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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 02/04/2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are currently pending. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended and claims 18-20 are new (see claim objections below).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 17-19 (as listed) are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 has been listed as “(Withdrawn)” but it appears this claim should be listed as previously presented. The claim will be examined despite the listing.
Regarding claims 17-19, the numbering of these claims are not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 17 (second instance) and 18-19 have been renumbered to 18-20.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 07/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Examiner notes that claim 6 requires all the structural limitations of claim 1 and will be considered making claims 1-2, 4-13 and 18-20 considered for examination. Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from consideration. Though claim 14 has been previously amended to depend on claim 1 and claim 15 to depend on claim 14, the group of claims 14-17 lack of unity of invention as the prior teaches all the limitation of claim 1 thus there is a lacking of the same or corresponding special technical feature among claim 1 and claim 14. It is noted that claim 1 functions as a linking claim to claim 14.
Claims 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected claims 14-17, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response, filed 02/04/2026, with respect to objections to the specification and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification and 112(b) rejections of 10/06/2025 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims and specification.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner agrees that the prior art Sato does not teach all the limitations as amended in claim 1. However, regarding arguments to reliance on the drawings of Sato to teach the size of the overlap, examiner contends that the prior art Sato teaches distinct sized portion of a wind turbine blade (see ¶ [0012] and [0014] for instance) which describes the size of components in the system of Sato. The size of the metal receptor in Sato gives relative sizing to other portions of the wind turbine blade such as the first metal layer and the second metal layer. Examiner contends that from what is described in the cited paragraphs it is clear from the drawings that the limitations of claim 1 in the last rejection is taught.
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) 1, 2, 4-5 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0195203 to Fujioka (Fujioka) in view of WO 2018/196967 to Sato (Sato) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0383272 to Murata et al. (Murata) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0321468 to Hansen (Hansen).
In Reference to Claim 1
Fujioka discloses a wind turbine blade having a blade shell with a lightning protection system (abstract);
the lightning protection system comprising:
a surface protection layer (¶ [0011], system in proximity of the outer surface of the blade for instance), comprising:
a first metal layer (Figs. 1 and 4, 13 for instance) at an outer surface of the blade shell (25 for instance); and
a second metal layer (14 for instance) at the outer surface of the blade shell (25) and stacked on the first metal layer (13) to form intimate electrical contact with the first metal layer (see ¶ [0013] for instance) at a multiple-thickness region (system of 13 and 14 for instance, see also ¶ [0067]); except teaching, “... wherein the multiple-thickness region has a width of at least 200 mm and a length of at least 200 mm ....”
Fujioka does teach that the width of the metal layers are close to a width of the receptor (17 for instance) and extends for a length of an overlap for an undisclosed distance (¶ [0067]), and that the metal foil may extend partially, or fully, the length of the blade (¶ [0010]).
Sato is related to a lightning protection system for a wind turbine blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches that the length of wind turbine blades may be 50 m to 78 m (see ¶ [0012]) and wherein the width of a receptor (Fig. 4, 50 for instance) may vary in configuration (¶ [0012]). Sato also teaches that the size of a receptor, compared to a width of the blade, may be relatively small (see figure 1 for instance) and teaches wherein a metal layer (32 for instance) is configure with a width relative to that of the receptor (figure 4, as least 50% of for instance).
Murata is related to a lightning protection system for a wind turbine blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a width of metal layer may be configured within 50 to 300 mm (see ¶ [0056]).
Hansen is related to a lightning protection system for a wind turbine blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein overlapping conductive layers (of 170 for instance, figure 3) may be configured with different lengths or extend the full length of a wind turbine blade (figure 3, ¶ [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Fujioka wherein the multiple-thickness region (of Fujioka) has a sufficiently configure width and a sufficiently configured length (as taught, of the configuration of conducting layers, by Sato, Murata and Hansen), so as to use an art known technique (of the configuration of conductive layers in a lightning conduction system as taught by Sato, Murata and Hansen) into the system of Fujioka and predictably conduct lightning.
Regarding the claimed limitations “a width of at least 200 mm and a length of at least 200 mm”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the variable configuration of conductive layers as taught by Fujioka, Sato, Murata and Hansen), 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. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujioka such that the width is of at least 200 mm and the length is of at least 200 mm because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 2
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, further comprising: an electrical component (Fig. 1, 17 for instance), wherein the first and second metal layers (13 and 14) are electrically connected to the electrical component (17 for instance, see also ¶ [0057] as taught by Sato in the connection of components) by an electrically conductive pin (18 or 19 for instance) that extends through the multiple-thickness region (extends through 13 and 14 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 4
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, except, "... wherein the multiple thickness region has a width of at least 1 m and a length of at least 1 m ....”
Regarding the claimed limitations “a width of at least 1 m and a length of at least 1 m”, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the variable configuration of conductive layers as taught by Fujioka, Sato, Murata and Hansen), 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. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujioka such that the width is of at least 1 m and the length is of at least 1 m because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
In Reference to Claim 5
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, wherein the multiple-thickness region extends across at least 50% of a surface area of the second metal layer (overlapping layers extending a variable distance or fully of the blade length as taught by Hansen for instance).
In Reference to Claim 18
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, wherein the first metal layer (Fujioka, 13 for instance) and the second metal layer (Fujioka, 14 for instance) each comprise a metallic foil (Fujioka , abstract).
In Reference to Claim 19
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, wherein each of the first metal layer and the second metal layer extends substantially an entire spanwise length of the surface protection layer (Fujioka, ¶ [0009]).
In Reference to Claim 20
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, wherein each of the first metal layer and the second metal layer may cover a majority of the outer surface of the blade (Fujioka ¶ [0021], the metal foil as formed on all sides of the blade for instance).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0195203 to Fujioka (Fujioka) in view of WO 2018/196967 to Sato (Sato) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0383272 to Murata et al. (Murata) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0321468 to Hansen (Hansen) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0200151 to Brilliant et al. (Brilliant).
In Reference to Claim 6
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 2, except explicitly teaching, “... wherein the electrical component is a down conductor of the lightning protection system ....” i.e. in conjunction with wherein the first and second metal layers are electrically connected to the electrical component by an electrically conductive pin that extends through the multiple thickness region (of claim 2).
Brilliant is related to a lightning protection system (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches an electrical component (Fig. 2, 15 for instance), wherein a plurality of conductive layers (of 14 for instance) are electrically connected to the electrical component (15) by an electrically conductive pin (of 121 for instance) that extends through the conductive layers (14), and wherein the electrical component (15) is a down conductor of the lightning protection system (see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Fujioka wherein an electrical component (a down conductor as taught by Brilliant for instance), wherein the first and second metal layers (of Fujioka) are electrically connected to the electrical component by an electrically conductive pin (as taught by Brilliant) that extends through the multiple thickness region (of Fujioka), so as to use an art known technique (of connection of components of a lightning conduction system as taught by Brilliant for instance) into the system of Fujioka and predictably provide a conduction path for lightning to ground during lightning strikes.
In Reference to Claim 12
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, except explicitly, “... wherein the first and second metal layers are joined by a metal disc that extends through the first and second metal layers, wherein the metal disc is for connection to an electrical component of the lightning protection system ....”
Brilliant is related to a lightning protection system (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a plurality of conductive layers (Fig. 2, of 14 for instance) are joined by a metal disc (bottom portion of 121 for instance) that extends through the conductive layers, wherein the metal disc is for connection to an electrical component of the lightning protection system (15 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Fujioka wherein the first and second metal layers (of Fujioka) are joined by a metal disc (as taught by Brilliant) that extends through the first and second metal layers (of Fujioka), wherein the metal disc is for connection to an electrical component of the lightning protection system (as taught by Brilliant), so as to use an art known technique (of the connection of components of a lightning conduction system as taught by Brilliant for instance) into the system of Fujioka and predictably provide a conduction path for lightning to ground during lightning strikes.
Claim(s) 7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0195203 to Fujioka (Fujioka) in view of WO 2018/196967 to Sato (Sato) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0383272 to Murata et al. (Murata) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0321468 to Hansen (Hansen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0298608 to Whitehouse et al. (Whitehouse).
In Reference to Claim 7
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, except explicitly, “... wherein the first metal layer and the second metal layer are formed of the same material and/or have the same thickness ....”
Whitehouse is related to a lightning protection system (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches a metal layer of a blade conduction system may be of copper or aluminum.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Fujioka wherein the first metal layer and the second metal layer (of Fujioka) are formed of the same material (of copper or aluminum as taught by Whitehouse for instance) and/or have the same thickness (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative), so as to use an art known technique (of forming conduction components of copper or aluminum as taught by Whitehouse) into the system of Fujioka and predictably conduct lightning to ground in the system of Fujioka.
In Reference to Claim 9
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, except, “... wherein the first metal layer comprises a plurality of first metal layer portions with overlapping edges and/or the second metal layer comprises a plurality of second metal layer portions with overlapping edges ....”
Whitehouse is related to a lightning protection system (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a metal layer (Figs. 5 and 6, 86 for instance) comprises a plurality of metal layer portions (Fig. 8a, 202 for instance, see ¶ [0069]) with overlapping edges (204 for instance, see ¶ [0070], folded edges for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Fujioka wherein the first metal layer (of Fujioka) comprises a plurality of first metal layer portions with overlapping edges (as taught by Whitehouse) and/or the second metal layer (of Fujioka) comprises a plurality of second metal layer portions with overlapping edges (as taught by Whitehouse), so as to use an art known technique (of forming conductive layers of portions with overlapped, folded, edges, as taught by Whitehouse) into the system of Fujioka and predictably conduct lightning to ground in the system of Fujioka.
In Reference to Claim 10
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata, Hansen and Whitehouse, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 9, except explicitly, “... wherein the overlapping edges have an overlap width of less than 200 mm ....”
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the overlap at this specific dimension solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the overlap forms an end of the metal layer and it appears that the overlap of Whitehouse would perform equally well with having the dimensions as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the overlap of Whitehouse by utilizing the specific dimensions as claimed for the purpose of conducting lightning through the system.
In Reference to Claim 11
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata, Hansen and Whitehouse, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 9, wherein the overlapping edges of the first or second metal layer are offset from any overlapping edges of the other of the first and second metal layer (Whitehouse, the offset of the overlap edges as seen of the portions in figurer 8a for instance).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0195203 to Fujioka (Fujioka) in view of WO 2018/196967 to Sato (Sato) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0383272 to Murata et al. (Murata) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0321468 to Hansen (Hansen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2009/0257881 to Ostergaard Kristensen et al. (Ostergaard Kristensen).
In Reference to Claim 8
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, except, “... wherein the first metal layer and the second metal layer are formed of different materials ....”
Ostergaard Kristensen is related to a lightning protection system (Title), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a first metal element (Fig. 10, 20 for instance) and the second metal element (28 for instance) are formed of different materials (¶ [0073], of aluminum and copper for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Fujioka wherein the first metal layer and the second metal layer (of Fujioka) are formed of different materials (as taught by Ostergaard Kristensen), so as to use an art known technique (of forming different elements of a lighting conduction system of different materials as taught by Ostergaard Kristensen) into the system of Fujioka and predictably conduct lightning to ground in the system of Fujioka.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0195203 to Fujioka (Fujioka) in view of WO 2018/196967 to Sato (Sato) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0383272 to Murata et al. (Murata) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0321468 to Hansen (Hansen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0182731 to Naka et al. (Naka).
In Reference to Claim 13
Fujioka, as modified by Sato, Murata and Hansen, discloses a plurality of wind turbine blades (predictably as known of wind turbine for instance) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of wind turbine blades have a substantially identical shape and size (as taught by Sato, as seen of the blades in figure 2 for instance), but does not teach “... wherein an arrangement of the first and second metal layers of one of the plurality of wind turbine blades is designed to be different to an arrangement of the first and second metal layers of another one of the plurality of wind turbine blades ....”
Naka is related to a lightning protection system (¶ [0002]), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein an arrangement of lightning protection of one of the plurality of wind turbine blades is designed to be different to an arrangement of the lightning protection of another one of the plurality of wind turbine blades (see ¶ [0138], [0139]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Fujioka wherein an arrangement of the first and second metal layers of one of the plurality of wind turbine blades (of Fujioka) is designed to be different (such as having different measures of lightning protection as taught by Naka for instance) to an arrangement of the first and second metal layers of another one of the plurality of wind turbine blades (of Fujioka), so as to use an art known technique (of designing different lightning protection in different blades of a lighting conduction system as taught by Naka) into the system of Fujioka and predictably conduct lightning to ground in the system of Fujioka.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show lighting protection systems with foils extending along a span of a blade, lightning protection systems with multiple layers, the connection of components in a lightning protection system and the relative dimensions of wind turbine blades.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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 E 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights