The arguments submitted 02/13/2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable over the prior art as set forth below.
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)(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 1-4 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Randall (EP 3066338B1, previously made of record).
Regarding claim 1, Randall teaches a method for manufacturing a wind turbine blade (para. 0039) comprising a load-carrying beam extending in a longitudinal direction of the blade and having a predetermined total length (para. 0010), comprising:
a) aligning at least two blade sections with each other (sections referred to as modules in para. 0014), each blade section comprising a shell with an outer recess (para. 0018), the outer recesses forming in the aligned state an overall outer recess having the predetermined total length (referred to as channels in para. 0029 and as show for channels 140 and 142 in Fig. 4), and
b) arranging a fiber lay-up (referred to as “strips…bonded by means of adhesive or resin infusion” in para. 0038) in the overall outer recess for forming the load-carrying beam (para. 0038 and as shown by 128 in Figs. 3a and 5).
Regarding claim 2, Randall teaches the at least two blade sections are aligned with each other in a state in which their outer recesses are vacant (paras. 0013, 0015, 0018-0019).
Regarding claim 3, Randall teaches in step b) the fiber lay-up for the entire load-carrying beam is arranged in the overall outer recess and/or the fiber lay-up is arranged in the overall outer recess such that the arranged fiber lay-up has the predetermined total length (para. 0013).
Regarding claim 4, Randall teaches the fiber lay-up includes a pre-impregnated fiber lay-up (paras. 0038, 0051).
Regarding claim 7, Randall teaches the fiber lay-up includes a pre-casted fiber lay-up (paras. 0038 and 0051).
Regarding claim 8, Randall teaches step b) includes applying an adhesive in the overall outer recess and/or on the pre-casted fiber lay-up before arranging the fiber lay-up in the overall outer recess (paras. 0060 and 0038).
Regarding claim 9, Randall teaches the load-carrying beam is a spar cap, a leading-edge reinforcement beam or a trailing-edge reinforcement beam (paras. 0049-0050).
Regarding claim 10, Randall teaches the fiber lay-up includes carbon fibers and/or glass fibers (paras. 0051 and 0055).
Regarding claim 11, Randall teaches the step of casting the at least two blade sections by using a respective mold including a protrusion at an inner mold surface for forming the outer recess (para. 0055).
Regarding claim 12, Randall teaches the at least two blade sections include at least an inboard blade section comprising a root portion and an outboard blade section comprising a tip portion, and/or the at least two blade sections are aligned with each other by performing a global root-to-tip alignment (paras. 0046-0049).
Regarding claim 13, Randall teaches the step of joining the at least two blade sections with each other (para. 0048).
Regarding claim 14, Randall teaches each of the at least two blade sections comprises a shear web portion, and joining the at least two blade sections with each other includes connecting the shear web portions of the at least two blade sections with each other (para. 0050).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hayden (WO 2016/189092A1).
Regarding claim 5, Randall does not teach this feature.
However, Hayden teaches a method for making a turbine blade wherein the overall outer recess forms a mold for casting the load-carrying beam (pg. 4, lines 10-14 and Fig. 7C).
In view of Hayden’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Randall’s method to include Hayden’s mold for casting to predictably obtain suitable, conventional, and convenient means for making the load-carrying beam.
Regarding claim 6, Randall does not teach this feature.
However, Hayden teaches conventional steps of covering the fiber lay-up with a vacuum bag, infusing the fiber lay-up with resin and/or curing the resin (pg. 4, lines 17-24).
In view of Hayden’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Randall’s method to include Hayden’s steps of vacuum bagging, infusing, and/or curing the resin to predictably obtain suitable, conventional, and convenient means for making the fiber lay-up.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicants presents an argument contending Randall fails to teach a recess on the first blade sections and an overall outer recess. However, this argument is not persuasive because it fails to consider how the spar on the first blade section makes up a recess, thus forming an overall outer recess when mated to the other blade section.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights