DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-6 & 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2018/0171968 to Hunter in view of U.S. 2013/0129518 to Hayden and U.S. 2022/0065220 to Merzhaeuser.
Claim 1 recites a method of assembling a modular wind turbine blade. Hunter relates to such a blade. See Hunter [0007]. Figure 1 of Hunter shows the steps of providing a first (12)…and second blade module (14). Hunter teaches that each blade module[has] an outer shell defining an outer surface of the blade module, a connecting region of the outer shell defining an interface end of the blade module, and a longitudinally-extending spar cap embedded in the outer shell, the spar cap having a tapered end portion in the connecting region in which the thickness of the spar cap decreases towards the interface end of the blade module such that a tapered recess (48) is defined in the outer surface of the blade module. See Hunter [0093]-[0102] and Fig. 1. Hunter further teaches arranging the first and second blade modules end-to-end with the tapered recesses aligned to define a bridge recess, the tapered recess of the first blade module defining a first end of the bridge recess, and the tapered recess of the second blade module defining a second end of the bridge recess. Id.
Hunter differs from claim 1 in that it does not connect the two segments by arranging a stack of layers in the bridge recess and the heating and curing these layers. Rather, it inserts a solid connecting member (16) and adhesive. Yet it would have been obvious to modify Hunter to perform these steps in view of Hayden. Hayden also relates to connecting modular wind turbine segments (7) via opposing tapered recesses (6). See Hayden [0005], [0016], and Fig. 7B. As such, Hayden is highly analogous art. Hayden teaches arranging a stack of layers (8) in the bridge recess…spanning the interface…[made of] pre-preg [l]ayers compris[ing] fibrous material that is pre-impregnated with uncured resin. See [0054]-[0056]. Hayden further teaches applying heat to the stack of layers in the bridge recess such that the resin in the pre-preg interlayers mobilises in the bridge recess; and curing the resin…to form a spar bridge spanning the interface, the spar bridge serving to connect the spar caps of the first and second blade modules. Id. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). It would therefore have been obvious to modify Hunter to use the in situ connection process of Hayden. Such a process would have been predictable because both references are connecting the same types of components, for the same purpose.
Hayden does not teach stacking a plurality of pre-cured layers interleaved with pre-preg interlayers. Rather, it teaches solely using pre-preg layers. Yet it is known in the turbine arts to create multi-layered spar caps by layering both pre-preg resin and pre-cured materials. See Merzhaeuser [0001], [0038], 0046], and Fig. 7E. It would therefore have been obvious to modify the layering of the Hayden to include both pre-cured and pre-preg layers to form the in suite multi-ply connector. See MPEP 2143(D). This modification would then naturally result in the resin integrat[ing] the pre-cured layers with each other to form a spar bridge.
Regarding claim 2, Hayden teaches heating the stack of layers to at least 60° C. See Hayden [0056]. See Hayden [0056]. Regarding claim 3, Hayden teaches curing under vacuum using a vacuum bag. See Hayden [0054]-[0056]. This would necessitate the step of prior to curing the resin…arranging a vacuum film over the stack of layers in the bridge recess to define a sealed region…and evacuating the sealed region under vacuum pressure to consolidate the stack of layers in the bridge recess. The vacuum process inherently conforms the stack…to the profiles of the recesses due to the surrounding atmospheric pressure. Regarding claim 4, figure 7B of Hayden shows successively longer pre-cured layers in the bridge recess to form a spar bridge having a first end that tapers in thickness and a second end that tapers in thickness. Claim 5 recites that at least some of the pre-preg interlayers extend longitudinally beyond the ends of their adjacent pre-cured layers. Merzhaeuser teaches using pre-preg as the upper layer. This upper layer will be the longest layer, when applied to the multi-ply structure (8) of Hayden. Thus, it will extend longitudinally beyond the ends of the pre-cured layers below it.
Claim 6 recites that the spar caps of the first and second blade modules comprise an electrically conductive material. Applicant’s specification explains this may be carbon fibre. See Specification [0029]. Hunter likewise teaches the structures are formed by carbon-fibre. See Hunter [0094]. Likewise, the pre-preg in Hayden may also have carbon fibre. See Hayden [0054]. As a result, the stack of layers is arranged in the bridge recess with the pre-preg interlayers will be in electrical contact with at least one of the spar caps. Claim 8 recites fibre volume fraction (FVF) from 30% to 70. Hayden does not explicitly discuss the fiber volume fraction, but one of ordinary skill would infer it to be in the 40-60% range, as this is standard for carbon fiber pre-preg absent specific discussion to the contrary. Claim 9 recites arranging pre-preg fibrous material in the recesses of the first and second blade modules prior to arranging the stack of layers. Merzhaeuser shows the pre-preg layers on the bottom as well. Thus, the first layer in would be pre-preg. The remaining layering could then be defined as the stack of layers, meeting the claim limitation. Regarding claim 10, figure 1 of Hunter shows two side-by-side reccesses. This would then require two side-by-side stacks of layers in the bridge recess to form the spar bridge. Regarding claim 11, figure 1 of Hunter shows spacing the first and second blade modules apart in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the method further comprises: providing an open-ended U-shaped channel and aligning the U-shaped channel with the recesses of the first and second blade modules such that the bridge recess is defined by the recesses of the first and second blade modules and the U-shaped channel. Claim 12 recites the stack of layers is pre-assembled. Hayden does not explicitly recite this step. But it would have been obvious as a matter of common sense. Regarding claim 13, the recited pre-made layered structure matches that shown and described in figure 7E of Merzaeuser. The remaining steps of heating and curing match the process of Hayden. See Hayden [0054]-[0056].
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 7 and 14-15 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.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”
Prosecution Insights