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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response, amended claim 2, 3, and 6, and added new claims 12-17 on 06/30/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“The Examiner alleges that Gruhn teaches adjacent blocks joined by an elongate bead formed by sheets and cites Figures 4A-4F and 12A-12C; Col. 12, lines 34-48; and Col. 14, lines 32-44 and Col 18, ln 8-46. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The proffered rejection does not point to any alleged elongate bead and does not offer any explanation for how any component of Gruhn could be interpreted as an elongate bead. Further, the reference does not appear to teach or suggest any similar structural element. Gruhn teaches fibrous carrier layers to which strength elements or rods are joined. However, Gruhn does not teach or suggest an "elongate bead formed by sheets" that joins adjacent blocks. The carrier layers in Gruhn serve as a substrate to retain elements in a single layer, but do not form an elongate bead structure at junctions between adjacent blocks as contemplated by Applicant's claimed embodiments.
The Examiner acknowledges that Gruhn fails to teach that the at least one pair of adjacent blocks are pivotable about the elongate bead, but relies on the secondary references to Day and Ruby as allegedly curing the deficiencies of Gruhn. Day teaches core panels comprising foam strips with veils adhesively attached to opposing faces, wherein portions of the veil fold between opposing edge surfaces of the strips. See Day, [0009] and [0041]. However, Day's veil or mat extending between strips is structurally distinct from an "elongate bead formed by sheets" as claimed. Day's veil or mat folds inward between strips when the core panel is conformed to a mold surface. Further, Day's veil is attached to the strips 41 and does not include any portion that could be used to form a bead. Turning to the addition reference to Ruby, the reference teaches structural elements with flexible sheets and spaced apart rib members, but also fails to teach an elongate bead formed by sheets or any component that could be used to form a bead.
In contrast to these teachings, the "elongate bead formed by sheets" of the claimed embodiments is a specific structural feature formed where sheets converge as an outwardly projecting elongate bead at a junction between adjacent blocks. The adjacent blocks are pivotable about this elongate bead.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Gruhn teaches a pair of adjacent blocks are joined by sheets (Col 22, ln 26-60). Gruhn teaches the structure adjust and conform to bends and curvatures of (Col 16, ln 50-62 and Col 19, ln 25-40). Gruhn teaches the minute spaces 500 between strength elements or rods 202 and 402 enhance the flexibility of the individual elements or rods 202 and 402 and facilitate the ability of the elements or rods to bend, particularly where the elements or rods 202 and 402 are formed in the preform layer 300A,300B and 400
or are incorporated in the composite beam 127 of the spar cap 126 or other blade components (Col 19, ln 25-40).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, bead is interpreted as a projecting structure. During conforming to a curvature, the preform layer adapts to the curvature such that the sheets form a point of curvature, or projection.
The rejection of claim 1, in particular the elongate bead formed by sheets, wherein adjacent blocks are pivotable about the elongate bead, is over the elongate bead of Day with motivation supported by Ruby. Assuming arguendo Gruhn does not teach an elongate bead, the rejection as presented relies upon the teachings of Day and Ruby for this feature.
Applicant argues the "elongate bead formed by sheets" of the claimed embodiments is a specific structural feature formed where sheets converge as an outwardly projecting elongate bead at a junction between adjacent blocks and Day fails to show an elongate bead formed by sheets because Day’s veil or mat folds inwards between strips.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the elongate bead is a specific structural feature formed where sheets converge as an outwardly projecting elongate bead at a junction between adjacent blocks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Claim 2 recites “the sheets comprises at least one unidirectional carbon-fiber sheet arranged to enclose carbon-fiber blocks”. It is unclear if carbon-fiber blocks of claim 2 is identical to the blocks of claim 1 or different blocks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhn (US 9,394,882) in view of Day (PG-PUB 2011/0081514) and Ruby (US 5,232,762).
Regarding claim 1, Gruhn teaches a pre-cast carbon-fiber beam comprising:
a plurality of resin-infused blocks (Col 4, ln 15-18 and Col 16, ln 36- Col 18, ln 25; Figures 9A-9D, 10A-10C, 12A-12C, 13), wherein the at least one pair of adjacent blocks are joined by an elongate bead formed by sheets (Figures 4A-4F and 12A-12C, Col 12, ln34-48 and Col 14, ln 32-44 and Col 18, ln 8-46).
Gruhn teaches during formation, e.g., molding, of the composite beam 127, the bending abilities of the elements or rods 202 and 402 are advantageous, as such bending abilities permit the elements or rods 202 and 402 to make minor adjustments to the bends and curvatures of the spar cap 126 design such that the elements or rods 202 and 402 substantially conform to the shape or contour of the spar cap 126 (Col 19, ln 25-42).
Gruhn does not teach the at least one pair of adjacent blocks are pivotable about the elongate bead.
Day teaches a core panel comprising a plurality of pieces of low density cellular material, such as foam plastic, and layers of veil (Figure 11-14 and [0029]-[0034], [0041]). Day teaches in wind turbine blade manufacturing, it is desirable for cores to conform to specified curvatures within a blade [0002], [0011]-[0013]. Day teaches strips with grooves to match the radius of curvature of the mold [0032]-[0033]. Day teaches the strips may have any of a variety of cross-sectional shapes, for example triangular or circular, or they may comprise hollow tubes, or they may be spaced from other strips [0032].
Ruby teaches a structural element adapted for attachment to curved surfaces, comprising a first resilient, semi-flexible, sheet material having a given length and width; a second, flexible sheet material of substantially the same width as the first sheet material; a plurality of parallel-spaced, independent preformed rib members sandwiched between the first and second sheet material (Figure 1-6, 8-11, and 13-16; Col 3, ln 65- Col 4, ln 40; and Col 5, ln 4-30). Ruby teaches embodiments where the rib members are rectangular and gaps are provided between the ribs (Figures 1 and 8) such that when bent, the structural elements come together to the desired curved shape (Figure 5-6, 14, and 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the beam configuration of Gruhn with preform beam configuration comprising flexible sheets and spaced apart elements, pivotable along an adjoining sheet, as taught by Ruby for the benefit of providing structural adaptability for wind turbine blade manufacturing, as taught by Day.
Regarding claim 4, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the beam as applied to claim 1, wherein each block are structural elements made from multiple fibrous layers of carbon fibers (Gruhn, Col 12, ln 34,48) and matrix resin surrounding the fibers and providing strength to the resulting blocks (Gruhn, Col 18, ln 7-15).
Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby does not explicitly teach each block comprises a stack of at least two pultruded carbon strips.
Although Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby does not explicitly teach the stacks are pultruded, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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 (see MPEP § 2113).
Given that the blocks of Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby are identical to the claimed blocks, the blocks of the prior art would be capable of being manufactured through pultrusion.
Regarding claim 5, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the beam as applied to claim 1.
Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby does not teach the opposing faces are disposed wherein opposing faces of adjacent blocks subtend an angle in the range of 5° to 20°.
Day teaches a core panel comprising a plurality of pieces of low density cellular material, such as foam plastic, and layers of veil (Figure 11 and 14 and [0029]-[0034], [0041]). Day teaches notches or grooves in between adjacent structures to allow for the adaptability of the panel (Figures 1-6 and [0032]-[0034]). Day teaches [0036]. Day teaches in wind turbine blade manufacturing, it is desirable for cores to conform to specified curvatures within a blade [0002], [0011]-[0013]. Day teaches strips with grooves to match the radius of curvature of the mold [0032]-[0033]. Day teaches the strips may have any of a variety of cross-sectional shapes, for example triangular or circular, or they may comprise hollow tubes, or they may be spaced from other strips [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam of Gruhn with angled blocks as taught by Day, for the benefit of conforming the beam to the desired curvature.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the shape and angle between the opposing faces of the adjacent block of Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby are parameters optimized to provide desired integration for conforming to the desired curvature. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the angle between the adjacent blocks for the purpose of conforming to the curvature of a wind turbine blade and, in doing so, would have arrived at an angle of 5 to 20 degrees.
Regarding claim 6, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the beam as applied to claim 1.
Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby does not teach a wedge-shaped element arranged along an outside face of a block.
Day teaches a core panel comprising a plurality of pieces of low density cellular material, such as foam plastic, and layers of veil (Figure 11 and 14 and [0029]-[0034], [0041]). Day teaches notches or grooves in between adjacent structures to allow for the adaptability of the panel (Figures 1-6 and [0032]-[0034]). Day teaches [0036]. Day teaches in wind turbine blade manufacturing, it is desirable for cores to conform to specified curvatures within a blade [0002], [0011]-[0013]. Day teaches strips with grooves to match the radius of curvature of the mold [0032]-[0033]. Day teaches the strips may have any of a variety of cross-sectional shapes, for example triangular or circular, or they may comprise hollow tubes, or they may be spaced from other strips [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam of Gruhn with angled blocks as taught by Day, a known suitable block configuration for conforming the beam to the desired curvature. Accordingly, a wedge-shaped block would be arranged along an outside face of one of the two blocks.
Regarding claim 7, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the blade as applied to claim 1.
Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product.
Although Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby does not explicitly teach the process as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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 (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 8, Gruhn teaches a rotor blade comprising:
pre-cast adaptable carbon-fiber beam including the plurality of resin-infused blocks (Col 4, ln 15-18 and Col 16, ln 36- Col 18, ln 25; Figures 9A-9D, 10A-10C, 12A-12C, 13), wherein the at least one pair of adjacent blocks are joined by an elongate bead formed by sheets (Figures 4A-4F and 12A-12C, Col 12, ln34-48 and Col 14, ln 32-44 and Col 18, ln 8-46).
Gruhn teaches during formation, e.g., molding, of the composite beam 127, the bending abilities of the elements or rods 202 and 402 are advantageous, as such bending abilities permit the elements or rods 202 and 402 to make minor adjustments to the bends and curvatures of the spar cap 126 design such that the elements or rods 202 and 402 substantially conform to the shape or contour of the spar cap 126 (Col 19, ln 25-42).
Gruhn does not teach the at least one pair of adjacent blocks are pivotable about the elongate bead.
Day teaches a core panel comprising a plurality of pieces of low density cellular material, such as foam plastic, and layers of veil (Figure 11 and 14 and[0029]-[0034], [0041]). Day teaches in wind turbine blade manufacturing, it is desirable for cores to conform to specified curvatures within a blade [0002], [0011]-[0013]. Day teaches strips with grooves to match the radius of curvature of the mold [0032]-[0033]. Day teaches the strips may have any of a variety of cross-sectional shapes, for example triangular or circular, or they may comprise hollow tubes, or they may be spaced from other strips [0032].
Ruby teaches a structural element adapted for attachment to curved surfaces, comprising a first resilient, semi-flexible, sheet material having a given length and width; a second, flexible sheet material of substantially the same width as the first sheet material; a plurality of parallel-spaced, independent preformed rib members sandwiched between the first and second sheet material (Figure 1-6, 8-11, and 13-16; Col 3, ln 65- Col 4, ln 40; and Col 5, ln 4-30). Ruby teaches embodiments where the rib members are rectangular and gaps are provided between the ribs (Figures 1 and 8) such that when bent, the structural elements come together to the desired curved shape (Figure 5-6, 14, and 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the rotor blade of Gruhn with conforming preforms for the benefit of providing structural adaptability of the core for wind turbine blade manufacturing, as taught by Day. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the beam configuration of Gruhn with preform beam configuration comprising flexible sheets and spaced apart elements, pivotable along adjoining sheets, as taught by Ruby for the benefit of providing structural adaptability for wind turbine blade manufacturing, as taught by Day.
Regarding claim 9, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the blade as applied to claim 8, wherein the at least one pre-cast adaptable carbon fiber beam is incorporated at a leading edge of the transition region (Gruhn, Figure 3 and Col 14, ln 32-44 and Col 33, ln 18-52).
Regarding claim 10, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the blade as applied to claim 8, wherein the at least one pre-cast adaptable carbon fiber beam is incorporated at a trailing edge of the transition region (Gruhn, Figure 3 and Col 14, ln 32-44 and Col 33, ln 18-52).
Regarding claim 11, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the blade as applied to claim 8.
Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product.
Although Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby does not explicitly teach the process as presently claimed, it is noted that the present claims are drawn to a product and not drawn to a method of making. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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 (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 14, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the blade as applied to claim 8, wherein the sheets extend through a gap between the at least one pair of adjacent blocks and converge to form the elongate bead (Day, Figures 11-14).
Regarding claim 17, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the beam as applied to claim 1, wherein the sheets extend through a gap between the at least one pair of adjacent blocks and converge to form the elongate bead (Day, Figures 11-14).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gruhn (US 9,394,882) in view of Day (PG-PUB 2011/0081514) and Ruby (US 5,232,762), as applied in claim 1, in further view of Hunter (10,179,425).
Regarding claim 2, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby teaches the beam as applied to claim 1, wherein the sheets comprise at least made of carbon fiber fabric, such as biaxial or triaxial fabric (Gruhn, Col 21, ln 24-51).
Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby does not teach the sheets comprise at least one unidirectional carbon-fiber sheet arranged to enclose carbon-fiber blocks.
Hunter teaches a preform for a root section of a wind turbine blade, the preform comprising a plurality of plies made of unidirectional or biaxial fibers (Col 6, ln 28-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the beam of Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby with unidirectional fiber plies of Hunter, a known suitable fabric used in structural preforms in wind turbine blades.
Regarding claim 3, Gruhn in view of Day, Ruby, and Hunter teaches the beam as applied to claim 1, wherein the sheets comprise at least one glass-fiber cover sheet arranged about a fiber sheet (Gruhn, Col 21, ln 23-60).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12-13 and 15-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 12 and 15, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby, individually and in combination, do not teach or suggest the elongate bead is an outwardly projecting elongate bead.
While outward-projecting hinges are known, there would be no motivation to modify the elongate bead of Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby to be outward, as the purpose of the elongate bead is to allow the beam to conform to curved surfaces and an outward-projecting hinge would appear to be exposed on an outer surface and obstruct the beam from adjusting to surfaces.
Regarding claim 13 and 16, Gruhn in view of Day and Ruby do not teach or suggest the elongate bead is free of resin.
Gruhn teaches each block is saturated by a matrix resin (Col 17, ln 50-67). Gruhn teaches the sheet may include one or more fibers, yarns and/or rovings constructed of one or more materials, such as those identified above, suitable to facilitate permeation and penetration of the bonding resin 502 between individual strength elements and rods 202 and 402, and between individual preform layers 300A,
300B and 400, when the bonding resin 502 is applied to an assembled stacked formation 128 (Col 22, ln 1-14).
Based on the teachings of Gruhn, the sheet, including the elongate bead, is resin-infused, and there is no motivation to modify the elongate bead to be free of resin.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
