DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the claims set filed 06/23/2026 following the Requirement for Restriction/Election of 05/28/2026. Claims 41-43 were amended. Claims 28-47 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 .
Election/Restrictions
In light of the amendments made to the claims, claims 41-47 are rejoined as they are now dependent upon independent claim 28 and therefore include all the subject matter of claim 28. As such, the Lack of Unity presented in the Office Action of 05/28/2026 no longer applies and the requirement for an election due to Lack of Unity is hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of:
“the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in one or more of the fiber layers” in Claim 29 and Claim 42, which also requires “an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element” as recited in claim 28 from which claim 29 depends upon;
“the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to a part of the metallic element in Claim 30 and Claim 43, which also requires “an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element” as recited in claim 28 from which claim 30 depends upon;
“wherein the lightning receptor abuts a lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part, and wherein the lightning receptor is located a first distance from the lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part” in Claim 32, the instant figures fail to show the lightning receptor abutting the lightning diverter while simultaneously being located a first distance from the lightning diverter;
“the recess exposing a part of one or more of the pultrusions without extending into any of the pultrusions; applying the electrically conductive adhesive into the recess; inserting the lightning receptor into the recess such that the electrically conductive adhesive attaches the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element” in Claim 41, the only figure showing the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions (see fig. 5C) presents a recess which exposes a part of one or more of the pultrusion with extending into one or more of the pultrusions;
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “WIND TURBINE BLADE WITH A LIGHTNING RECEPTOR ATTACHED BY CONDUCTIVE ADHESIVE”.
Claim Objections
Claims 41 and 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 41 at lines 8, 10 and 11 recite the limitation “the recess” thrice but it should likely read “the first recess”. This is because “a first recess” was previously introduced in the claim.
Claim 47, “the electrically conductive adhesive material” should likely read “the electrically conductive adhesive .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29-32 and 42-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 29, the limitation “the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in one or more of the fiber layers” fails the written description requirement. Claim 28, from which claim 29 depends upon, requires “an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element”. Due to these different aspects cited above, claim 29 appears to be mixing mutually exclusive embodiments and fails to written description requirement since the instant disclosure failed to convey that Applicant had possess of the invention of claim 29 which includes an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element while also having the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in one or more of the fiber layers.
Claim 42 is also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for the same reason detailed for claim 29 above. Claim 42 possesses the same limitation as claim 29 above and is also dependent upon claim 28.
Regarding Claim 30, the limitation “the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to a part of the metallic element” fails the written description requirement. Claim 28, from which claim 30 depends upon, requires “an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element”. Due to these different aspects cited above, claim 30 appears to be mixing mutually exclusive embodiments and fails to written description requirement since the instant disclosure failed to convey that Applicant had possess of the invention of claim 30 which includes an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element while also having the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to a part of the metallic element.
Claim 31 is also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) due to its dependency upon claim 30 rejected above.
Claim 43 is also rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for the same reason detailed for claim 30 above. Claim 43 possesses the same limitation as claim 30 above and is also dependent upon claim 28.
Regarding Claim 32, the limitation “wherein the lightning receptor abuts a lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part, and wherein the lightning receptor is located a first distance from the lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part” leads to the claim failing the written description requirement. The instant disclosure only provides for support for “where the lightning receptor abuts a lightning diverter” or “where the lightning receptor is located a first distance from the lightning diverter”, not for these two aspects occurring simultaneously as required by the claim. See pages 4, 7 and 14 of the instant specification.
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 29-32 and 41-47 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.
Regarding Claim 29, the limitation “the one or more fiber layers being positioned between the outer surface of the blade shell part and one or more of the pultrusions and being adhesively attached to and in electrical contact with at least one of the one or more pultrusions, the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in one or more of the fiber layers” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 28, from which claim 29 depends upon, requires “an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element”. It is not clear how the lightning receptor that is attached to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element by the electrically conductive adhesive could also be attached to the carbon fibers in one or more of the fiber layers. The specification fails to clarify this aspect and even appears to present them as mutually exclusive embodiments. Instant figs. 5C and 5D show the lightning receptor being attached to the one or more pultrusions or the one or more fiber layers.
Claim 42 is also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the same reason detailed for claim 29 above. Claim 42 possesses the same limitation as claim 29 above and is also dependent upon claim 28.
Regarding Claim 30, the limitation “a metallic element positioned between the outer surface of the blade shell part and the one or more pultrusions and being in electrical contact with at least one of the one or more pultrusions, the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to a part of the metallic element” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 28, from which claim 30 depends upon, requires “an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element”. It is not clear how the lightning receptor that is attached to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element by the electrically conductive adhesive could also be attached to a part of the metallic element. The specification fails to clarify this aspect and even appears to present them as mutually exclusive embodiments. Instant figs. 5C and 5E show the lightning receptor being attached to the one or more pultrusions or a part of the metallic element.
Claim 43 is also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the same reason detailed for claim 30 above. Claim 43 possesses the same limitation as claim 30 above and is also dependent upon claim 28.
Claim 31 recites the limitation “the one or more fiber layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 32, the limitation “wherein the lightning receptor abuts a lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part, and wherein the lightning receptor is located a first distance from the lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how these two aspects required by this claim can occur simultaneously since the lightning receptor abutting a lightning diverter would require that they touch, while the lightning receptor being located a first distance from the lightning diverter would seem to require that they are spaced apart from each other. It is unclear how these components can abut each other and simultaneously have a first distance from each other.
Regarding Claim 41, the limitation “providing a first recess extending from an outer surface of the blade shell part” renders the claim indefinite since “an outer surface of the blade shell part” has already been introduced in claim 28, from which claim 41 depends upon. It is unclear if the “outer surface of the blade shell part” introduced in claim 41 is meant to reference to the one previously introduced, or is instead introducing a different and distinct outer surface of the blade shell part.
Claims 42-47 are also rejected due to their respective dependency upon claim 41 rejected above.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “the carbon fibers are in one or more fiber layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Only carbon fibers for the one or more pultrusions has been previously introduced, this is not for the structural element overall. This further leads to indefiniteness as it is unclear how the carbon fibers of the pultrusions can also be provided in one or more fabric layers.
Claim 42 recites the limitation “the carbon fiber layers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While carbon fibers are in one or more fiber layers, it is not clear that this establishes antecedence for carbon fiber layers. Further, only one or more layers have been previously established.
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) 28 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2006/0280613, herein referenced as Hansen, in view of US 2014/0301859, herein referenced as Hancock.
PNG
media_image1.png
422
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Hansen
Regarding Claim 28, Hansen discloses a blade shell (see shell/laminate of blade in fig. 4; “FIG. 4 shows a receptor 4 cast integrally with a laminate for a blade” pr. 39) of a wind turbine blade comprising:
a structural element (see laminate parts 7 and 18 in figs. 1-4; “blade shell (2) configured essentially as one or more fibre-reinforced laminate parts (7; 18)” claim 1), the structural element comprising one or more [elements] comprising carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix (see laminate 18 comprising electrically non-conductive fibres 20 electrically conductive fibres 21 in fig. 4, “electrically conductive fibres, eg carbon fibres” pr. 39; “laminate comprises electrically non-conductive fibres 20 in mat-shape and electrically conductive fibres 21 arranged in mats” and the “shown fibre mats may conveniently be the so-called hybrid mats that are structured in a pattern with at least one roving of one type of fibre and at least one roving of another type of fibre” in pr. 39; “vacuum-injection of resin for bonding the laminate” pr. 15; these sections establish that the laminate parts comprise one or more elements comprising electrically conductive fibers (“carbon fibres” pr. 15) in a resin matrix as a result of the vacuum-injection of resin for bonding the laminate, this resin matrix being analogous to a polymer matrix);
a lightning receptor at/near an outer surface of the blade shell part (see receptor 4 at at/near the outer surface of the shell 2 in figs. 1-2 and 4) and extending towards the structural element (receptor 4 shown to extend toward the laminate 18 in fig. 4; and
an electrically conductive adhesive (electrically conductive glue 22 fig. 4) attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more [elements] of the structural element (“receptor is connected to the electrically conductive fibres in the laminate by a process that comprises welding, soldering or gluing with electrically conductive glue, eg silver glue” claim 3).
However, Hansen fails to disclose that the structural element comprising one or more [elements] is one or more pultrusions comprising carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix.
Hansen and Hancock are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Hancock teaches of a structural element comprising one or more pultrusions (“the structure comprising a stack of layers”, “each layer extending across the width of the stack and comprising at least one pultruded fibrous composite strip” in pr. 80) comprising carbon fibers (“the pultruded fibrous composite strips are of sufficient tensile strength, but can be formed from fibres selected from: carbon fibres; glass fibres; aramid fibres; and natural fibres, including wood fibres and organic fibres, including combinations of any of these types of fibre” pr. 36) embedded in a polymer matrix (“In the preferred embodiment the pultruded fibrous composite strips are formed from carbon fibres embedded in a thermoset resin matrix” pr. 36). Hancock further teaches that “pultruded strips have the property of absorbing the very high bending moments which arise during rotation of wind turbine blades” in pr. 8 and that “since pultruded fibrous composite strips are cheap to manufacture, and can readily be cut to any desired length, the resulting reinforcing structure can therefore be conveniently constructed at low cost” in pr. 23.
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 mats of the laminate part of Hansen to be formed as a stack of layers/strips of pultruded strips, as disclosed by Hancock, to obtain the benefit of ‘the property of absorbing the very high bending moments which arise during rotation of wind turbine blades as well as low-cost construction’ as taught by Hancock.
Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Hansen and Hancock comprises the blade shell part of claim 28, wherein the blade shell part comprises at least one of a pressure side shell or a suction side shell (see pressure side and suction side shells in fig. 1 of Hansen).
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Hansen and Hancock comprises the blade shell part of claim 28, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the lightning receptor and the electrically conductive adhesive, when attached to the structural element, can withstand a lightning current of at least 10 kA.
Since the specification does not discloses that the lightning receptor and the electrically conductive adhesive, when attached to the structural element, being capable of withstanding a lightning current of at least 10 kA solves any particular problem or produces an unexpected result, and it appears that the combination of Hansen and Hancock is capable of being scaled up or down so as to meet the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of changes in size/dimension to modify the scale of the combination of Hansen and Hancock such that the lightning receptor and the electrically conductive adhesive, when attached to the structural element, can withstand a lightning current of at least 10kA; the size of the assembly, particularly the lightning receptor and the electrically conductive adhesive, relates to its capability of withstanding current as a larger apparatus can handle a larger amount of current. See section IV. A. “Changes in Size/Proportion” in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of Hansen and Hancock comprises the blade shell part of claim 28, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the lightning receptor and the electrically conductive adhesive, when attached to the structural element, can withstand a lightning charge during a lightning strike of at least 50 Coulomb.
Since the specification does not discloses that the lightning receptor and the electrically conductive adhesive, when attached to the structural element, being capable of withstanding a lightning charge during a lightning strike of at least 50 Coulomb solves any particular problem or produces an unexpected result, and it appears that the combination of Hansen and Hancock is capable of being scaled up or down so as to meet the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of changes in size/dimension to modify the scale of the combination of Hansen and Hancock such that the lightning receptor and the electrically conductive adhesive, when attached to the structural element, can withstand a lightning charge during a lightning strike of at least 50 Coulomb; the size of the assembly, particularly the lightning receptor and the electrically conductive adhesive, relates to its capability of withstanding an electrical charge as a larger apparatus can handle a larger amount of electrical charge. See section IV. A. “Changes in Size/Proportion” in MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hansen and Hancock, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 2023/0374974, herein referenced as Hall.
PNG
media_image2.png
373
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 11 of Hall
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Hansen and Hancock comprises the blade shell part of claim 28, but fails to teach wherein the lightning receptor abuts a lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part, and wherein the lightning receptor is located a first distance from the lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part.
Hall is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Hall teaches wherein the lightning receptor (see lightning receptors 92 in fig. 11) abuts a lightning diverter (see lightning receptor 92 adjacent to the segmented lightning diverter strip or StrikeTape 98 in fig. 11) forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part (shown in fig. 11 to be provided on the outer surface of the blade), and wherein the lightning receptor is located a first distance from the lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part (the lightning receptor 92 are shown to be spaced by a first distance from the lightning diverter strip 98 in fig. 11). Hall further teaches that “StrikeTape 98 is added between adjacent integrated lightning receptors to provide an even larger target for the lightning and to provide additional paths for the electrical energy of a lightning strike to run along” in pr. 56.
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 outer surface of the blade shell part in the combination of Hansen and Hancock with the one or more lightning diverter strips disclosed by Hall to obtain the benefit of ‘providing an even larger target for lightning and to provide additional paths for electrical energy of a lightning strike to run along’ as taught by Hall.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Hansen, Hancock and Hall comprises the blade shell part of claim 32, wherein the lightning diverter is a segmented lightning diverter (StrikeTape is known in the art and will not be described in great detail herein. A more generic name for StrikeTape is a segmented lightning diverter strip” pr. 46 of Hall, as used to modify the combination of Hansen and Hancock).
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Hansen, Hancock and Hall comprises the blade shell part of claim 32, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first distance is in the range of 2 millimeters (mm) to 20 mm.
Since the specification does not discloses that the first distance being in the range of 2 millimeters (mm) to 20 mm produces any unexpected result, and it appears that the combination of Hansen and Hancock is capable of being scaled up or down so as to meet the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of changes in size/dimension to modify the scale of the combination of Hansen and Hancock such that the first distance is in the range of 2 millimeters (mm) to 20 mm. See section IV. A. “Changes in Size/Proportion” in MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hansen and Hancock, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 8562027, herein referenced as Barre.
Regarding Claim 35, the combination of Hansen and Hancock comprises the blade shell part of claim 28. While the combination of discloses of the electrically conductive adhesive material (“receptor is connected to the electrically conductive fibres in the laminate by a process that comprises welding, soldering or gluing with electrically conductive glue, eg silver glue” claim 3 of Hancock, as used to modify Hansen above), the combination fails to teach wherein the electrically conductive adhesive material has an electrical resistivity in the range 1.0 10-6 Ohm-meter to 1.0 10-5 Ohm- meter measured at 25°C.
Barre is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of lightning protection.
Barre teaches wherein an electrically conductive adhesive material (“the bonding of the end fittings on the tubes and connectors is a bonding using an adhesive designed to evacuate electrostatic charges” col. 2 lines 27-30) has an electrical resistivity in the range 1.0 10-6 Ohm-meter to 1.0 10-5 Ohm- meter measured at 25°C (“The adhesive is advantageously an epoxy/silver adhesive with a resistivity of 1000 to 4000 μΩ∙cm, which ensures an electrical contact between the end fittings and the tubes and connectors” col. 2 lines 31-34, 1000 μΩ∙cm is equivalent to 1.0 * 10-5 Ω∙m; This electrical resistive value would be at 25C or an analogous temperature as material properties are measured at or around this temperature, i.e. room temperature).
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 conductive/silver glue in the combination of Hansen and Hancock above to be the epoxy/silver adhesive disclosed by Barre since it ‘ensures electrical contact’ as taught by Barre.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hansen and Hancock, as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of US 12577943, herein referenced as Kirkegaard.
PNG
media_image3.png
311
416
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 27a of Kirkegaard
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Hansen and Hancock comprises the blade shell part of claim 28, but fails to teach wherein a perimeter of the lightning receptor is surrounded by a sealant at the outer surface.
Kirkegaard is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Kirkegaard teaches wherein a perimeter of the lightning receptor is surrounded by a sealant at the outer surface (see perimeter of side receptor 30, including receptor cylinder 33, which is surrounded by sealant 37 at the outer surface of the blade in figs. 26-27a; “A sealant 37 ensures a tight connection between the side receptor 30 and the surrounding outer face of the wind turbine blade” col. 16 lines 13-15).
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 combination of Hansen and Hancock such that a perimeter of the lightning receptor is surrounded by a sealant at the outer surface, as disclosed by Kirkegaard, to obtain the benefit of ‘ensuring a tight connection between the receptor 30 and the surrounding outer face of the wind turbine blade’ as taught by Kirkegaard.
Claim(s) 28, 30-31, 37, 41 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0332799, herein referenced as Girolamo, in view of US 2020/0263657, herein referenced as Badger, and further in view of Hansen.
PNG
media_image4.png
378
342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Only the embodiment on the left from Figure 5 of Girolamo
Regarding Claim 28, Girolamo discloses a blade shell part for a wind turbine blade (wind turbine blade 1 with outer layer 9 fig. 1), the blade shell part comprising:
a structural element (see assembly of first element 2 and first metallic cover 3 in figs. 1-3 and 5) providing structural strength to the blade shell part (“first element 2 containing carbon fibers is a spar cap which, for example, comprises a carbon fiber reinforced polymer” pr. 62) and comprising one or more [elements] comprising carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix (“first element 2 containing carbon fibers is a spar cap which, for example, comprises a carbon fiber reinforced polymer” pr. 62);
a lightning receptor (see air termination point 7 in fig. 1 and on left in fig. 7) exposed at an outer surface of the blade shell part (“an air termination 16 of the air termination point 7 penetrates an outer layer 9 of the wind turbine blade 1” pr. 70) and extending towards the structural element (shown by embodiment on left in fig. 5; “embodiment illustrated on the left side of FIG. 5 shows an air termination point 7 which is directly arranged on the first element 2 containing carbon fibers such as a spar cap. In detail, a base 15 of the air termination point 7 is electrically connected to the metallic cover 3” pr. 70); and
While Girolamo discloses that the lightning receptor 7 is directly attached to the metallic cover 3 (see holders 17 which attach it to the metallic cover 3 in figs. 5 and 6) and that the lightning receptor 7 is electrically attached to the CFRP element 2 (lightning receptor 7 is electrically/conductively attached to the carbon fibers of elements 2 due to its attachment to the metallic cover 3 shown in figs. 5-6 which is then attached to the element 2 as shown in figs. 1-3 and 5), Girolamo fails to anticipate that the one or more elements comprising carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix are one or more pultrusions; and an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element.
PNG
media_image5.png
1138
761
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Badger
Girolamo and Badger are analogous art since they both relate to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Badger teaches of a blade shell part (see shells 4 and 6 in fig. 1) comprising:
a structural element (see spar caps 12 fig. 1; “the spar caps 12 are embedded in the laminated FRP layers and so form an integral part of the shells 4, 6” pr. 36) providing structural strength to the blade shell part and comprising one or more pultrusions comprising carbon fibers embedded in a polymer matrix (“spar caps 12, each of these has a substantially rectangular cross section and is made up of a stack of pre-fabricated elongate reinforcing planks or strips 18. The strips 18 are pultruded members of carbon-fibre reinforced plastic” pr. 37). Badger further teaches that “the spar caps 12 are embedded in the laminated FRP layers and so form an integral part of the shells 4, 6. Such a blade design is sometimes referred to as a ‘structural shell’” in pr. 36 and that the pultruded strips “have a high tensile strength, and thus have a high load bearing capacity” in pr. 37.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Girolamo such its structural element is formed of one or more pultruded strips and its assembly is embedded in the shell as disclosed by Badger to obtain the benefit of ‘a structural shell and a structural material that has a high tensile strength and thus a high load bearing capacity’ as taught by Badger.
However, the combination of Girolamo and Badger fails to teach an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element.
Hansen is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Hansen teaches an electrically conductive adhesive (electrically conductive glue 22 fig. 4) attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more [elements] of the structural element (“receptor is connected to the electrically conductive fibres in the laminate by a process that comprises welding, soldering or gluing with electrically conductive glue, eg silver glue” claim 3). This disclosure from Hansen establishes that it was known in the art to electrically attach components together with a conductive adhesive/glue such as silver glue.
Since Hansen establishes that it was known in the art to use conductive adhesive to electrically attach components together before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious matter of simple substitution to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the electrical attachment between the receptor 7 and the metallic cover 3 (see receptor base 15 and metallic cover 3 in fig. 6 and the embodiment on the left in fig. 5 of Girolamo) in the combination of Girolamo and Badger with of the conductive adhesive disclosed by Hansen for the predictable result of a suitable electrical/conductive attachment between two components in a lightning protection system. See MPEP 2143 subsection B “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”.
This combination above would comprise an electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element (the conductive adhesive taught by Hansen would conductively/electrically attach the receptor base 15 with the fibers of the elements 2 in fig. 6 of Girolamo, formed of pultruded strips as taught by Badger, due to the conductive adhesive provided at the interface between the receptor base 15 and the metallic cover 3, the metallic cover 3 being conductively coupled to the element 2 as shown in figs. 1-3 of Girolamo; the claim does not require a conductive adhesive directly attach component together).
Regarding Claim 30, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the blade shell part of claim 28, wherein the structural element further comprises a metallic element positioned between the outer surface of the blade shell part and the one or more pultrusions (the metallic cover 3 shown to be provided between the outer surface 9 and the element 2 in figs. 1-3 and 5 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger above) and being in electrical contact with at least one of the one or more pultrusions (the metallic cover 3 is shown to be electrical contact with the element 2 in fig. 2 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger above), the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to a part of the metallic element (see electrically conductive glue 22 in fig. 4 of Hansen, as used to modify the interface between the lightning receptor and the metallic cover in the combination of Girolamo and Badger above (see receptor base 15 and metallic cover 3 in fig. 6 of Girolamo)).
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the blade shell part of claim 30, wherein the one or more fiber layers or the metallic element provides potential equalization between at least two of the one or more pultrusions (the metallic cover 3 wrapped around the element 2 in fig. 2 of Girolamo, which was modified to be formed of a plurality of pultruded strips 18 with the teachings of Badger above, would provide potential equalization between the pultruded strips since the metallic cover 3 would form a conductive coupling with each of them thus providing potential equalization).
Regarding Claim 37, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the blade shell part of claim 28, wherein the structural element is a spar cap (“first element 2 containing carbon fibers is a spar cap which, for example, comprises a carbon fiber reinforced polymer” pr. 62 of Girolamo).
Regarding Claim 41, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises a method for making the wind turbine blade shell part according to claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), the method comprising:
providing a first recess extending from an outer surface of the blade shell part towards the structural element (the receptor 7 on the left in fig. 5 of Girolamo would be provided in a first recess that extends from the outer surface 9 toward the element 2), the recess exposing a part of one or more of the pultrusions without extending into any of the pultrusions (since the recess that houses the receptor 7 extends to the metallic cover 3 provided on the surface of element 2, it would expose a part of one or more of the pultrusions which form element 2 on the left in fig. 5 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger above, without extending into element 2);
applying the electrically conductive adhesive into the recess (see electrically conductive glue 22 in fig. 4 of Hansen, as used to modify the combination of Girolamo and Badger above);
inserting the lightning receptor into the recess such that the electrically conductive adhesive attaches the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in the one or more pultrusions of the structural element (the lightning receptor 7 could be inserted into a recess to attach it with the assembly shown on the left in fig. 5 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger and Hansen above; the lightning receptor 7 would be conductively attached to the element 2 by the conductive adhesive due to conductive adhesive electrically attaching the receptor 7 with the metallic cover 3 which is electrically attached to the element 2 for the left embodiment in fig. 5 of Girolamo, as modified with Badger and Hansen above); and
curing the electrically conductive adhesive (the electrically conductive adhesive 22 would be cured for the final product in fig. 4 of Hansen, as used to modify the combination of Girolamo and Badger above).
Regarding Claim 43, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the method of claim 41, wherein the structural element includes a metallic element positioned between the outer surface of the blade shell part and the one or more pultrusions (the metallic cover 3 shown to be provided between the outer surface 9 and the element 2 in figs. 1-3 and 5 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger above) and is placed in electrical contact with at least one of the pultrusions (the metallic cover 3 is shown to be electrical contact with the element 2 in fig. 2 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger above), the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to a part of the metallic element (see electrically conductive glue 22 in fig. 4 of Hansen, as used to modify the interface between the lightning receptor and the metallic cover in the combination of Girolamo and Badger above (see receptor base 15 and metallic cover 3 in fig. 6 of Girolamo)).
Claim(s) 29 and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen, as applied to claims 28 and 41 above, and further in view of US 12012938, herein referenced as Thwaites.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the blade shell part of claim 28, further comprising one or more fiber layers comprising carbon fibers (see metallic layer 3 fig. 3 of Girolamo; “For the metallic cover, conducting materials like metals and alloys may be used as long as they pose minimal risk of galvanic corrosion (e.g., copper, bronze). As an alternative, non-metals (e.g., carbon) and/or their composites coated with metallic materials could also be used, e.g. metallized fibers” pr. 39, this means that the metallic cover 3 can be formed as a layer of carbon fibers coated with metallic materials, e.g. metallized fibers, this would make the metallic cover 3 analogous to a fiber layer comprising carbon fibers), the one or more fiber layers being positioned between the outer surface of the blade shell part and one or more of the pultrusions (the metallic cover 3 is shown to be positioned between the outer surface 9 of the blade and the element 2 in figs. 1-3 and 5 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger above) and being [attached] to and in electrical contact with at least one of the one or more pultrusions (the metallic cover 3 is shown to be attached to and in electrical contact with the element 2 in fig. 1-3 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger above), the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in one or more of the fiber layers (see electrically conductive glue 22 in fig. 4 of Hansen, as used to modify the interface between the lightning receptor and the metallic cover in the combination of Girolamo and Badger above (see receptor base 15 and metallic cover 3 in fig. 6 of Girolamo)).
However, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen fails to explicitly teach wherein [the one or more fiber layers are] adhesively attached to and in electrical contact with at least one of the one or more pultrusions.
Thwaites is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Thwaites teaches wherein [the one or more layers are] adhesively attached (see layer formed by equipotential bonding element 58 fig. 6, shown to be in electrical contact with spar cap 46; “equipotential bonding element 58 may be adhesively bonded to the spar cap 46” col. 13 lines 53-54) to and in electrical contact with at least one of the one or more pultrusions wherein one or more of the pultrusions (spar cap 46 fig. 6; “the spar cap may include pultruded fibrous strips of material such as pultruded carbon fibre composite material” col. 7 lines 54-56). Thwaites further teaches that the “equipotential bonding element 58 may be adhesively bonded to the spar cap 46 to keep it located during manufacture of the blade” in col. 13 lines 53-55.
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 interface between the metallic cover 3 and the element 2 in fig. 1 of Girolamo, in the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen above, such that they are adhesively bonded together, as disclosed by Thwaites, to obtain the benefit of ‘keeping the components located/fixed relative to each other during manufacturing of the blade’ as taught by Thwaites.
Regarding Claim 42, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the method of claim 41, wherein the carbon fibers are in one or more fiber layers (see metallic layer 3 fig. 3 of Girolamo; “For the metallic cover, conducting materials like metals and alloys may be used as long as they pose minimal risk of galvanic corrosion (e.g., copper, bronze). As an alternative, non-metals (e.g., carbon) and/or their composites coated with metallic materials could also be used, e.g. metallized fibers” pr. 39, this means that the metallic cover 3 can be formed as a layer of carbon fibers coated with metallic materials, e.g. metallized fibers, this would make the metallic cover 3 analogous to a fiber layer comprising carbon fibers), the method comprising positioning the carbon fiber layers between the outer surface of the blade shell part and [attached] to and in electrical contact with at least one of the pultrusions (the metallic cover 3 is shown to be positioned between the outer surface 9 of the blade and the element 2 and the metallic cover 3 is shown to be attached to and in electrical contact with the element 2 in fig. 1-3 and 5 of Girolamo, as modified by Badger above), the electrically conductive adhesive attaching the lightning receptor to the carbon fibers in one or more of the fiber layers (see electrically conductive glue 22 in fig. 4 of Hansen, as used to modify the interface between the lightning receptor and the metallic cover in the combination of Girolamo and Badger above (see receptor base 15 and metallic cover 3 in fig. 6 of Girolamo)).
However, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen fails to explicitly teach wherein [the one or more fiber layers are] adhesively attached to and in electrical contact with at least one of the pultrusions.
Thwaites is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Thwaites teaches wherein [the one or more layers are] adhesively attached (see layer formed by equipotential bonding element 58 fig. 6, shown to be in electrical contact with spar cap 46; “equipotential bonding element 58 may be adhesively bonded to the spar cap 46” col. 13 lines 53-54) to and in electrical contact with at least one of the pultrusions wherein one or more of the pultrusions (spar cap 46 fig. 6; “the spar cap may include pultruded fibrous strips of material such as pultruded carbon fibre composite material” col. 7 lines 54-56). Thwaites further teaches that the “equipotential bonding element 58 may be adhesively bonded to the spar cap 46 to keep it located during manufacture of the blade” in col. 13 lines 53-55.
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 interface between the metallic cover 3 and the element 2 in fig. 1 of Girolamo, in the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen above, such that they are adhesively bonded together, as disclosed by Thwaites, to obtain the benefit of ‘keeping the components located/fixed relative to each other during manufacturing of the blade’ as taught by Thwaites.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of US 7859817, herein referenced as Dahl.
Regarding Claim 44, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the method of claim 41, but fails to teach wherein the lightning receptor, after insertion, abuts a lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part.
Dahl is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Dahl teaches wherein the lightning receptor (1005 fig. 11), after insertion, abuts a lightning diverter forming part of the outer surface of the blade shell part (see lightning diverter strips 103 formed on the outer surface 1003of the blade shell 1001 which abut and radiate out from the receptor 1005, which is shown to be in its installed state in fig. 11). Dahl further teaches that “the lightning induced current can be guided in the direction of the strip to for instance some kind of receptor connected to grounding means” in col. 4 lines 49-51.
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 combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen with a lightning diverter which abuts a receptor, as disclosed by Dahl, to obtain the benefit of ‘guiding lightning induced current along the strip towards a grounding means’ as taught by Dahl.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Hall.
Regarding Claim 45, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the method of claim 41, but fails to teach wherein the lightning receptor, after insertion, is located a first distance from a lightning diverter.
Hall is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Hall teaches wherein the lightning receptor (see lightning receptors 92 in fig. 11), after insertion, is located a first distance from a lightning diverter (the lightning receptor 92 in its finished installed state is shown to be spaced by a first distance from the lightning diverter strip 98 in fig. 11). Hall further teaches that “StrikeTape 98 is added between adjacent integrated lightning receptors to provide an even larger target for the lightning and to provide additional paths for the electrical energy of a lightning strike to run along” in pr. 56.
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 outer surface of the blade shell part in the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen with the one or more lightning diverter strips disclosed by Hall to obtain the benefit of ‘providing an even larger target for lightning and to provide additional paths for electrical energy of a lightning strike to run along’ as taught by Hall.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Kirkegaard.
Regarding Claim 46, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the method of claim 41, but fails to teach wherein a second recess is present around the lightning receptor at the outer surface after insertion of the lightning receptor into the first recess, and wherein the method further comprises filling the second recess around the lightning receptor with a sealant.
Kirkegaard is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades.
Kirkegaard teaches wherein a second recess is present around the lightning receptor at the outer surface after insertion of the lightning receptor into the first recess (see void around side receptor 30, including receptor cylinder 33, which is occupied by sealant 37 at the outer surface of the blade in figs. 26-27a; “A sealant 37 ensures a tight connection between the side receptor 30 and the surrounding outer face of the wind turbine blade” col. 16 lines 13-15), and wherein the method further comprises filling the second recess around the lightning receptor with a sealant (see sealant 37 which fills the void between receptor cylinder 33 and the blade outer surface in figs. 26-27a).
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 combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen such that a sealant is used to fill a void around the lightning receptor, as disclosed by Kirkegaard, to obtain the benefit of ‘ensuring a tight connection between the receptor 30 and the surrounding outer face of the wind turbine blade’ as taught by Kirkegaard.
Claim(s) 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen, as applied to claim 41 above, and further in view of Barre.
Regarding Claim 47, the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen comprises the method of claim 41, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the electrically conductive adhesive material has an electrical resistivity which is less than 1.0 10-5 Ohm-meter measured at 25°C.
Barre is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of lightning protection.
Barre teaches wherein an electrically conductive adhesive material (“the bonding of the end fittings on the tubes and connectors is a bonding using an adhesive designed to evacuate electrostatic charges” col. 2 lines 27-30) has an electrical resistivity in the range 1.0 10-6 Ohm-meter to 1.0 10-5 Ohm- meter measured at 25°C (“The adhesive is advantageously an epoxy/silver adhesive with a resistivity of 1000 to 4000 μΩ∙cm, which ensures an electrical contact between the end fittings and the tubes and connectors” col. 2 lines 31-34, 1000 μΩ∙cm is equivalent to 1.0 * 10-5 Ω∙m; This electrical resistive value would be at 25C or an analogous temperature as material properties are measured at or around this temperature, i.e. room temperature).
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 conductive/silver glue in the combination of Girolamo, Badger and Hansen above to be the epoxy/silver adhesive disclosed by Barre since it ‘ensures electrical contact’ as taught by Barre.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11898541, US 11614077 and US 11519382 – US patent grant of prior art cited above.
WO2017089591A1– discloses a wind turbine blade with a spar cap, the spar cap being provided with a metallic layer over it.
US 11447666 – discloses a spar cap which is provided with conductive adhesive between the plates of the spar cap, the conductive adhesive can also be used to couple the spar cap to the lightning down conductor.
US 12429031 – discloses a plurality of equipotential bonding members which conductively couple the spar cap to the surface metallic foil on a wind turbine blade.
US 12129832 – presents a clear example of a wind turbine blade where the lightning receptor is directly attached to the spar cap.
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
Prosecution Insights