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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 08/05/2025. Claims 1-15 are currently pending with claims 1-15 amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response, filed 08/05/2025, with respect to objections to the specification, objection to the claims, 112(b) rejections and 102(a)(2) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification, objection to the claims, 112(b) rejections and 102(a)(2) rejections of 06/18/2025 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to the specification, to the claims and a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b )(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior arts Brilliant, Richers and Yan does not teach all the limitations of the claimed, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
With regard to arguments to the prior art Brilliant, examiner contends that web terminal is being interpreted as a terminal with multiple connections. Examiner also contends that the prior art Brilliant was cited to teach a terminal and further contends that Brilliant teaches a root-side end terminal as seen of 140 in figure 6, see also page 18, ll 1-3. Examiner also contends that the prior art Brilliant does not teach away as the prior at does not discredit positioning the terminal on a web as taught by Richers or embedded within fiber reinforced composites as taught by Yan.
With regards arguments to the prior art Richers, examiner contends that the prior art is relied upon to teach the disposition of terminals on web structures and web structures made from fiber laminate-based structure. The combination with Brilliant making obvious that web structures can be formed of fiber laminate-based structures and that connection terminals may be disposed on web structures.
With regard to arguments the prior art Yan, examiner contends that the prior art is cited to teach the embedding of terminals in fiber reinforced structures. The combination with the prior art Brilliant making obvious the known embedding of connection terminals in fiber reinforced systems.
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) 1-6, 8-9, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/022789 to Brilliant et al. (Brilliant) in view of US Patent 9,702,338 to Richers et al. (Richers) and in view of CN212690240 to Yan et al. (Yan, and based on English Machine Translation).
In Reference to Claim 1
Brilliant discloses a wind turbine rotor blade (Fig. 1, 20 for instance) comprising
a shell (of 20), a web structure (Fig. 4, structure to which 132 is attached, not labeled), and
a lightning down conductor arrangement (100 for instance),
wherein the rotor blade (20) extends in a spanwise direction between a tip-side end (Fig. 2, 22 for instance) and a root-side end (21 for instance),
wherein the lightning down conductor arrangement (Fig. 4, 100) comprises at least one terminal (120 for instance) and
at least one root-side end terminal (Fig. 6, 140 for instance) arranged in a rootside end portion of the shell (pg. 17, ll34-35, 140 disposed in an inboard portion for instance) in a spanwise distance to the terminal (120 at and connected to outboard conductor 110 for instance),
wherein the root-side end terminal (140) is connected to the terminal (120) by an end conductor (portions of 131, 132 or 133) arranged at an inner surface of the shell (inner surface of 20 as seen in figure 6 for instance).
Brilliant does not explicitly teach “... wherein the web structure is made from at least one fiber laminate-based structure ...” or the at least one terminal is “... at least partly embedded in the web structure ....”
Richers is related to wind turbine rotor blade (Fig. 1, 2 for instance) with a web structure (5) and a lightning down conductor arrangement (23, 221 and 222 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the web structure (5) is made from at least one fiber laminate-based structure (see col 6, ll 18-21) and at least one web terminal (221 for instance) disposed on the web structure (5).
Yan is also related to a lightning conductor arrangement for a wind turbine (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches at least one web terminal (Figs. 2 and 4, terminals 10 for instance, see also ¶ [0021]) at least partly embedded a structure (11 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 Brilliant wherein the web structure (of Brilliant) is made from at least one fiber laminate-based structure (as taught by Richers), and wherein the at least one terminal is an at least one web terminal (disposed relative to the web structure as taught by Richers for instance) and is at least partly embedded (as taught by Yan, in the embedding of terminals in fiber reinforced composites for instance) in the web structure (of Brilliant), so as to use an art known technique (of forming web structures of fiber and lamination and the disposing terminals at a web structure as taught by Richers and further the embedding of conductive terminals into structures of the wind turbines, as taught by Yan, such as in wind turbine webs) into the system of Brilliant and predictably mount and connect the various portions of the lightning down conductor arrangement.
In Reference to Claim 2
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein the end conductor is a cable (Brilliant, see abstract for instance) or that the end conductor is a solid conductor rail (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative).
In Reference to Claim 3
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein the end conductor (Brilliant Fig. 6, connections to 140 for instance) is attached to the inner surface of the shell (Brilliant, to 20 for instance) by one or more fixation means (Brilliant, unlabeled strap means) adhered to the inner surface of the shell (as seen in figure 6 of Brilliant).
In Reference to Claim 4
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 3, wherein the fixation means is a fastening strip (Brilliant, unlabeled strap means as seen in figure 6 for instance) or a lamination layer (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative).
In Reference to Claim 5
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein the at least one web terminal (Brilliant, 120 as modified by Richers) is connected to a lightning down conductor (Brilliant, 131, 132, 133 for instance) of the lightning down conductor arrangement (as seen in figure 4 of Brilliant), wherein the lightning down conductor (Brilliant, 131, 132, 133) is at least sectionally arranged at (as seen in figure 4 of Brilliant) and/or embedded (as further taught by Richers) in the web structure (5 or Brilliant as modified).
In Reference to Claim 6
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 5, wherein the lightning down conductor (Brilliant, 131, 132, 133 for instance) is electrically connected to at least one connection terminal (Brilliant, 120) at least partly embedded in the web structure (5 of Brilliant as modified by Richers and Yan), wherein the at least one connection terminal is electrically connected to at least one electrically conductive shell section (Brilliant pg. 12, ll 31-35, metal foil 17 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 8
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 6, wherein the at least one connection terminal (Brilliant, 120 for instance) comprises an electrically conductive connector element (Brilliant, of 120) with a first contact portion (Brilliant, connection of 110 to 120 for instance) connected to the at least one electrically conductive shell section (Brilliant pg. 12, ll 31-35, metal foil 17 for instance) and two second contact portions (Brilliant, the connection of 131 and 133 to 120 for instance), wherein one of the second contact portions (Brilliant, of 120) is connected to the lightning down conductor (Brilliant, 131 for instance) and the other second contact portion (Brilliant, of 120) is connected to a further lightning down conductor (Brilliant, of 133).
In Reference to Claim 9
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 6, wherein the at least one electrically conductive shell section (Brilliant pg. 12, ll 31-35, metal foil 17 for instance) is connected to at least one shell terminal (Brilliant, a further 120 and on shell for instance) by at least one shell conductor embedded in shell (as taught by Richers for instance), wherein the shell terminal (Brilliant, 120 for instance) is connected to the at least one connection terminal (Brilliant, 140 for instance), by at least one cable (Brilliant, such as 132, 131, 133 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 11
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 6, wherein the at least one electrically conductive shell section (of shell of Brilliant for instance) is a carbon beam, a carbon spar cap (pg. 13, ll 25-29 for instance), a carbon fiber-based shell section (pg. 13, ll 25-29 for instance) and/or a lightning receptor (all other limitations satisfied as being in the alternative).
In Reference to Claim 13
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 1, wherein the at least one root-side end terminal (Brilliant Fig. 6, 140 for instance) comprises at least one end terminal connector element (Brilliant, of 140 for instance) with a contact surface (Brilliant, of conductor to 140) connected to the end conductor (Brilliant, conductor to 140) , wherein the end terminal connector element is arranged on the inner surface of the shell (as seen in figure 6 for instance) or at least partly embedded in the shell (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative).
In Reference to Claim 14
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine (Brilliant Fig. 1, 10 for instance) comprising at least one wind turbine rotor blade (Brilliant, 20 for instance) according to claim 1.
In Reference to Claim 15
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine according to claim 14, wherein the rotor blade (Brilliant, 20) is attached to a hub (Brilliant, 18), wherein the at least one root-side end terminal (Brilliant Fig. 6,, 140) of the rotor blade is connected to a further lightning down conductor arrangement arranged at least partly in the hub (Brilliant pg. 12, ll 22-29).
Claim(s) 7, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/022789 to Brilliant et al. (Brilliant) in view of US Patent 9,702,338 to Richers et al. (Richers) and in view of CN212690240 to Yan et al. (Yan, and based on English Machine Translation) as applied to claims 6 and 9 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0271104 to Lee et al. (Lee).
In Reference to Claim 7
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 6, except explicitly, “... wherein the connection terminal comprises at least two terminal elements, wherein an intermediate section of the lightning down conductor is enclosed between the terminal elements, wherein at least one of the terminal elements is connected to the at least one electrically conductive shell section ....”
Lee is related to a wind turbine rotor blade with a lightning down conductor arrangement (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a connection terminal (Figs. 4 and 6, 7 for instance) comprises at least two terminal elements (Fig 6, top and bottom portions of 7 for instance), wherein an intermediate section of a lightning down conductor (portions of 5 and 8 in 7 for instance) is enclosed between the terminal elements (of 7, see figure 6), wherein at least one of the terminal elements (of 7) is connected to at least one electrically conductive shell section (4 on shell of 3 via 61 for instance, see figure 5).
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 Brilliant wherein the connection terminal (of Brilliant) comprises at least two terminal elements (as taught by Lee), wherein an intermediate section of the lightning down conductor (of Brilliant) is enclosed between the terminal elements (as taught by Lee), wherein at least one of the terminal elements is connected (Lee teaching shell conductive element connected to lightning system for instance) to the at least one electrically conductive shell section (of Brilliant for instance), so as to use an art known technique (of connecting lightning down conductors to connection terminals as taught by Lee for instance) in the system of Brilliant and predictably connect the portions of the down conductor arrangement to route lightning.
In Reference to Claim 10
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according claim 9, except, “... wherein the at least one shell terminal comprises at least two terminal elements, wherein a section of the at least one shell conductor is enclosed between the terminal elements, wherein at least one of the terminal elements is connected to the at least one connection terminal, or that the shell terminal comprises an electrically conductive connector element with a first contact portion connected to the connection terminal and a second contact portion connected to the shell conductor, wherein at least the second contact portion is embedded in the shell ....”
Lee is related to a wind turbine rotor blade with a lightning down conductor arrangement (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a terminal comprises at least two terminal elements (Fig. 6, 7 for instance), wherein a section of a conductor (51 or 8) is enclosed between the terminal elements (7), wherein at least one of the terminal elements (7) is connected to a connection terminal (Fig. 2a, such as 62 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 Brilliant wherein the at least one shell terminal (of Brilliant) comprises at least two terminal elements (as taught by Lee), wherein a section of the at least one shell conductor (of Brilliant) is enclosed between the terminal elements (as taught by Lee), wherein at least one of the terminal elements (as taught by Lee) is connected to the at least one connection terminal (of Brilliant), or that the shell terminal comprises an electrically conductive connector element with a first contact portion connected to the connection terminal and a second contact portion connected to the shell conductor, wherein at least the second contact portion is embedded in the shell (this limitation satisfied as being in alternative), so as to use an art known technique (of connecting lightning down conductors to connection terminals as taught by Lee for instance) in the system of Brilliant and predictably connect the portions of the down conductor arrangement to route lightning.
In Reference to Claim 12
Brilliant, as modified by Richers and Yan, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade according to claim 1, except, “... wherein the at least one web terminal comprises at least two electrically conductive terminal elements, wherein an end section of the lightning down conductor is enclosed between the terminal elements of the web terminal, or that the web terminal comprises an electrically conductive connector element with a first contact portion connected to the end conductor and a second contact portion connected to the lightning down conductor, wherein at least the second contact portion is embedded in the web structure ....”
Lee is related to a wind turbine rotor blade with a lightning down conductor arrangement (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a terminal comprises at least two electrically conductive terminal elements (Fig. 6, 7 for instance), wherein an end section of a lightning down conductor (51 or 8) is enclosed between the terminal elements (7).
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 Brilliant wherein the at least one web terminal (of Brilliant) comprises at least two electrically conductive terminal elements (as taught of the terminal of Lee), wherein an end section of the lightning down conductor (of Brilliant) is enclosed between the terminal elements (as taught by Lee) of the web terminal (of Brilliant), or that the web termina comprises an electrically conductive connector element with a first contact portion connected to the end conductor and a second contact portion connected to the lightning down conductor, wherein at least the second contact portion is embedded in the web structure (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative), so as to use an art known technique (of connecting lightning down conductors to connection terminals as taught by Lee for instance) in the system of Brilliant and predictably connect the portions of the down conductor arrangement to route lightning.
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 lightning conduction arrangements in wind turbine blade, and terminal connection in lightning conduction arrangement.
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 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