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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a spar cap for wind turbine” should be either “a spar cap for wind turbines” or “a spare cap for a wind turbine.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the pultruded planks have at least one textured surface has a Ra” (emphasis added), wherein a “surface that has” would be more appropriate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to the claim 18” should be “according to claim 18”. 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 1-24 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.
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 1 recites the broad recitation fibers, and the claim also recites preferably carbon fibers. 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.
This carries through to all dependent claims, even claim 17, which recites a requirement for carbon but still includes the preferably language from claim 1,
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 6 recites the broad recitation a surface texturization, and the claim also recites preferably said textured surface has a RA between 3 and 30 micrometers according to the norm ISO 4287:19978 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.
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 11 recites the broad recitation a joining at the time of formation of the rotor blade, and the claim also recites preferably through infusion, and/or thermoplastic adhesive 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "optional calendaring" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13, as it depends from claim 12, carries this feature forward.
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 19 recites the broad recitation fibers, and the claim also recites preferably carbon fibers. 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.
Claims 20 and 21 depend from claim 19 and thus carry this feature forward.
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) 1-5, 7-9, 16-19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0095978 to Rodwell et al. (R1) in view of US 2024/0001631 to Yokota et al. (Y1).
In Re Claim 1:
R1 teaches:
A method for producing a spar cap(Fig. 3, 20, 22) for a rotor blade (Fig. 1, 16) of a wind turbine (14), said method comprising the steps of:
Providing a plurality of pultruded planks, (Fig. 5, 42), said pultruded planks being a thermoplastic composite comprising a polymeric matrix including (meth)acrylic polymers and fibers; [Page 4, ¶46-49 not carbon fibers, glass fibers, and thermoplastics such as acrylics, PMMA (poly methyl methacrylate), or ethyl-methyl acrylate as the polymeric resin matrix.]
Stacking the pultruded planks into a pre-spar cap shape; and [Fig. 3-8 show stacks of the planks forming the spar.]
Joining the staked pultruded planks in order to produce the spar cap. [Page 4, ¶50-52 not joining the members into a spar cap.]
R1 does not teach:
The step of forming the pultruded planks includes the polymeric meth acrylic polymeric matrix is 45% or less in volume of the plank and the fibers are 55% or more.
Y1 teaches:
When forming a linear object of pultruded material with resin and fiber reinforcement to produce a desirable degree of strength and resistance, it is known to use fibers such as glass or carbon fiber, and the resin can be an acrylic based thermoplastic resin, [Page 3, ¶38-42.] Further wherein the pultruded product contains fibers in a volume ratio of 25-75% and resin in a volume ratio of 30 to 75%. [Claim 4. Further per Page 2, ¶32 notes the planks are formed from a sheet with resin in the above range, and as no more resin is added this is also the final volume ratio in the product as more clearly expressed in the claims.] such are suitable for a wind turbine. [Page 7, ¶98.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 which is silent as to the particular fiber and acrylic and ratios for forming the pultruded planks, to utilize the expressed method of Y1 for selecting a ratio of fiber and thermoplastic matrix for ease of formation and with an expectation of successfully meeting a wind turbines structural needs. [Page 3. ¶38-42. Claim 4, and Page 1, ¶18 to the use for faster formation and improved production.] This would yield a range of values for fibers and polymeric matrix which includes values which correspond to Applicant’s range.
In Re Claims 2-5, 7-9, 16-19, and 21-24:
R1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The method of forming a spar cap according to claim 1, wherein:
(Claim 2) said pultruded planks being a thermoplastic composite comprising 35% or less in volume of a polymeric matrix including (meth)acrylic polymers, and at least 65% in volume of fibers. [Examiner refers to claim 1 citations of the fiber and matrix material in both R1 and Y1, and further citations to Y1, Claim 4 and Page 2, ¶32 with regards to the ratio of volumes including values which correspond to those in claim 2.]
(Claim 3) said pultruded planks being a thermoplastic composite comprising at least 25% in volume of a polymeric matrix including (meth)acrylic polymers, and at most 75% in volume of fibers. [Examiner refers to claim 1 citations of the fiber and matrix material in both R1 and Y1, and further citations to Y1, Claim 4 and Page 2, ¶32 with regards to the ratio of volumes including values which correspond to those in claim 2.]
(Claim 4) said pultruded planks being a thermoplastic composite comprising between 25% and 45% in volume of a polymeric matrix including (meth)acrylic polymers, and at least 55% and 75% in volume of fibers. [Examiner refers to claim 1 citations of the fiber and matrix material in both R1 and Y1, and further citations to Y1, Claim 4 and Page 2, ¶32 with regards to the ratio of volumes including values which correspond to those in claim 2.]
(Claim 5) said pultruded planks being a thermoplastic composite comprising between 30% and 35% in volume of a polymeric matrix including (meth)acrylic polymers, and at least 65% and 70% in volume of fibers. [Examiner refers to claim 1 citations of the fiber and matrix material in both R1 and Y1, and further citations to Y1, Claim 4 and Page 2, ¶32 with regards to the ratio of volumes including values which correspond to those in claim 2.]
claim 2.]
(Claim 7) the pultruded planks have thickness from 2mm to 8mm. [Y1, Page 2, ¶33 notes the bars and pultruded forms can have a thickness of 1 mm to 10 mm, in a rectangular shape.]
(Claim 8) further comprises a step for providing a plurality of interlayers. (R1, Fig. 5-7, 54a-58a, 70.). [R1 notes the planks can be interlayered as discussed in Page 5, ¶66.]
(Claim 9) said stacking step further comprises a thermoforming step. [R1, Page 5, ¶59 notes the interlayered and stacked pultruded elements can be thermoformed into a final product. Page 4, ¶46 notes the pultruded elements being stacked can be formed by thermoforming.]
(Claim 16) the fibers are glass fibers. [R1, Page 4, ¶47 notes glass fibers, Y1, Page 3, ¶39 notes glass fibers.]
(Claim 17) the fibers are carbon fibers. [R1, Page 4, ¶47 notes carbon fibers, Y1, Page 3, ¶39 notes carbon fibers.]
(Claim 18) a Spar cap(R1, Fig. 4, 20) for wind turbine obtainable by a method according to claim 1. [R1 Page 4, ¶51 notes a spar cap formed by the method.]
(Claim 19) A spar cap according to claim 18, wherein, a plurality of pultruded planks(R1, Fig. 5, 42) said pultruded planks being a thermoplastic composite comprising 45% or less in volume of ap polymeric matrix including (meth) acrylic polymers, and at least 55% in volume of fibers, a plurality may correspond to at least two. [R1, Fig. 5 shows at least three pultruded planks. See Y2 citations Page 3, ¶32 and claim 4 for citations of volume values that fall within the claimed range.]
(Claim 21) the pultruded planks may be separated by one or more interlayers (R1, Fig. 5-7, 54a-58b, 70). [R1 notes the planks can be interlayered as discussed in Page 5, ¶66.]
(Claim 22) A rotor blade(R1, Fig. 1-3, 16) comprising a spar cap according to the claim 18. [See R1 Figure 1, Abstract, and Title.]
(Claim 23) A wind turbine(R1, Fig. 1, 10) comprising a spar cap according to claim 18. [See R1 Title and Fig. 1.]
(Claim 24) A method for producing a rotor blade comprising a spar cap according to the claim 18, the method comprising associating the spar cap(R1, Fig. 3, 20) with a shell(34, 36) and a shear web(24) and joining them through gluing, welding, or infusion. [R1 Page 4, ¶51 cites vacuum infusion, or adhesive (infusion or gluing) or any other suitable joining method. Page 5, ¶57-59note this joining can be to other parts of the blade as well as shear web to spar.]
Claim(s) 6, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 and Y1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 3,711,935 to Girolamo et al. (G1).
In Re Claim 6:
R1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
Method for producing a spar cap according to claim 1, wherein there are pultruded planks.
R1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
A surface texturization to the pultruded planks.
G1 teaches:
When forming pultruded elements it is known to apply a roughening to the surface of the materials can improve the adhesion/bonding of the elements, increase surface quality, and remove a need for peel ply, by improving stackability of the planks, and prevents the dangers of forgetting a removal of a peel ply during final product formation. [Col. 4, ¶20 – Col. 6, ¶26.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 such that the pultruded plank surfaces were exposed to a surface treatment and did not utilize a peel ply, as taught by G1, with the expectation of successfully improving the adhesion/bonding of the pultruded elements, increase surface quality, and remove a need for peel ply, by improving stackability of the planks, and prevents the dangers of forgetting a removal of a peel ply during final product formation. [Col. 4, ¶20 – Col. 6, ¶26.] This would yield the imitation of a surface texturization applied to the pultruded planks.
In Re Claim 14:
R1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
Method for producing a spar cap according to claim 1, wherein there are pultruded planks.
R1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
A surface texturization to the pultruded planks.
G1 teaches:
When forming pultruded elements it is known to apply a roughening to the surface of the materials can improve the adhesion/bonding of the elements, increase surface quality, and remove a need for peel ply, by improving stackability of the planks, and prevents the dangers of forgetting a removal of a peel ply during final product formation. [Col. 4, ¶20 – Col. 6, ¶26.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 such that the pultruded plank surfaces were exposed to a surface treatment and did not utilize a peel ply, as taught by G1, with the expectation of successfully improving the adhesion/bonding of the pultruded elements, increase surface quality, and remove a need for peel ply, by improving stackability of the planks, and prevents the dangers of forgetting a removal of a peel ply during final product formation. [Col. 4, ¶20 – Col. 6, ¶26.] This would yield the imitation of a surface texturization applied to the pultruded planks.
In Re Claim 15:
R1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
Method for producing a spar cap according to claim 1, wherein there are pultruded planks.
R1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
The pultruded planks do not comprise a peel-ply.
G1 teaches:
When forming pultruded elements it is known to apply a roughening to the surface of the materials can improve the adhesion/bonding of the elements, increase surface quality, and remove a need for peel ply, by improving stackability of the planks, and prevents the dangers of forgetting a removal of a peel ply during final product formation. [Col. 4, ¶20 – Col. 6, ¶26.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 such that the pultruded plank surfaces were exposed to a surface treatment and did not utilize a peel ply, as taught by G1, with the expectation of successfully improving the adhesion/bonding of the pultruded elements, increase surface quality, and remove a need for peel ply, by improving stackability of the planks, and prevents the dangers of forgetting a removal of a peel ply during final product formation. [Col. 4, ¶20 – Col. 6, ¶26.] This would yield the imitation of the pultruded planks do not comprises a peel-ply.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 and Y1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0263657 to Badger et al. (B1) and US 2017/0080648 to Tobin et al. (T1).
In Re Claim 10:
R1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The method for producing a spar cap according to claim 1 wherein in there is a joining step either of the spar ends to a shear web to form a combined spar cap, or binding the spar cap planks, and shear web, and the blade together as one. [R1, Page 4, ¶51 – Page 6,¶68, In particular Page 4, ¶51 notes joining the pultruded members to form the spar cap via vacuum infusion though is silent to a mold, it does note forming with the webs, i.e. a box beam spar. Page 5, ¶58 notes the spar caps and shear web can form the final spar as unitary or multi element components. And instead the multi joint interface can be used for example to combine other elements to the blade itself using the similar joining methods..]
R1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
Explicit recitation of a spar cap mold for the joining.
B1 teaches:
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the method of assembling the final blade in the art would know to use a b lade mould in which the blade elements and spar elements can be laid up for final formation. In particular wherein the formation can be of pultruded planks (Fig. 1, 18) individually prior to a final joining with the rest of the blade in the mold, or alternatively the spar cap of stacks can be pre-assembled, i.e. pre joined. These are two methods of ensuring the assembly of the structure with the advantages of including foil or other lighting protective layers around the conductive spar elements and others. [Page 1, ¶8-14] while using a known in the art method of performing vacuum infusion via molding. [Page 3, ¶38-41.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 which is silent as to structure for achieving the vacuum infusion forming process, to use a blade mould and vacuum infusion process, wherein the stacked pultruded elements are pre-formed and joined as taught by B1, with the expectation of providing a known in the art method for performing the required vacuum infusion required by R1, while granting the ability to apply a convective lightning current protection to the final blade, as opposed to the method of R1 which is silent as to the process/use of a mold, with an expectation of success. This would yield the limitation of the prefabrication spar elements joined in a mold by vacuum infusion to the blade.
R1 as modified thus far does not teach:
The preformed spar cap elements were formed in a mold.
T1 teaches:
It is known when forming stacks of pultruded planks(Fig. 12, 100) to use a mold(Fig. 15-16, 304, 306) for thermoplastic plank formation to improve the curvature of the planks to correspond to the curvature of the blade surface for improved performance. [Page 6, ¶58 – Page 7, ¶71 Page 1-2, ¶8-14.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 and B1, such that the preformed pultruded planks were pre-formed in a mold as taught by T1 with the expectation of providing a curvature to the planks to accommodate the blade curvature shell in a more improved manner prior to final blade formation, [Page 6, ¶58- Page 7, ¶71 and Pages 1-2, ¶8-14.] This would yield the joining step is conducted in a spar cap mold.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 and Y1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of B1.
In Re Claim 10:
R1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The method for producing a spar cap according to claim 1 wherein in there is a joining step either of the spar ends to a shear web to form a combined spar cap, or binding the spar cap planks, and shear web, and the blade together as one. [R1, Page 4, ¶51 – Page 6,¶68, In particular Page 4, ¶51 notes joining the pultruded members to form the spar cap via vacuum infusion though is silent to a mold, it does note forming with the webs, i.e. a box beam spar. Page 5, ¶58 notes the spar caps and shear web can form the final spar as unitary or multi element components. And instead the multi joint interface can be used for example to combine other elements to the blade itself using the similar joining methods..]
R1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
Explicit recitation of a rotor blade mold.
B1 teaches:
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the method of assembling the final blade in the art would know to use a b lade mould in which the blade elements and spar elements can be laid up for final formation. In particular wherein the formation can be of pultruded planks (Fig. 1, 18) individually prior to a final joining with the rest of the blade in the mold, or alternatively the spar cap of stacks can be pre-assembled, i.e. pre joined. These are two methods of ensuring the assembly of the structure with the advantages of including foil or other lighting protective layers around the conductive spar elements and others. [Page 1, ¶8-14] while using a known in the art method of performing vacuum infusion via molding. [Page 3, ¶38-41.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 which is silent as to structure for achieving the vacuum infusion forming process, to use a blade mould and vacuum infusion process, wherein the stacked pultruded elements are added to the blade and joined during the final blade vacuum infusion joining in the mold as taught by B1, with the expectation of providing a known in the art method for performing the required vacuum infusion required by R1, while granting the ability to apply a convective lightning current protection to the final blade, as opposed to the method of R1 which is silent as to the process/use of a mold, with an expectation of success. This would yield the limitation of the stacked planks joined in the rotor blade mold of B1 with the rest of the blade elements.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 and Y1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 5,324,563 to Rogers et al. (R2) and US 4,883,552 to O’Connor et al. (C1).
In Re Claim 12:
R1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The Method for producing a spar cap according to claim 1, wherein the step of providing a plurality of pultruded planks comprises the following steps:
Providing fibers [See rejection of claim 1 citations to R1 and Y1, noting fibers in the formation of the pultruded planks.]
Impregnating the fibers with a polymeric resin comprising a polymeric matrix including (meth)acrylic polymers. [See rejection of claim 1 citations to R1 and Y1 noting the PMMA in particular meth acrylic polymer resin forming an impregnation matrix with the fibers.]
Heating the impregnated fibers; [R1, Page 4, ¶46 notes pultrusion including fibers, impregnation, and heating. Y1, Page 3, ¶44-48 notes feeding heating molding, cooling and pulling steps forming the planks.]
Cooling the heated composite, [Y1, Page 3, ¶44-48 notes feeding heating molding, cooling and pulling steps forming the planks.]
Pull out the pultruded planks. [R1, Page 4, ¶46 notes pulling the pultruded elements. Y1, Page 3, ¶44-48 notes feeding heating molding, cooling and pulling steps forming the planks.]
R1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
Using rovings.
R2 teaches:
When forming pultrusions, it is possible to form the pultrusions from rovings of carbon fibers, with a resin through pultrusion in the formation of rods, from rovings, using a reason volume by of the pultruded element of 10-50% allowing a fiber volume of 50-90% as a suitable alternative known in the art method of forming pultruded high strength elements. [Col. 8, 7, line 43 – Col. 9, line 39.]
C1 teaches:
When using rovings in the formation of pultruded objects with fiber and thermoplastics, [Col. 4, line 39 – Col. 5, line 22] it is known they can form planks or bar as alternatives to rods. [Col. 2, line 11 – Col. 4, line 28.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1, with the teachings of R2 and C1, which identify a known in the art manner using rovings to achieve similar desirable ratios of fabric and resin as with Y1 via the teachings of R2, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize such as suitable for making bars and planks from roving, as taught by C1, this would provide a known in the art alternative method of forming the desired ratios from rovings, rather than tows or sheets as broadly disclosed under Y1, given Rovings to form planks are a known in the art established alternative to tows and sheets, which would perform with an expectation of success to meet the same claimed volume ratios required for claim 1. This would yield the limitation of providing rovings.
In Re Claim 13:
R1 as modified in claim 12 teaches:
A heating step for producing the spar cap between 40 and 140 degrees Celsius. [See citations to R1 under claim 1, and in particular Page 4, ¶46, and citations to R2 and C1, with regards to pultrusion processes which include heating. And the use of PMMA. Examiner takes official notice that the glass transition softening point of PMMA can include values between 40 and 140 degrees Celsius, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need to turn a solid resin into its glass transition phase to integrate it into a melt matrix with the fiber.]
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1, Y1, R2, and B1 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of US 2020/0018283 to Boszak et al. (B2)
In Re Claim 13:
R1 as modified in claim 12 teaches:
A heating step for producing the spar cap. [See citations to R1 under claim 1, and in particular Page 4, ¶46, and citations to R2 and C1, with regards to pultrusion processes which include heating.]
R1 as modified in claim 12 is silent as to:
The explicit heating temperature.
R1 further teaches:
The resin being heated is PMMA. [Page 4, ¶49.]
B2 teaches:
The glass transition temperature for melting points of PMMA of between 50 and 160 degrees or between 70 and 140 degrees or between 90 and 120 degrees Celsius. [Page 4, ¶65.] That these recognized composite PMMA matrix resins are suitable for composite wind turbine structures. [Page 7, ¶110-111, Claims 7 and 31.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 to utilize the particular PMMA matrix of B2 noted as a suitable PMMA for wind turbine composite structures, in particular at the heating values of less than 140 degrees and above 50 degrees as taught by B2, with the expectation of providing a known in the art variant of PMMA which would perform with an expectation of success as a substitute for the art recognized broader PMMA used for wind turbine composites of R1. This would yield the limitation of the resin being heated in values which correspond to and fall within the range of 50 to 70 degrees Celsius.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R1 and Y1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of G1 and JP 4,290,264 B2 to Nogami (N1).
[N1 citation made to machine translation submitted with first Non-final in the IFW.]
In Re Claim 20:
R1 as modified in claim 1 teaches:
The spar cap according to claim 18, wherein there are pultruded planks. [See Claim 18.]
R1 as modified in claim 1 is silent as to:
A surface texturization to the pultruded planks. Said surface roughness RA between 3 and 30 micrometers to the norm ISO 4287:1997.
G1 teaches:
When forming pultruded elements it is known to apply a roughening to the surface of the materials can improve the adhesion/bonding of the elements, increase surface quality, and remove a need for peel ply, by improving stackability of the planks, and prevents the dangers of forgetting a removal of a peel ply during final product formation. [Col. 4, ¶20 – Col. 6, ¶26.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of R1 such that the pultruded plank surfaces were exposed to a surface treatment and did not utilize a peel ply, as taught by G1, with the expectation of successfully improving the adhesion/bonding of the pultruded elements, increase surface quality, and remove a need for peel ply, by improving stackability of the planks, and prevents the dangers of forgetting a removal of a peel ply during final product formation. [Col. 4, ¶20 – Col. 6, ¶26.] This would yield the imitation of a surface texturization applied to the pultruded planks.
R1 as modified thus far does not teach:
Said surface roughness RA between 3 and 30 micrometers to the norm ISO 4287:1997.
N1 teaches:
High rigidity structural materials with good mechanical strength. [Page 1, ¶2.] To improve adhesiveness, a surface treatment of centerline average roughness (RA) in accordance with JIS B 0601 of preferably 0.5 micrometers or more is desired. [Page 5-6 ¶32-35] This is applicable to the pultruded elements, can result in such surface roughness for example of 2 micrometers. [Page 20-22, ¶110-22.]
G1 and N1 teach:
That surface roughness is a results-effective variable, which can improve adhesion in pultruded objects, and stackability. [See citations of G1 and N1 above.] Thus surface roughness Ra of for example greater than 0.5 micrometers meets the requirement of a results effective variable In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977), MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Based on the teachings above that the Ra is a result effective variable based on the desired result of adhesion, and thus the Ra would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time the invention to design the pultrude planks with surface roughness via G1, to meet the claimed feature of a surface roughness between 3 and 30 micro meters according to the norm established, in particular given the norm of JIS B 0601 of 0.5 or greater micrometers was established in N1, [Examiner takes official notice that JIS B 0601 corresponds to the ISO of 2013, but includes the general same Ra values as those of the ISO to 1997]. It has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP §2144.05(II)(A). This would yield the limitation of a surface roughness of between 3 and 30 micrometers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0271596 to Jorgensen et al. teaches using pultruded planks(Fig. 5, 42 joined either before or during a step of adding them into a blade mold(Fig. 6 A-K, 70.] US 2021/0024784 to Baldini et al. teaches pultruded plates(Fig. 8, in carbon fiber structures and resin composites and spars, wherein the volume of carbon fibers to thermoplastic resins corresponds to the claimed range in claim 1 of the instant application. [Page 6, ¶118-124.] WO 2021/245225 to Merzhaeuser teaches pultruded strips receiving a surface treatment for roughness for improved adhesion when placing them in a mold for joining and formation of a wind turbine blade or spar cap mould as a sperate alternative. [Page 8, ll. 7-19.]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-9968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Nathaniel 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.
/JOSHUA R BEEBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
