DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 02/14/2026 following the Non-Final Rejection of 11/25/2025. Claims 1, 10, 15-17 and 19 were amended; claims 10 and 16-18 were cancelled; claims 20-22 are newly added. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13, 15 and 19-22 are currently pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 15 and its respective dependent claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections of 11/25/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/14/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and its dependent claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments made to the claims.
Applicant's point on page 9 of Remarks that “As the Examiner admitted, all of the Cheng, Wen and Girolamo fail to disclose and teach the structure of the edge area of the transition conductor including a conductor layer, a thickening conductive layer and a connecting layer produced by the method of claim 16, and also fail to disclose and teach that the connecting layer is configured to be heated to a molten state and subsequently cooled and solidified to connect the thickening conductive layer with the conductor layer. Therefore, the amended claim 1 is patentable over Cheng, Wen and Girolamo” was not found persuasive by the Examiner.
Method Claim 16, from the prior claims set, was previously stated as containing allowable subject matter, not a product/apparatus claim. As such, it was not determined that merely the structure stated in prior claim 16 was allowable (as argued by Applicant) but rather the process of making said structure. MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims” states that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Additionally, apparatus claim 1 does not possess all same limitations as the process of previous claim 16. These limitations required by previous claim 16 being:
“providing a conductor with a predetermined length, width and thickness; and
thickening edges of the conductor to increase thicknesses of some areas of the conductor in its width direction, so as to form a transition conductor;
wherein the step of thickening edges of the conductor to form the transition conductor comprises:
laminating a connecting layer on one side of the conductor in a thickness direction;
laminating a thickening conductive layer on a side, away from the conductor, of the connecting layer in a thickness direction of the conductor, an orthographic projection of the thickening conductive layer on the conductor covering the edges on two sides of the conductor in the width direction; and
heating the connecting layer to a molten state, followed by cooling and solidifying, so that the thickening conductive layer is connected with the conductor to form the transition conductor, wherein the thickening conductive layer and an area, covered by the thickening conductive layer, of the conductor form the edge area, and an area, not covered by the thickening conductive layer, of the conductor forms the thinned area”.
Instead, claim 1 does not mention of a conductor which has thickened edges so as to form a transition conductor but only mentions of a transition conductor. The step of thickening edges of the conductor to form the transition conductor from previous claim 15 are also not present in claim 1. Claim 1 makes no mention of laminating a connecting layer one of side of the conductor or of laminating a thickening conductive layer on a side, away from the conductor, of the connecting layer; but instead states that “the edge area of the transition conductor comprises a conductor layer, a thickening conductive layer and a connecting layer located between the conductor layer and the thickening conductive layer”. Additionally, it is not clear if the product-by-process limitation of “the connecting layer is configured to be heated to a molten state and subsequently cooled and solidified to connect the thickening conductive layer with the conductor layer” is undertaken or not for the apparatus of claim 1 (see related 35 USC § 112(b) rejection below); while it is a process step required by the method claim. Further, “wherein the thickening conductive layer and an area, covered by the thickening conductive layer, of the conductor form the edge area, and an area, not covered by the thickening conductive layer, of the conductor forms the thinned area” is not required by the apparatus of claim 1.
Cheng (CN111622906A) discloses “wherein the edge area of the transition conductor comprises a conductor layer, a thickening conductive layer and a connecting layer located between the conductor layer and the thickening conductive layer in a thickness direction, the conductor layer and the thickening conductive layer are connected by the connecting layer to form the edge area” due to trifold form of the edge area (generally the shaded region in Examiner Figure 1 below). See rejection below for details.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 15 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 18, “in a thickness direction” should likely read “in a thickness direction of the transition conductor”. This is to ensure that claim 8 has antecedence for its limitation “the thickness direction of the transition conductor”.
Claim 5, “in the direction perpendicular to both the length direction and the width direction” should likely read “in [[the]] a direction perpendicular to both the length direction and [[the]] a width direction”.
Claim 15 lines 27-29, “laminating a connecting layer on one side of the conductor in a thickness direction; laminating a thickening conductive layer on a side, away from the conductor, of the connecting layer in a thickness direction of the conductor” should likely read “laminating a connecting layer on one side of the conductor in a thickness direction of the conductor; laminating a thickening conductive layer on a side, away from the conductor, of the connecting layer in [[a]] the thickness direction of the conductor”.
Claim 19, “providing the base conductor with a plurality of mesh holes” should likely read “providing [[the]] a base conductor with a plurality of mesh holes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 13 and 20-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “the conductor layer and the thickening conductive layer are connected by the connecting layer to form the edge area, and the connecting layer is configured to be heated to a molten state and subsequently cooled and solidified to connect the thickening conductive layer with the conductor layer” in lines 18-21 render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the claimed invention is meant to an intermediate product (where the connecting layer has not been heated to a molten state) or a final product (where the connecting layer has been heated to a molten state and then subsequently cooled and solidified), leading to the metes and bounds of the claim being unclear. The phrase “the connecting layer is configured to be heated to a molten state and subsequently cooled and solidified to connect the thickening conductive layer with the conductor layer” seems to establish the claimed invention as an intermediate product where the connecting layer is to be capable of the limitations following the phrase “configured to be” but without it actually being undertaken yet for the apparatus; the process following “configured to be” is also stated as being done “to connect the thickening conductive layer with the conductor layer”. However, in an earlier section in lines 18-19, it is stated that “the conductor layer and the thickening conductive layer are connected by the connecting layer to form the edge area”. If the conductor layer and the thickening conductive layer are connected, as required by the claim section above, then the later limitation “the connecting layer is configured to be heated to a molten state and subsequently cooled and solidified to connect the thickening conductive layer with the conductor layer” suggests that the claimed apparatus would instead be a final product where the connecting layer was heated to a molten state and subsequently cooled and solidified to connected the thickening conductive layer with the conductor layer. For prior art purposes, the structural requirements that would come about following heating the connecting layer to a molten state and subsequently cooled and solidified are not being interpreted as required by the claimed invention due to the phrase “configured to be” which would establish the claimed apparatus as being before the “heated to a molten state” step.
Claims 2-3, 5-8, 13 and 20-22 are also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to their respective dependency upon claim 1 rejected above.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation "the width direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should likely read ““[the]] a width direction”; this also being reflected in the claim objection for claim 5 above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the thickness of each edge portion". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation should likely read “[[the]] a thickness of each edge portion”.
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.
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.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 13 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN111622906A (first cited in the Office Action of 02/26/2025), herein referenced as Cheng, in view of CN216044201U (first cited in the Office Action of 02/26/2025), herein referenced as Wen.
PNG
media_image1.png
787
1277
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Figure 1 – annotated version of fig. 2 of Cheng
Regarding Claim 1, Cheng discloses a lightning protection device for a blade, comprising:
a transition conductor (see lengthwise section of main beam cap metal net 5 which is folded in fig. 2;see transition section in Examiner Figure 1) with a predetermined length, width and thickness (see fig. 2), wherein the transition conductor comprises a first connecting end (root end of transition section in Examiner Figure 1) and a second connection end (tip end of transition section in Examiner Figure 1) opposite to each other in its length direction, the first connection end is configured for receiving lightning current (tip end of transition section is shown to be connected with the unfolded section of metal net 5 which receives lightning current), and the second connecting end (see root end of transition section in Examiner Figure 1) is configured for connection with a down lead system (see blade root copper plate 8, and blade root connector 14 which connects the root end of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1 to the down-lead 9 in fig. 1),
wherein the transition conductor comprises a thinned area (portion of transition section between the second folded edge 20 and second folded edge 23 of the metal mesh 5 in Examiner Figure 1; also can be described as the portion of the transition section in between the shaded areas in Examiner Figure 1) and an edge area (area defined by the folded over portions of the metal net 5 in the transition section and shown to be shaded in Examiner Figure 1, this being a trifold as established by the folding direction 17 and described in pr. 33; “The main beam cap metal mesh 5 is folded according to the pre-determined front and rear edge copper mesh folding rear boundary lines 25 and 21. The front edge copper mesh is folded first, and the part exceeding the rear edge copper mesh folding rear boundary line 21 needs to be folded toward the front edge again until the copper mesh 31 is all within the front and rear edge copper mesh folding rear boundary lines 25 and 21” pr. 33, the folded over or shaded sections are shown to define the edge in Examiner Figure 1), the edge area (folded section, approximately the shaded area, of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1) surrounds at least a portion of the thinned area (the folded section, shaded area, of the transition section is shown to surround the thinned area of the transition section between lines 20 and 23 in Examiner Figure 1), one side of the edge area and one side of the thinned area in the length direction area connected and jointly form the first connecting end (see right side or tip side of transition section which connects with the non-folded metal net 5 in Examiner Figure 1), and a thickness of the thinned area (portion of transition section between 20 and 23 in in Examiner Figure 1) is less than that of the edge area (folded sections or shaded section of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1),
the lightning protection device further comprises an adapter (blade root copper plate 8 fig. 1) disposed at the second connecting end (the blade root copper plate 8 is shown to be at the root end of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1, with comparison of fig. 1), the adapter is entirely of a solid plate-like structure (8 in fig. 1 is described as a blade root copper plate, which would be analogous to a “solid plate-like structure”),
wherein the edge area (see shaded sections of the transition section which is a trifold structure in Examiner Figure 1) of the transition conductor comprises a conductor layer (bottom/lower fold or layer of trifold shaded sections which would be aligned/connected with the overall metal net 5 in Examiner Figure 1), a thickening conductive layer (top/outermost layer or fold of the trifold shaded sections in Examiner Figure 1; this layer would be a thicken conductive layer) and a connecting layer (middle layer/fold of the trifold shaded region in Examiner Figure 1; this middle layer/fold can be considered a connecting layer since it connects the bottom layer/fold with the top or outermost layer/fold in the shaded region in Examiner Figure 1) located between the conductor layer and the thickening conductive layer in a thickness direction (the connecting/middle layer of the trifold shaded region in Examiner Figure 1 would be between the bottom and top layers), the conductor layer and the thickening conductive layer are connected by the connecting layer to form the edge area (the top/outermost and bottom layers/folds of the trifold shaded region in Examiner Figure 1 are connected by the middle layer/fold), and the connecting layer (the middle layer of the trifold shaded region in Examiner Figure 1; is formed from metal net 5) is configured to be heated to a molten state and subsequently cooled and solidified to connect the thickening conductive layer with the conductor layer (the middle layer of the trifold shaded region in Examiner Figure 1 is formed from the metal net 5 which can be formed of copper or aluminum, this middle layer is capable of being heated to a molten state and then subsequently cooled and solidified such that it would connect the thickening/outer conductive layer with the conductor/bottom layer of the shaded region in Examiner Figure 1).
While Cheng discloses the “main beam cap metal mesh passes through the blade root connector and the blade root copper plate and penetrates the blade root shell ply structure, and is connected with the lightning protection down conductor by using a wire nose and a conductor [10]” in pr. 12. Cheng fails to anticipate the adapter is provided with a through hole, the lightning protection device further comprises a cylindrical current connector disposed in the through hole, and the adapter is connected to the down lead system through the current collector.
Cheng and Wen are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor lightning protection for wind turbine blades.
PNG
media_image2.png
366
773
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Wen
Wen teaches of an adapter is provided with a through hole (hole of metal foil 8 through which the cylindrical body of arrester 6 extend through in fig. 5), the lightning protection device further comprises a cylindrical current connector (see externally threaded screw body/shank of lightning arrester 6 in fig. 5) disposed in the through hole (shown in fig. 5), and the adapter (metal foil 8 fig. 5) is connected to the down lead system (down lead 5 fig. 5) through the current collector (arrester 6 fig. 5; the combination of the arrester 6 and fastening nut 7 is shown to electrically connect the metal foil 8 with the down lead 5 in fig. 5; “blade lightning receptor 6 is in direct contact with the chord-wise metal foil 8” pr. n0031). Wen further teaches that “an external thread is arranged on the blade lightning receptor 6. The blade lightning receptor 6 is fastened to the chord-wise metal foil 8 by a fastening nut 7. The external thread and the internal thread cooperate with each other. The fastening nut 7 is "L"-shaped, and the protruding portion is a hollow structure, which is convenient for connecting with the down conductor 5 inside the blade.” In pr. n0031. Further, this threaded connection between lightning receptor and the tightening nut is disclosed as “a simple structure and reliable connection” in pr. n0018.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the electrical connection between the blade root copper plate 8 and its corresponding lead 10 in fig. 1 of Cheng with the threaded bolt/receptor and fastening nut disclosed by Wen so as to obtain the benefit of ‘a simple structure and reliable connection as well as a convenient means for connection with an internal down conductor inside the blade’ as taught by Wen.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 1, wherein the sides of the thinned area (portion of transition section between the second folded edge 20 and second folded edge 23 at the rear edge of the metal mesh in Examiner Figure 1) and the edge area (see shaded portion in Examiner Figure 1) in the length direction that form the first connecting end are aligned in a width direction (the thinned area and the edge/shaded area are shown to be aligned at the right periphery of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 2, wherein the transition conductor comprises a first edge (21 fig. 2 of Cheng) and a second edge (25 fig. 2 of Cheng) opposite to each other in its width direction (shown in fig. 2 of Cheng), both the first edge and the second edge are located in the edge area (21 and 25 are shown to be part of the folded/shaded area making up the edge are of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1), one end of the first edge and one end of the second edge in the length direction are scattered away from each other and connected to the first connecting end respectively (21 and 25 are shown to diverge from each other approaching the right end or tip end of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1), and the other ends of the first edge and the second edge converge towards each other and are connected to the second connecting end respectively (21 and 25 are shown to converge towards each other approaching the left end or root end of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1; they are also shown to be connected to the this end in the figure).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 1, wherein the edge area comprises edge portions in pairs (the shaded/folded area in Examiner Figure 1 is shown to form a pair of shaded portions, a forward one and a rear one), the edge portions in pairs are oppositely disposed on two sides of the thinned area in the width direction of the transition conductor (the thinned area of the transition section between 20 and 23 is shown to be between the pair of shaded portions in Examiner Figure 1), and the thickness of each edge portion is greater than that of the thinned area (the folded/shaded area would have a greater thickness than the thinned area in Examiner Figure 1 since the folding would increase their thickness).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 6, wherein the edge portions on the two sides of the thinned area are symmetrically disposed in the width direction (the pair of shaded portions are shown to be symmetrical in Examiner Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 6, wherein in the thickness direction of the transition conductor, orthogonal projections of the thinned area and the edge portions are all triangular (the orthogonal projections of the thinned area (between lines 20 and 23, and the folded/shaded area of the transition section are shown to be formed of all triangular shapes in Examiner Figure 1);
or in the thickness direction of the transition conductor, orthogonal projections of the thinned area and the edge portions are all rectangular.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises a lightning protection system (see fig. 1 of Cheng as modified by Wen), comprising the lightning protection device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and the down lead system directly or indirectly connected to the transition conductor (see transition section in Examiner Figure 1 which is shown to be electrically connected with the down lead 9 in fig. 1 Cheng).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 1, wherein the lightning protection device further comprises a base conductor connected to the first connecting end (see the unfolded section of main beam cap metal mesh 5 in figs. 1-2 of Cheng which is electrically coupled with the outboard/right end of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 21, wherein the base conductor comprises a plurality of mesh holes (see plurality of mesh holes of main beam cap metal net 5 in figs. 1 and 3 of Cheng which are shown to be electrically connected with the first/tip end of the transition section in Examiner Figure 1), which have a same size (the mesh holes of main beam cap metal net 5 in figs. 1 and 3 of Cheng are shown to be of a same size).
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cheng and Wen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2019/0383274, herein referenced as Girolamo.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the edge area comprises a plurality of conductive segments sequentially disposed in the length direction, and thicknesses of the plurality of conductive segments in the direction perpendicular to both the length direction and the width direction increase segment by segment in an extension direction from the first connecting end to the second connecting end.
PNG
media_image3.png
308
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner Figure 2 – annotated version of fig. 7 of Girolamo
Girolamo is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Girolamo teaches of a transition conductor (see transition interface 3 of stepped conductivity arrangement 10 in fig. 7), wherein the [area] (see relative thickness of area around transition interface 3 fig. 7) comprises a plurality of conductive segments sequentially disposed in the length direction (see segments disposed along the length direction in Examiner Figure 2 represented by the dashed boxes; the segments in Examiner Figure 2 represent different sections along the length direction which with different thicknesses due to the number of layers present in each section; “FIG. 7, the transition interface 3 comprises four layers 31, 32, 33, 34 shown here in cross-section (relative thicknesses are exaggerated). The layers 31, 32, 33, 34 may be made of the same material but with increasing length, so that the conductivity of the “stack” is highest near the metal cable 1 and decreases in the direction of the carbon element at the other end of the carbon mat 2” pr. 40 this allows for “a region of greatest thickness and correspondingly highest conductivity is formed at the metal cable 1.” Pr. 40), and thicknesses of the plurality of conductive segments (see vertical thickness the differing segments in Examiner Figure 2) in the direction perpendicular to both the length direction (left-right direction in fig. 7) and the width direction (into page in fig. 7) increase segment by segment (see stepwise increase in thickness segment by segment in Examiner Figure 2) in an extension direction (left-right direction, same as length direction, in fig. 7 and in Examiner Figure 2) from the first connecting end (see first end in Examiner Figure 2) to the second connecting end (see second end in Examiner Figure 2). Girolamo further teaches that with this stepped conductivity interface “an unfavourable sudden drop in electrical conductivity—as explained in FIG. 1 above—can be avoided, thereby reducing the likelihood of arcing between the first electrically conductive part 1 and the second electrically conductive part 2” pr. 35.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the transition section of main beam cap metal net 5 in Examiner Figure 1, in the combination of Cheng and Wen, to be formed of additional layers that are stepped increased in a gradual manner towards its second end or connection with the lightning protection system, as disclosed by Girolamo, so as to obtain the benefit of ‘avoiding an unfavorable sudden drop in electrical conductivity, thereby reducing likelihood of arcing between components’ as taught by Girolamo. This would result in the transition section, including the shaded/edge areas, in Examiner Figure 1 to have a thickness which gradually increases towards the second end.
In the modification above, the additional layers from Girolamo used to modify the combination of Cheng and Wen would not cause issues with the folding aspect disclosed by Cheng since the layers would not be too thick to prevent this. In reference to fig. 7 of Girolamo, Girolamo states that the “relative thicknesses [of the layers 31,32,33,34 in fig. 7] are exaggerated” in pr. 40.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Cheng and Wen comprises the lightning protection device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the thickness of the edge area increases in the length direction from the first connecting end to the second connecting end.
Girolamo is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Girolamo teaches of wherein the thickness of the [area] (see relative thickness of area around transition interface 3 fig. 7 and fig. 9) increases in the length direction (see stepwise increase in thickness segment by segment in Examiner Figure 2 which can be considered a gradual increase as the series of small steps/increases, when combined, lead to the greater thickness increase from right to left in Examiner Figure 2; alternatively, see gradual and continuous increase in thickness in fig. 9) from the first connecting end (see first end in Examiner Figure 2) to the second connecting end (see second end in Examiner Figure 2; alternatively see fig. 9). Girolamo further teaches that with this stepped conductivity interface “an unfavourable sudden drop in electrical conductivity—as explained in FIG. 1 above—can be avoided, thereby reducing the likelihood of arcing between the first electrically conductive part 1 and the second electrically conductive part 2” pr. 35.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the transition section of main beam cap metal net 5 in Examiner Figure 1, in the combination of Cheng and Wen, to be formed of additional layers that are stepped increased in a gradual manner towards its second end or connection with the lightning protection system, as disclosed by Girolamo, so as to obtain the benefit of ‘avoiding an unfavorable sudden drop in electrical conductivity, thereby reducing likelihood of arcing between components’ as taught by Girolamo. This would result in the transition section, including the shaded/edge areas, in Examiner Figure 1 to have a thickness which gradually increases towards the second end.
In the modification above, the additional layers from Girolamo used to modify the combination of Cheng and Wen would not cause issues with the folding aspect disclosed by Cheng since the layers would not be too thick to prevent this. In reference to fig. 7 of Girolamo, Girolamo states that the “relative thicknesses [of the layers 31,32,33,34 in fig. 7] are exaggerated” in pr. 40.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections, set forth in this Office action.
Examiner Note: Regarding Claims 15 and 19, see rationale provided for claims 16 and 18 provided in the prior Office Action of 02/26/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2015185065A1 – discloses a lightning protection system for a wind turbine blade, the system including a conductive layer which can be formed as a mesh with an edge protected structure which is provided onto the edge of the conductive layer, the edge protection structure can also be formed as a mesh, for added robustness, the edge protection device may be fixed onto the conductive layer with a suitable thermoplastic hot melt adhesive.
US 5863667 – discloses a means for fixing two copper shims to each other by heating a mesh impregnated with indium provided between them such that the indium melts to couple the copper shims together.
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 Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745