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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024 and 03/19/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
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 5-9 are 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.
In Claim 7, the scope of the claim is unclear and thus indefinite as it is not clear what is meant by both carbon fibers being single fibers whose fiber axis has a right-handed helix and carbon fibers being single fibers whose fiber axis has a left-handed helix; How would one skilled in the art know which direction the spiral is once it is laid up in the resin once the final product is produced? For the purposes of examination any spiral will meet this limitation until clarity is provided.
Claim 5, 6, 8 and 9 recites the limitation "fiber bundles." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. They all depend either directly or indirectly from Claim 1 which states carbon fibers.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 2021/079563 A1 issued to Okuda et al.
Regarding Claim 1, where Applicant seeks a unidirectional composite comprising carbon fibers and a matrix resin, wherein a single fiber of the carbon fibers has an undulation width of a fiber axis of 1.5 μm or more when the single fiber is observed from a side face in a range having a straight distance of 1 mm; Applicant is directed to Okuda et al., who teach a composite [¶ 0096] comprising carbon fibers [claim 1] and a matrix resin [¶ 0050], wherein a single fiber of the carbon fibers has an undulation width of a fiber axis of 1.5 μm or more when the single fiber is seen from a side face in a range having a straight distance of 1 mm [¶¶ 0010, 0019 and claim 1].
Okuda et al. does not teach that the composite is unidirectional but rather focuses on the production of the discontinuous fiber material by manufacturing carbon fiber bundles in the form of continuous fibers [¶¶ 0049-0050] and then cutting them [¶ 0051] such that they are 10cm or less.
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to have used common knowledge to use continuous fibers aligned in the longitudinal direction of the fibers as an obvious alternative to increase the mechanical strength in a specific direction.
Furthermore, the use of conventional continuous fiber material is known as disclosed at ¶ 0002 of Okuda et al. Moreover, the method disclosed by Okuda et al., at ¶¶ 0031-0050 teach the manufacturing carbon fiber bundle in the form of continuous fibers, and as such they could can be readily be used for said purpose without any modification, thereby enabling a person skilled in the art to manufacture a unidirectional composite in case such a feature is required without difficulty or a leap of inventiness.
Claim(s) 2-5, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 2021/079563 A1 issued to Okuda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of JP 2019 151956 A Tanaka et al.
Regarding Claim 2, where Applicant seeks that the unidirectional composite according to claim 1, wherein an average of a helical pitch of a fiber axis of the carbon fibers is 5.50 cm or less; Okuda et al., teach what is set forth above for claim 1 but do not teach the limitation sought in claim 2. Applicant is directed to Tanaka et al., teach a carbon fiber having a fiber axis of a spiral shape, wherein the pitch of the spiral is 5.50 cm or less [Tanaka et al. ¶ 0031 and claim 5] for the same reason as Applicant. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to use the teachings of Tanaka in the making of Okuda et al. composite in the need of such functionality without difficulty or a leap of inventiness.
Regarding Claim 3, where Applicant seeks that the unidirectional composite according to claim 1, a formula (1) is satisfied where an average of a single fiber to single fiber distance of the carbon fibers contained in the unidirectional composite is denoted by R (μm), and an undulation width of the fiber axis of the carbon fibers is denoted by D (μm) 2. <D ÷R≤ 35 Formula (1) ; Okuda modified by Tanaka establishes the single carbon fiber, the bundle, the helical pitch but does not specifically equate the formula as sought in this claim. As the structure, twist and composition is the same is safe to assume that it would meet the parameters of the equation in this claim. Regarding Claim 4, where Applicant seeks that the unidirectional composite according to claim 1, wherein a volume content of the carbon fibers is 60% by volume or more; While there is no explicit disclosure of volume content of the carbon fibers is 60% by volume or more, Okuda modified by Tanaka et al., discloses that both the carbon fiber and the resin to make the preform. Since, Applicant’s own specification is silent to unexpected results, the volume content of the carbon fibers is 60% by volume or more are not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount is a variable which can be modified, by adjusting the amount of carbon fibers as the precise amounts would have been considered result effective variables by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amounts cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amounts of the carbon fiber to obtain the superior strength properties (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 5, where Applicant seeks that the unidirectional composite according to claim 1, wherein a carbon fiber bundle is contained in the matrix resin in a state where the carbon fiber bundle has a twist of 10 turns/m or less; Tanka et al, teach the twist and turns but at a higher amount, and since Applicant’s specification is silent to unexpected results, the number of turns is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the number of twists and turns is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the number of twists which is controlled by adjusting the number of twists of the fiber bundle in the carbonization step, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the number of twists and turns in Okuda modified with Tanaka et al. to obtain the bundle has a twist of 10 turns/m or less (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 10, where Applicant seeks that the unidirectional composite according to claim 1, having a tensile modulus of elasticity of 150 GPa or more; Applicant is directed to ¶ 13, where Tanaka et al., teach that the modulus is 200 Gpa or more.
Regarding Claim 12, where Applicant seeks that the unidirectional composite according to claim 1, wherein an average of a single-fiber diameter of the carbon fibers is 6.0 μm or less, and the unidirectional composite is a unidirectional prepreg molded article; Applicant is directed to ¶ 30, where Tanka et al., teach that the diameter is 6.1 μm. This is a very minuscule difference, and a skill artisan would have found it obvious to have modified Tanaka et al as it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a diameter of 6.1 μm or less, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPUB 2021/079563 A1 issued to Okuda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of JP 2019 151956 A Tanaka et al. further in view of WO 2021214726 A1 issued to Sahoo et al.
Okuda and Tanaka et al teach what is set forth above but do not teach that the composite is pultruded or that the final product is a spar cap or a windmill blade comprising the spar cap.
This is remedied by the teachings of Sahoo et al., who teach making wind turbine blades and spar caps which comprise elongated reinforcing structures. The reinforcing structure comprises a plurality of strips of fiber reinforced polymer arranged into adjacent stacks of strips [abstract]. The plurality of strips will typically extend in a spanwise direction of the blade. Thus, each strip has preferably a length corresponding to 60-95% of the blade length. It is particularly, preferred that each strip comprises a pultruded carbon fiber material. [¶ 13 under the heading “Background of the Invention”]. In some embodiments, the strips may not contain any polymer when laying up the strips in the mold. The height/thickness of the strip, preferably pultruded plank, is preferably between 2 and 10 millimeters, preferably between 3 and 7 millimeters, most preferably between 4 and 6 millimeters. The width of the strip, preferably pultruded plank, is preferably between 20 and 300 millimeters, most preferably between 80 and 150 millimeters. In a preferred embodiment, each strip comprises a pultrusion fiber material comprising a plurality of tows of fiber material, such as carbon fiber material. Thus, each strip may comprise 50-300 tows of fiber material, preferably 25-180 tows of fiber material. The tows will usually extend in the length direction of the strip, i.e. substantially parallel to its longitudinal axis, or parallel to the spanwise direction when arranged in the blade shell. Epoxy, polyester or vinyl ester resin will be infused in the stack of strips containing a fiber material, such as a carbon fiber material, to form the fiber-reinforced polymer of the reinforcing structure.
Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have used the carbon fiber composite of Okuda modified by Tanaka to make the spar cap windmill combination of Sahoo et al.
One would have been motivated to do so to create a reinforcing structure for a wind turbine blades which is cost-effective, and which avoids the misalignments and defects by previously used preforms as shown by Sahoo et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO 2001/088372 A1 discloses a spar cap for a wind turbine blade, which comprises a composite beam having multiple stacked preform layers of elongate and rigid unidirectional strength elements or rods, wherein each preform layer includes at least one fiber textile structure to which the strength elements or rods are joined to retain the strength elements or rods in a single layer. The fiber textile structure includes an interlocking textile fiber weave and a fabric made by stitching. The fiber textile structure extends across the transverse width of the preform layer and interfaces with individual strength elements or rods so that the fiber weave retains the elements or rods in a single preform layer.
EP 3174704 A1 relates to a method of making an elongate reinforcing structure for a wind turbine blade. The elongate reinforcing structure comprises a plurality of strips of fiber-reinforced polymer arranged into a stack structure, and at least one adjacent pair of the plurality of strips including an infusion promoting layer, wherein the infusion promoting layer is a fabric comprising a plurality of twisted yarns. The use of twisted yarn fabric helps in controlling the speed of infusion through the blade. The infusion promoting layer may be a glass-fiber fabric and may be interleaved between each pair of the plurality of strips in order to have the same influence on infusion speed throughout the stack structure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arti Singh-Pandey whose telephone number is (571)272-1483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00 and 8:00-10:00.
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, Melvin Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/Arti Singh-Pandey/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1759
asp
Prosecution Insights