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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Subspecies A-I and B-I in the reply filed on October 20, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that certain claims are common/generic to both Subspecies A-I and A-II as well as common between Subspecies B-I, B-II, and B-III. Allegedly, there would therefore not be a serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the election of species is based upon the disclosure and not the claims. Claims may be amended at any time during the prosecution. The examiner maintains the election of species requirement and the reasons for there being a serious burden presented August 20, 2025
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected subspecies, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on October 20, 2025.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: flexible folding zone in claims 1 and 12.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-9 and 11-15 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.
The term “two-dimensional homogenous structure” in used in claims 1 and 12. Paragraphs [0023] and [0032] discuss the concept the alleged two-dimensional homogenous structure. Paragraph [0023] discusses that a laminate is a two-dimensional homogenous structure. The examiner agrees. A laminate is a generally thin flat structure that has consistent properties in two dimensions (length/width) while having inconsistent properties in a third direction thickness direction. The examiner finds that the applicant’s two-dimensional homogenous structure formed by the at least two transverse parts and the folding zone does not form a two-dimensional homogenous structure. Figure 3A shows the two transverse parts (131/132) and the folding zone (133). This structure is not homogenous in both of the thickness direction (up/down in the first depiction) and a length direction (left/right in the first depiction). While details of the flexible folding zone (133) are not present in the disclosure (see 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection below), its behavior appears in the figures to be different than that of the transverse parts. Therefore, the examiner finds the disclosed configuration cannot be considered a 2-dimensional homogenous structure. Claims dependent from claims 1 and 12 are also rejected based on their dependency.
Claim 5 recites, “wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer remain in respective undeformed states with a first increase in the common external mechanical force until respective predetermined yield points are reached”. This concept is discussed in paragraph [0027] of the instant application. This concept is contrary to fundamental engineering concepts / reality. All materials when forces are exerted on them will have some degree of deformation; this is generally approximated by Hooke’s law for small elastic (reversible) deformations that are less than the yield strength. Therefore, the claimed layers being acted upon by forces while remaining in undeformed states is not possible. Furthermore yield strengths are a concept that relate to when permanent (plastic) deformation occurs and the stress-strain behavior of the material is no longer linear. This is in contrast to the claimed concept that no deformation occurs until a yield point is reached. The examiner finds that for the above reasons the claim limitations cannot be rejected by the art and therefore no 35 U.S.C 102 or 35 U.S.C 103 rejections of the claim 5 or its dependents are made.
The figure below is a common figure used in mechanical engineering to describe material behavior and relates stress and strain.
PNG
media_image1.png
499
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6 and 7 introduce additional not supported subject matter as they have concepts that are based upon the incorrect understanding discussed in claim 5.
Claims dependent upon claim 5 are also rejected.
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 1-9 and 11-15 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.
Claims 1 and 12 contain the claim limitation “flexible folding zone” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification describes the flexible folding zone in paragraphs [0032] and [0033]. The disclosure is devoid of any details that causes (133) in the drawings to perform the claimed functions of being flexible and folding. Therefore, there is no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For purposes of examination any zone or region which allows for any folding may be considered a flexible folding zone.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “two-dimensional homogenous structure” in used in claims 1 and 12. As described in the 35 U.S.C 112(a) above, this disclosure does not support this concept under its accepted meaning. It is therefore unclear as to what the applicant means by this term as it is not clearly defined by the applicant. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted as homogenous in one dimension.
Claim 2 and 12 recites, “wherein the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity and a first buckling coefficient and the second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity and a second buckling coefficient”. The examiner finds that buckling coefficient has no universal definition. Buckling coefficients do appear in equations that are used to describe buckling behavior but are related to geometric and loading / boundary conditions rather than solely to geometric and material properties. As the loading / boundary conditions are properties that are variable and are not intrinsic to the layers of the composite body itself, the buckling coefficient is indefinite, see MPEP 2173.05(b) II. No equation or description is provided by the applicant of what the value of the buckling coefficient is defined as either. Additionally, claim 2 introduces that the first and second elasticity parameter each comprise a modulus of elasticity and buckling coefficient. Claim 1 defines that the first and second elasticity parameter are different. It is unclear if this requires that each of the two values of each parameter are different or if only one must be different. For purposes of examination, since the modulus of elasticity are different in the art and the buckling coefficient is indefinite for the reasons discussed earlier, the broader interpretation where only one value of the two being different satisfies the requirement. Claims dependent from claims 2 or 12 are also rejected for their dependency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 11 and 13 recite “wherein the at least two transverse parts comprise two transverse parts”. This is not further defining as the at least two transverse parts necessarily comprises two transverse parts. It is noted that “comprises” is open and does not limit the number of transverse parts to exactly two. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claims 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Pelt et al. (U.S Pre-Grant 20180370613) hereinafter Van Pelt.
Regarding claim 1, Van Pelt discloses:
A multi-layer composite body {Figures 2A-C (200)} comprising:
a first composite layer having a first elasticity parameter {Figure 2A-C, first composite layer (202) and (212); these layers are carbon reinforced polymer fabric pre-preg layers which have a first modulus of elasticity; [0017]}; and
a second composite layer mechanically coupled with the first composite layer {Figure 2A-C, second composite layer (220) is mechanical coupled with (202) and (212) by bonding; [0018]},
the second composite layer having a second elasticity parameter different from the first elasticity parameter {Figures 2A-C; (220) is made of Kevlar which has a different modulus of elasticity than the first modulus of elasticity; [0017]},
wherein the first composite layer comprises at least two transverse parts joined by a flexible folding zone {Figures 2A-C (202) and (212) are transverse parts joined by a flexible folding zone; see 35 U.S.C 112(f) interpretation and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections above}
the at least two transverse parts and the folding zone forming a reversibly foldable and substantially two-dimensional homogenous structure {Figures 2A-C; the structure can be folded and returned to its original unbent state; [0020]; see 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above regarding the two-dimensional homogenous structure. The examiner finds that the structure is homogenous in the direction in/out of the page}.
Regarding claim 2, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity and a first buckling coefficient and the second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity and a second buckling coefficient {Figure 2A-C, the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity, see description in the rejection of claim 1. The second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity that is different than the first, see description in the rejection of claim 1. [0017]. See the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above regarding the buckling coefficients. For purposes of examination, since the modulus of elasticity are different in the art and the buckling coefficient is indefinite for the reasons discussed earlier, even only one value of the two elasticity parameters being different satisfies the requirement}.
Regarding claim 3, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer respond to a common external mechanical force in a different manner {As described in the rejection of claim 1, (202) and (212) are formed of a different material with different modulus of elasticity than the of (220). The different materials will mean external forces will cause the layers to respond / behave different. This limitation is also assumed to based on MPEP 2112.01 I, as the structure is of Van Pelt is substantially identical to the claimed structure and the limitation is a property / function}.
Regarding claim 4, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the common external mechanical force comprises a stretching force and a bucking load {The rationales of the rejection of claim 3 apply equally in the scenario of a stretching force and a buckling load}.
Regarding claim 11, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the at least two transverse parts comprise two transverse parts {Figures 2A-C (202) and (212) are transverse parts}
Regarding claim 12, the claim is substantially identical to claim 3 (which includes the limitations from claims 1 and 2 due to its dependency). For purposes of brevity and clarity, the rejection is not repeated, please see the rejections of claims 1, 2, and 3 above.
Regarding claim 13, Van Pelt further discloses:
wherein the at least two transverse parts comprise two transverse parts {Figures 2A-C (202) and (212) are transverse parts}
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.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Pelt et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20180370613) hereinafter Van Pelt in view of Hemmelgam et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20110084174) hereinafter Hemmelgam.
Regarding claim 14, Van Pelt discloses the multi-layer composite body of claim 1 but does not disclose:
A wind turbine blade comprises the multi-layer composite body of claim 1.
Hemmelgam pertains to wind turbine blades made from fiber reinforced polymer composites. Hemmelgam teaches:
A wind turbine blade with a composite body designed to buckle {Figure 7 (220) is a composite body of a wind turbine blade shown in Figure 1 by (20); [0028]/[0212]/[0222]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the multi-layer composite body of Van Pelt that discloses claim 1 in the wind turbine blade and therefore also a wind turbine comprising those blades of Hemmelgam. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so Hemmelgam has a composite body designed to buckle and Van Pelt has a multi-layer composite body that is a hinge which is designed to rotate/bend/buckle and is recognized for use in aerodynamic surfaces {Van Pelt [0012]; Hemmelgam [0028]/[0212]/[0222]}.
Regarding claim 15, Van Pelt discloses the multi-layer composite body of claim 1 but does not disclose:
A wind turbine comprising one or more turbine blades, the one or more wind turbine blades comprising the multi-layer composite body of claim 1.
Hemmelgam pertains to wind turbine blades made from fiber reinforced polymer composites. Hemmelgam teaches:
A wind turbine blade with a composite body designed to buckle {Figure 7 (220) is a composite body of a wind turbine blade shown in Figure 1 by (20); [0028]/[0212]/[0222]}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the multi-layer composite body of Van Pelt that discloses claim 1 in the wind turbine blade and therefore also a wind turbine comprising those blades of Hemmelgam. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so Hemmelgam has a composite body designed to buckle and Van Pelt has a multi-layer composite body that is a hinge which is designed to rotate/bend/buckle and is recognized for use in aerodynamic surfaces {Van Pelt [0012]; Hemmelgam [0028]/[0212]/[0222]}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Masini et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20140007377) teaches a folding composite structure in a variety of different embodiments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745