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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 6 and 14 have been amended. Claims 15-16 are new additions. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiel Sorensen et al (US 2019/0176411 A1 – of record), in view of Hadley (US 7,255,549 B2 – of record).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, Kiel Sorensen discloses a fiber layup and an impregnated carrier substrate – (construed as a porous material). The impregnated carrier substrate being formed of a fabric comprising a compound having a functional moiety; and infusing the fiber layup and impregnated substrate with a resin, see [0011] – [0013], [0015] – (construed as a reactive component capable of reacting with an infusion resin). The impregnated carrier substrate functional moiety/reactive component comprising combinations of amine, thiol and/or hydroxy functional groups, see at least [0020].
Kiel Sorensen does not explicitly disclose increasing the viscosity of the infusion resin.
Hadley discloses a method for making fiber-reinforced composite articles. The method to include control of resin flow during molding the composite articles such that: a fibrous body – (construed as a porous material) uses an immobilization agent in a sufficient amount to increase the viscosity of an infused resin to prevent resin depletion due to vacuum – (construed as a porous material functionalized with a reactive component capable of reacting with the infusion resin to increase the viscosity of the infusion resin), see at least Col 3 lines 1-28, Col 6 lines 6-9. And where the fibrous reinforcement/porous material has an accelerator agent applied to initiate the localized gelling of the liquid resin and promote rapid and efficient cure of the infusing resin system, see at least Col 7 lines 64 – Col 8 lines 14 – (construed as a porous material functionalized with a reactive component capable of reacting with the infusion resin to provide gelling of the infusion resin). Hadley further discloses such a reactive component contribute to preventing, or at least minimizing, the occurrence of resin depletion from local regions due to the effect of gravity, see at least Col 15 lines 1-7.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify (i.e. functionalize) Kiel Sorensen’s impregnated carrier substrate with a reactive component to increase the viscosity of the infusion resin and/or provide gelling of the infusion resin as taught by Hadley to provide the impregnated carrier substrate with a means for preventing, or at least minimizing, the occurrence of resin depletion from local regions due to the effect of gravity.
Claims 6, 11, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiel Sorensen et al (US 2019/0176411 A1 – of record), in view of Hadley (US 7,255,549 B2 – of record).
Regarding claims 6, 13, Kiel Sorensen discloses a method of manufacturing a wind turbine blade – (corresponds to a method of producing a wind turbine blade or a part thereof; and a wind turbine blade or a part thereof obtainable by a method). The method to include a mold 64, a fiber layup and an impregnated carrier substrate – (construed as a porous material). The impregnated carrier substrate having a functional moiety; and infusing the fiber layup and impregnated substrate with a resin – (construed as a reactive component capable of reacting with an infusion resin; applying the infusion resin into the mold by a vacuum infusion method; and curing the infusion resin), see [0011] – [0013], [0015], [0018].
Kiel Sorensen does not explicitly disclose increasing the viscosity of the infusion resin.
Hadley discloses a method for making fiber-reinforced composite articles. The method to include control of resin flow during molding the composite articles such that: a fibrous body – (construed as a porous material) uses an immobilization agent in a sufficient amount to increase the viscosity of an infused resin to prevent resin depletion due to vacuum – (construed as a porous material functionalized with a reactive component capable of reacting with the infusion resin to increase the viscosity of the infusion resin), see at least Col 3 lines 1-28, Col 6 lines 6-9. And where the fibrous reinforcement/porous material has an accelerator agent applied to initiate the localized gelling of the liquid resin and promote rapid and efficient cure of the infusing resin system, see at least Col 7 lines 64 – Col 8 lines 14 – (construed as a porous material functionalized with a reactive component capable of reacting with the infusion resin to provide gelling of the infusion resin). Hadley further discloses such a reactive component contribute to preventing, or at least minimizing, the occurrence of resin depletion from local regions due to the effect of gravity, see at least Col 15 lines 1-7.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kiel Sorensen’s of manufacturing a wind turbine blade including an impregnated carrier substrate. Such that the impregnated carrier substrate uses a reactive component to increase the viscosity of the infusion resin and/or provide gelling of the infusion resin as taught by Hadley to provide the impregnated carrier substrate with a means for preventing, or at least minimizing, the occurrence of resin depletion from local regions due to the effect of gravity.
Regarding claims 11, 15, modified Kiel Sorensen discloses the impregnated carrier substrate may be applied to at least part of the bonding flange surface, see at least [0026] – (construed as the porous material is provided at only a part of the mold, or a portion of a surface of the mold).
Claims 3, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiel Sorensen et al (US 2019/0176411 A1 – of record), in view of Hadley (US 7,255,549 B2 – of record), as applied to claims 1, 6 above, and further in view of Takehara et al. (US 2018/0244879 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kiel Sorensen does not explicitly disclose the claimed porosity. Takehara discloses a porous material having a porosity of at least 85% is advantageous from the viewpoint of resin supply characteristics, see at least [0053] – (construed as and overlaps a porosity of from 50 to 90 %). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Kiel Sorensen’s fiber layup/carrier substrate to have a porosity of 85% as taught by Takehara to provide the matrix with a means for ensuring a desirable amount of resin is taken up during the curing process. Concerning the claimed range: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 9-10, The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see MPEP 2144.07. To this extent, modified Kiel Sorensen discloses the carrier substrate/reactive component comprises an amine and/or hydroxyl functional groups, see at least [0020]. Takehara discloses supplying a thermosetting resin – (construed as an infusion resin) to a porous preform, see [0041]. The thermosetting resin being a polyurethane with a viscosity of less than 10 Pa · s ≈ 10000 mPa s which overlaps the claimed less than 100 mPa s. And Takehara does not specify any particular temperature for the measurement, one would at least consider the measurements were taken at infusion temperature. And where one would consider values of less than 100 mPa s as Takehara suggests such values reduce the occurrence of voids in the composite product, see at least [0074] – [0075]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Kiel Sorensen’s method of forming a wind turbine blade to have the claimed composition as reasonably suggested by a combination of Kiel Sorensen and Takehara to provide the wind turbine blade with a reduced occurrence of voids in the final product. Concerning the claimed range: it has been held that “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists”, see MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiel Sorensen et al (US 2019/0176411 A1 – of record), in view of Hadley (US 7,255,549 B2 – of record), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Santoni (US 2020/0094496 A1 – of record).
Regarding claim 12, while modified Kiel Sorensen discloses its method is suitable for vacuum assisted resin transfer molding, see [0035]; it does not explicitly disclose after curing the infusion resin removing from the mold. Santoni discloses forming a composite product such as a wind turbine blade, see [0073]. This to include using a resin transfer molding RTM process to lay up long fibre reinforcement in a mold, inject a matrix precursor into the mold, cure the matrix precursor to form a rigid matrix around the reinforcing fibers and remove the resulting component from the mold, see at least [0031]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Kiel Sorensen’s method of forming a wind turbine blade to have the claimed removal step as taught by Santoni as such steps as typical in resin transfer molding operations wherein the RTM mold defines the exterior shape of the RTM component as suggested by Santoni.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiel Sorensen et al (US 2019/0176411 A1 – of record), in view of Hadley (US 7,255,549 B2 – of record), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of at least one of Kybelund (US 2014/0238590 A1), or Dobosz et al. (US 2022/0250308 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Kiel Sorensen does not explicitly disclose the reactive component is applied as an oligomer.
Kybelund discloses a method for manufacturing a composite. The method includes the use of an adhesive additive, wherein if provided as an oligomer consistent with oligomers of the resin compatibility between the materials are ensured, see at least [0025].
Dobosz discloses a method of fabricating wind turbine blades. The method to include a coreactive compound as a prepolymer, see [0116]. This includes having the coreactive compound being provided in the form of an oligomer functional as an adhesion promoter, see [0137], [0249] – [0250].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Kiel Sorensen impregnated carrier substrate to include providing the reactive component as an oligomer as taught by Kybelund or Dobosz to provide the impregnated carrier substrate with a means to improve the adhesion properties of the materials.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadley (US 7,255,549 B2 – of record), in view of at least one of Kybelund (US 2014/0238590 A1), or Dobosz et al. (US 2022/0250308 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hadley discloses a method for making fiber-reinforced composite articles. The to include control of resin flow during molding the composite articles such that: a fibrous body – (construed as a porous material) using an immobilization agent in a sufficient amount to increase the viscosity of an infused resin to prevent resin depletion due to vacuum – (construed as is used for increasing the viscosity of an infusion resin in a vacuum infusion method), see at least Col 3 lines 1-28, Col 6 lines 6-9. Wherein the fibrous reinforcement/porous material has an accelerator agent applied to initiate the localized gelling of the liquid resin and promote rapid and efficient cure of the infusing resin system, see at least Col 7 lines 64 – Col 8 lines 14 – (construed as is functionalized with a reactive component capable of reacting with the infusion resin).
Hadley does not explicitly disclose the reactive component is applied as an oligomer.
Kybelund discloses a method for manufacturing a composite. The method includes the use of an adhesive additive, wherein if provided as an oligomer consistent with oligomers of the resin compatibility between the materials are ensured, see at least [0025].
Dobosz discloses a method of fabricating wind turbine blades. The method to include a coreactive compound as a prepolymer, see [0116]. This includes having the coreactive compound being provided in the form of an oligomer functional as an adhesion promoter, see [0137], [0249] – [0250].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hadley’s method to include providing the reactive component as an oligomer as taught by Kybelund or Dobosz to provide the method with a means to improve the adhesion properties of Hadley’s materials for making fiber-reinforced composite articles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed date have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that: Kiel Sorensen does not teach or suggest a reactive component capable of reacting with an infusion resin to increase viscosity of the infusion resin and/or to provide gelling of the infusion resin; or a mold comprising a porous material functionalized with a reactive component capable of reacting with an infusion resin to increase viscosity of the infusion resin and/or to provide gelling of the infusion resin.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees: In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, Hadley as discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 6, clearly discloses the use of a reaction compound suitable for increasing the viscosity and/or gelling of the infusion resin. Moreover, one would readily envision modifying Kiel Sorensen in a like manner as this provides a benefit of preventing, or at least minimizing, the occurrence of resin depletion from local regions due to the effect of gravity as suggested by Hadley.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues that: Hadley does not teach or suggest the reactive component is provided as an oligomer. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, combination with Kybelund or Dobosz provides a reasonable pathway to supplying the reactive compound as an oligomer to improve the adhesion properties of the materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571) 272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on (571) 270-5545. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights