more than 10% longer than the width of 80).
However, Jespersen is silent as to:
wherein the width (WSL) of the secondary laminate is at least 1.5 times the width (WPL) of the primary laminate.
However, there is no criticality or unexpected results in Applicant’s disclosure for the width of the secondary laminate being at least 1.5 times greater (50%) than the width of the primary laminate. The courts have held that “where 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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the width of the secondary laminate being at least 1.5 times greater (50%) than the width of the primary laminate if through routine experimentation such a range was found to produce the most width of the laminates.
Regarding claim 39, Jespersen discloses:
wherein the secondary laminate is arranged so that, when the spar cap forms part of the wind turbine blade (Fig 6; Col 3, line 47-59: Spar caps are a part of the blade; Fig 6; Col 3, line 47-59: Spar caps extend 90% of the spanwise of the blade; therefore the spars end with both ends at 1%- 9% on both ends).
However, Jespersen is silent as to:
a root end of the secondary laminate is at a location between 3%-10% of a total length of the wind turbine blade, and/or wherein the secondary laminate is arranged so that, when the spar cap is incorporated into the wind turbine blade, the tip end of the secondary laminate is at a location between 65%-85% of the total length of the wind turbine blade
However, there is no criticality or unexpected results in Applicant’s disclosure for the locations of where the second laminate ends at the tip and root region. The courts have held that “where 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.” See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the locations of where the second laminate ends at the tip and root region if through routine experimentation such a range was found to produce the most locations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Baciloliaie US 20240084779 discloses figure 14 that could read onto the range presented by applicant. Eiriksson et al. US 20230041394 discloses a spar cap with different lengths of plies similar to applicants. Hedges et al. US 11504923, Caruso et al. US 20170030330, Dahl et al. US 20150314537 and Nielsen US 20190176413 discloses different lengths of spar caps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through Friday.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights