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 1-8, 15) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7- 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2520083 hereinafter GB’083 provided with translation and FI 20185014 , translation attached, herewith, FI’014 .
Regarding Claim 1 GB’083 discloses method for manufacturing a spar cap for a wind turbine blade, the spar cap comprising a stack of pultruded plates (Figure 1a-1b, page-1 ), the method comprising: laying the stack of pultruded plates between a first and a second sidewall on a mold (Figure 1b, plates/strips-18, mold-20, page-2); infusing the stack of pultruded plates with resin (page-2); and unmolding the infused stack of pultruded plates from the mold (page-4, cured structure taken out from the mould and integrated to a blade shell mould).
GB’083 didn’t disclose that wherein at least one of the sidewalls is adjusted along the transverse direction relative to the stack of pultruded plates at least after the laying. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, FI’014 discloses that one of the sidewalls is adjusted along the transverse direction (Figure 1, mold surface-2, detachable means-3c, sidewall-3, page 2, line 22-32).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine GB’083 teaching with that of FI’014 teaching of adjustable sidewall for the purpose of allowing complex parts without damage whole unmolding.
Regarding Claim 2 GB’083 discloses, wherein laying the stack of pultruded plates comprises laying the stack of pultruded plates substantially adjacent to the first sidewall, the first sidewall being fixed in the mold (Figure 1b, plates/strips-18, mold-20, page-2), and FI’014 discloses the method further comprises subsequently adjusting the second sidewall in the transverse direction to contact the stack of pultruded plates (Figure 1, mold surface-2, detachable means-3c, sidewall-3, page 2, line 22-32).
Regarding Claim 4, GB’083 discloses wherein the sidewalls are substantially parallel to each other (Figure 1b-1c).
Regarding Claim 7, FI’014 discloses the sidewalls is attached through a fastener, the fastener arranged in a hole of the sidewall and a receptacle in the mold (Figure 1, mold surface-2, detachable means-3c, sidewall-3,).
Regarding Claim 8, FI’014 discloses , wherein the hole is an elongated hole the receptacle is an elongated receptacle (Figure 1, mold surface-2, detachable means-3c; the detachable means could be bolts- with elongated hole as shown in Figure 1) .
Regarding Claim 15, GB’083 discloses infused pultrusion stack obtained formed, and defining a longitudinal direction and a transverse direction, the infused pultrusion stack (Figure 1b) comprising carbon fiber defining two lateral surfaces that limit the infused pultrusion stack in the transverse direction (Figure 1b, page-7), wherein the two lateral surfaces extend along the longitudinal direction and substantially parallel to each other (Figure 1b-c).
Claim(s) 3,5 -6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2520083 hereinafter GB’083 provided with translation and FI 20185014 , translation attached, herewith, FI’014 as applied in Claim 1 further in view of CN 209552359 U hereinafter CN’359 .
Regarding Claim 3 , GB’083 discloses wherein the sidewalls of mold 20 are parallel but did not disclose define a draft angle smaller than 1 degree. In the related field of endeavor CN’359 discloses sidewall is rotatably connected with a rotating shaft (Figure 2, rotating shaft-7, page-9 , last para ). However, CN’359 did not specifically disclose a certain draft angle but the rotating shaft would be able to rotate the sidewall at a desired angle.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine GB’083 teaching with that of CN’359 teaching of rotating sidewall for the purpose of evenly infuse resin with the plates as during the infusion of resin.
Regarding Claim 5 , GB’083 discloses wherein the sidewalls of mold 20 are parallel, but didn’t disclose that the sidewalls are further adjusted by rotating a sidewall surface. In the related field of endeavor CN’359 discloses sidewall is rotatably connected with a rotating shaft (Figure 2, rotating shaft-7, page-9, last para). CN’359 did not specifically disclose said sidewall surface being configured to contact the stack of pultruded plates. However, the rotating shaft would be able to rotate the sidewall at a desired angle to contact the stack of pultruded plates during rotation.
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine GB’083 teaching with that of CN’359 teaching of rotating sidewall for the purpose of evenly infuse resin with the plates as during the infusion of resin.
Regarding Claim 6, GB’083 discloses wherein the sidewalls of mold 20 are parallel, but did not disclose that the sidewalls is adjusted by sliding said sidewall along a guide in the mold. In the related field of endeavor CN’359 discloses sidewalls is slidably adjusted (Figure 1, sliding-3 of the sidewall, page-9 , last para ).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine GB’083 teaching with that of FI’014 teaching of slidably sidewall for the purpose of allowing complex parts without damage whole unmolding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights