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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see sections II.A., II.B. and III., filed January 12, 2026, with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-3 and 5 has been withdrawn. Examiner wishes to point out that while the exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) applies to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of the previous Office action, it does not apply to a 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection as outlined below, though a separate 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2) exception may apply.
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 21-23 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "extruded thermoplastic foam core" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "extruded thermoplastic foam core" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "extruded thermoplastic foam core" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5 and 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by USPAP 2023/0265255 (Abrevaya et al. ‘255 hereinafter).
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
With regard to claim 1, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses a wind turbine blade comprising:
a. a blade shell (10); and
b. a faced foam in said blade shell (10), said extruded foam comprising an extruded foam (Title and paragraph [0011]) having a foam density of from about 125 kg/m3 to about 425 kg/m3 (Paragraph [0173] discloses that all the foam densities discussed have been normalized by the density of PEF polymer 1.43 g/cc and paragraph [0178] discloses that relative foam densities (RFD) range from 0.05 to about 0.15. When multiplied by 1.43 g/cc to remove the normalization, this range becomes 0.0715 g/cc to 0.2145 g/cc. Multiplying by 1000 to go from g/cc to kg/m3 provides a range of 71.5 kg/m3 to 214.5 kg/m3 which overlaps the claimed range) comprising a thermoplastic foam comprising:
(1) thermoplastic polymer cells comprising cell walls forming closed cells, wherein said thermoplastic polymer comprises ethylene furanoate moieties; and
(2) 1234ze(E) contained in the closed cells (paragraph [0063]).
With regard to claim 2, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1 wherein said thermoplastic polymer comprises from about 0.5 mole% to about 100 mole% of ethylene furanoate moieties (claim 1).
With regard to claim 3, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1 wherein said thermoplastic polymer further comprises at least about 0.5 mole% ethylene terephthalate moieties (claim 1).
With regard to claim 5, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1 wherein at least about 75% of the cells are closed cells (paragraph [0063] discloses that at least 50% of the cells are closed cells which anticipates 75% of the cells being closed cells).
With regard to claim 21, insofar as claim 21 is definite, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1 wherein said extruded thermoplastic foam core has a foam density of from about 130 kg/m3 to about 400 kg/m3. This range overlaps with the range of Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
With regard to claim 22, insofar as claim 22 is definite, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 21 wherein said extruded thermoplastic foam core has a compressive strength of from about 1 MPa to about 14 MPa (Tables E1B and 5, and paragraph [0044]).
With regard to claim 23, insofar as claim 23 is definite, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1 wherein said extruded thermoplastic foam core wherein said thermoplastic polymer cells comprise cell walls comprising at least about 1% by weight of ethylene furanoate moieties (Abstract).
With regard to claim 24, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1 wherein said thermoplastic polymer comprises from about 0.5 mole% to about 99.5 mole% of ethylene furanoate moieties and from 0.5 mole% to about 99.5 mole% ethylene terephthalate moieties (Abstract).
With regard to claim 25, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1 wherein said thermoplastic polymer has a molecular weight of from about 25,000 to about 140,000 (paragraph [0070]).
With regard to claim 26, Abrevaya et al. ‘255 discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1 wherein said thermoplastic polymer has a molecular weight of from about 80,000 to about 130,000 (Table between paragraphs [0155] and [0156]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON R EASTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Justin C. Mikowski can be reached at (571) 272-8525. 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.
/AARON R EASTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673