DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted January 22, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9, lines 22-23 describe the brief description of Figure 2 (which was amended after referring to both Figures 2 and 3 together), and states Figure 2 shows a cross-sectional view of a blade of Figure 1 “according to two different embodiments”, however Figure 2 is only a single embodiment. The description should be changed for clarity.
Page 9, lines 26-27 use similar language to describe Figure 3 showing “two different embodiments”, which should be changed accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7 introduces “at least one shaping element” and line 8 recites “the shaping element”. Line 8 should be amended to recite “the at least one shaping element” to be consistent with line 7.
Claim 2, line 4 similarly recites “the shaping element” which should be changed accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, lines 2-3 recite “wherein at least one first preform element building material is arranged on the molding surface”, however claim 2 depends from claim 1 which previously introduced “a preform element building material…on a molding surface of a mold”.
There are two possible ways to interpret claim 2, and it is unclear which is correct. First: the “preform element building material” of claim 1 is the “first preform element building material” of claim 2 and these are the same feature. Second: the “first preform element building material” is a separate feature from “the preform element building material”, and both of these features are arranged on the molding surface.
A claim can be rendered indefinite when there are multiple reasonable interpretations of a claim limitation (see MPEP §2173.02 I for further clarification).
For the purpose of examination, the “first preform element building material” of claim 2 will be treated as the “preform element building material” of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 7 depend from claim 2 and contain its limitations and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “at least one layer”, and the claim also recites “particularly several stacked layers” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of examination, claim 8 will be treated as requiring “at least one layer”.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and contains its limitations and therefore is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,234,500 to Frederiksen.
In Reference to Claim 1#
Frederiksen teaches:
A method for manufacturing a preform element (blade shell half 14) for a blade (1) of a wind turbine, comprising
a) arranging a preform element building material (15) comprising a curable binding agent (not shown, column 5, lines 5-7) on a molding surface (upper face of mold 12 in Figure 3) of a mold (12) such that the shape of the preform element building material adapts to the shape of the molding surface (column 7, lines 45-55),
b) arranging at least one shaping element (16-20) on or at the preform element building material such that a shaping surface (side surfaces of 16, 17, 18 in Figure 3) of the shaping element defines a contact surface of the preform element, wherein the shape of the shaping surface corresponds to a contact surface of a blade component (core of blade shell) arranged in contact with the contact surface of the preform element in the manufactured blade (see column 7, lines 22-37); and
c) curing the preform element building material to conserve the shape of the preform element which is defined by the molding surface and the shaping element (see column 7, line 65 through column 8, line 9 and Figure 3).
Regarding the shaping element, the embodiment of Figure 3 shows multiple layers forming the blade shell. The layers include fiber layers (upper and lower layers 15) with the laminates (16, 17, 18) and core materials (19, 20) between the upper and lower fiber layers. The laminates and core materials form the shape of the core of the blade shell. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “shaping element” includes the laminates and core materials which determine the shape of the layers within the mold.
Regarding the “preform element building material”, the broadest reasonable interpretation includes fiber layers.
PNG
media_image1.png
594
857
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2#
Frederiksen teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the preform element building material is a first preform element building material arranged on the molding surface, wherein the at least one shaping element is a second preform element building material (laminate and core of the blade shell) which is arranged on the first preform element building material.
In Reference to Claim 4#
Frederiksen teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the shape of the shaping surface of the at least one shaping element corresponds to the shape of the contact surface of the blade component being a core (see Figure 3).
In Reference to Claim 8#
Frederiksen teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the preform element building material comprises at least one layer made of fiber sheet (“a plurality of fibre layers” 15, column 7, lines 22-25).
In Reference to Claim 9#
Frederiksen teaches:
The method according to claim 8, wherein the binding agent is a heat-meltable powder binder (“powder binding agent”, column 5, lines 5-7).
In Reference to Claims 10-12#
Frederiksen teaches:
A preform element (half blade shell 14) for a blade (1) of a wind turbine (not shown, column 6, line 54), manufactured by a method according to claim 1, wherein the blade of a wind turbine comprises at least one preform according to claim 10, and a wind turbine comprising at least one blade according to claim 11.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,234,500 to Frederiksen as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of WO 2009/097853 to Lystrup.
In Reference to Claim 6
Frederiksen teaches:
The method according to claim 1, comprising the preform element building material and the mold having the mold surface.
Frederiksen fails to teach:
The preform element building material is arranged between a lower vacuum foil and an upper vacuum foil, wherein a vacuum is created between the mold surface and the lower vacuum foil and between the lower vacuum foil and the upper vacuum foil.
Lystrup teaches:
A method of manufacturing a preform element (100), the method comprising:
arranging a preform element building material (302) on a mold surface (top surface of mould 102),
wherein the preform element building material is arranged between a lower vacuum foil (bottom instance of 301 in Figure 3) and an upper vacuum foil (middle instance of 301 in Figure 3), wherein a vacuum (suction shown by arrows 304) is created between the mold surface and the lower vacuum foil and between the lower vacuum foil and the upper vacuum foil (see page 9, line 24 through page 10, line 7 and Figure 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
362
698
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Frederiksen by arranging upper and lower vacuum foils as taught by Lystrup as both references are directed to forming preforms using vacuums, and for the purpose of reducing or eliminating the amount of wrinkled fibers and fiber bridging (page 10, lines 9-14 of Lystrup).
In Reference to Claim 7
Frederiksen teaches:
The method of claim 2, comprising the first preform element building material and the second preform element building material.
Frederiksen fails to teach:
The first preform element building material is arranged between a first lower vacuum foil and a first upper vacuum foil, wherein the second preform element building material is arranged between a second lower vacuum foil and a second upper vacuum foil, wherein a vacuum is created between the mold surface and the first lower vacuum foil, between the first lower vacuum foil and the first upper vacuum foil, between the first upper vacuum foil and the second lower vacuum foil, and between the second lower vacuum foil and the second upper vacuum foil.
Lystrup teaches:
A method of manufacturing a preform element (100), the method comprising:
arranging a first preform element building material (bottom instance of 302 in Figure 3) on a mold surface (top surface of mould 102 in Figure 3) and a second preform element building material (101),
wherein the first preform element building material is arranged between a first lower vacuum foil (bottom instance of 301 in Figure 3) and a first upper vacuum foil (middle instance of 301 in Figure 3), wherein the second preform element building material is arranged between a second lower vacuum foil (upper instance of 301 in Figure 3) and a second upper vacuum foil (104), wherein a vacuum (suction indicated by arrows 304) is created between the mold surface and the first lower vacuum foil, between the first lower vacuum foil and the first upper vacuum foil, between the first upper vacuum foil and the second lower vacuum foil, and between the second lower vacuum foil and the second upper vacuum foil (see page 9, line 24 through page 10, line 7 and Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
434
1026
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Frederiksen by arranging first upper and lower vacuum foils and second upper and lower vacuum foils as taught by Lystrup as both references are directed to forming preforms using vacuums, and for the purpose of reducing or eliminating the amount of wrinkled fibers and fiber bridging (page 10, lines 9-14 of Lystrup).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach a further shaping element is sandwiched between the first preform element building material and the second preform element building material as recited in claim 3. Frederiksen fails to teach any component between the first and second preform element building materials. Lystrup teaches multiple layers, however interpreting one of the middle layers as a “further shaping element” and then adding it to the preform element of Frederiksen would require improper hindsight reasoning.
The prior art of record fails to teach a tapered shaping element is arranged laterally on the preform element building material and between the mold surface and the preform element building material, and the blade component is a further preform element arranged laterally adjacent to the preform element as recited in claim 5. The shaping element of Frederiksen is tapered (see the ends of 16, 17, 18 in Figure 3), however, the shaping element is above the preform element building material, and not laterally and between the preform element building material and mold surface. Frederiksen also fails to teach the blade component is laterally adjacent to the preform element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 8,540,491 to Gruhn teaches method of making a preform for a wind turbine blade. US 2020/0384707 to Lehmann Madsen teaches a method of making a preform for a blade using a heat-meltable powder resin.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights