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 .
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 12, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains reference and reference numerals to the drawings. It additionally does not appear to be a single paragraph in narrative form. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, Line 2 recites “Ruthenium-“. It is unclear if the dash “-“ is grammatically necessary.
Claim 5, Line 2 recites “compris-ing”. It is unclear why the word is split into two portions.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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(s) 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(s) is/are:
Claim 10, Line 2, “mechanical means” modified by the function of being configured for “mechanically connecting”. The means are interpreted to be screws, bolts, rivets, dovetail joints, or equivalents thereof as exemplified on Pg. 7, Lines 19-22 of the Specification filed March 12, 2025.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding Claim 7, Line 3 recites “in particular a bottommost layup portion”. 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, the claim recites the broad recitation “at least one lay-up portion”, and the claim also recites “in particular a bottommost layup portion” 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.
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, 8-9, 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiesura et al. (EP 3747639 A1), hereinafter Chiesura. Note a copy of Chiesura was provided with the IDS of March 12, 2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 4-6 of Chiesura disclose a method for manufacturing a structural element of a wind turbine blade (3), the method comprising: arranging a first segment (20) of the structural element and a second segment (24) of the structural element adjacent to each other (S2, [0065]); arranging a joining portion (8) between the first segment (20) and the second segment (24), wherein the joining portion (8) is made of or comprises a fibre lay-up (12, 13, [0067, 0073]); encapsulating the joining portion (8) and, at least partially, the adjacent segments (20, 24) in a vacuum bag (19 or 38, S4 [0074]); applying vacuum to the vacuum bag (19 or 38) for pulling together the first segment (20) and the second segment (24) and the joining portion (8) (S5, [0074-0075]); infiltrating the fibre lay-up (12, 13) with a polyurethane resin (43) [0075]; curing of resin (43) [0075].
Regarding Claim 8, Chiesura discloses the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Chiesura discloses wherein the lay-up (12, 13) is made of or comprises at least one of glass fibers, carbon fibers, aramid fibers, or natural fibers [0044].
Regarding Claim 9, Chiesura discloses the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 4-6 disclose wherein at least one of the first segment (20) and the second segment (4) has a tapered region (32, 33, 34, 35) forming a recess for accommodating, at least partially, the joining portion (8).
Regarding Claim 11, Chiesura discloses the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 4-6 of Chiesura disclose wherein at least one of the first segment (20) and the second segment (24) is a spar web cap. Paragraph [0072-0073] describe the portions of the segments (28, 29, 30, 31) as beams, i.e. the spar web caps.
Regarding Claim 12, Chiesura discloses the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 4-6 of Chiesura disclose wherein at least one of the first segment (20) and the second segment (24) is a spar web element. Paragraph [0072-0073] describe the portions of the segments (28, 29, 30, 31) as beams, i.e. spar web elements. Figures 15-16 also demonstrate a web joint [0086].
Regarding Claim 13, Chiesura discloses the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 4-6 of Chiesura disclose wherein the first segment (20) is a turbine blade inboard part or a segment thereof and the second segment (24) is a turbine blade outboard part or a segment thereof [0065, 0071].
Regarding Claim 14, Chiesura discloses the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 4-6 of Chiesura disclose wherein the joining portion (8) is arranged in a cavity defined by the first segment (20) and the second segment (24) when placed adjacent to each other. See also paragraph [0007] discussing joining within the blade cavity.
Regarding Claim 15, Chiesura discloses the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1, 4-6 of Chiesura disclose a wind turbine blade (3) comprising at least one structural element manufactured according to the method [0001].
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiesura in view of Corral et al. (US 2014/0147688 A1), hereinafter Corral.
Regarding Claim 2, Chiesura teaches the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Chiesura does not expressly teach wherein a catalyst is admixed to the of one or both resins prior to infiltrating the fibre lay-up as claimed. However, a catalyst would have been obvious in view of Corral.
Corral teaches that ring-opening metathesis polymerization resin is attractive for vacuum-assisted resin mold transfer techniques. However, there are known challenges which Corral seeks to address [0005-0007]. Note the applicability to wind turbine blades [0026]. Thus, Corral exemplifies a known resin for use in turbine blades, to which one of ordinary skill would simply substitute to predictably result in a properly manufactured blade. Corral teaches the use of an olefin metathesis catalyst to assist with the resin. Particularly, one example is an organometallic catalyst comprising Ruthenium or Osmium [0119-0129]. As noted in paragraph [0129] the known purpose of a catalyst is to be useful in reactions. Note that catalysts are to be admixed prior to infiltration so that the mixture may be poured, as it would not be feasible to mix in the lay ups (see Examples 1-8 in paragraphs [0230-0237]).
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 method taught by Chiesura by simply substituting the resin for a ring-opening metathesis polymerization resin as exemplified by Corral, predictable resulting in a properly manufactured turbine blade. It would also have been obvious to modify such that a catalyst is admixed to the of one or both resins prior to infiltrating the fibre lay-up as suggested by Corral, to provide the benefit of improving the reactions for the resin.
Regarding Claim 3, Chiesura and Corral teach the method as set forth in Claim 2.
The modification in Claim 2 by Corral results wherein an organo-metallic based catalyst is used, as exemplified in paragraphs [0119-0129] of Corral.
Regarding Claim 4, Chiesura and Corral teach the method as set forth in Claim 3.
The modification in Claim 2 by Corral results wherein the organo-metallic based catalyst is at least one of a Ruthenium and/or an Osmium based catalyst, as exemplified in paragraphs [0119-0129] of Corral.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiesura in view of Sorondo Zabala et al. (US 2014/0010961 A1), hereinafter Sorondo.
Regarding Claim 5, Chiesura teaches the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Chiesura does not expressly teach applying a protection layer to the joining portion after curing of the one or both resins. However, a protection layer would have been obvious in view of Chiesura.
Figure 1b of Chiesura teaches a wind turbine blade with a protection layer (see shaded portion) applied over the entire blade (11) [0019, 0039-041]. The result is a blade which is resistant to both erosion and ice [0013]. Note that the disclosure of Sorondo is related to the modification of an already manufactured wind turbine blade, such as noted in paragraph [0024]. Thus, it would be applied to a “finished” blade when in light of the combination, i.e. after curing of resins. The whole blade would include the joining portion.
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 method taught by Chiesura with the step of applying a protection layer to the joining portion after curing of the one or both resins as suggested by Sorondo, to provide the benefit of providing erosion and ice resistance to the blade.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiesura in view of Dobbe et al. (US 2017/0122287 A1), hereinafter Dobbe.
Regarding Claim 6, Chiesura teaches the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Chiesura does not expressly teach wherein between the joining portion and at least one of the first segment and the second segment a spacer is placed for spacing the joining portion and the at least one of the first segment and the second segment from each other as claimed. However, a spacer would have been obvious in view of Dobbe.
Figure 23 of Dobbe teaches a method of manufacture wherein between the joining portion (540) and at least one of the first segment (510) and the second segment (520) a spacer (see rectangles, believed to be 546) is placed for spacing the joining portion (540) and the at least one of the first segment (510) and the second segment (520) from each other. The spacers help provide a correct bondline thickness for the flow of adhesive or resin [0145, 0165].
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 method taught by Chiesura such that wherein between the joining portion and at least one of the first segment and the second segment a spacer is placed for spacing the joining portion and the at least one of the first segment and the second segment from each other as suggested by Dobbe, to provide the benefit of providing an appropriate bondline thickness for resin to flow between the parts when joining.
Claim 7, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiesura in view of Shimono et al. (US 2021/0039341 A1), hereinafter Shimono.
Regarding Claim 7, Chiesura teaches the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 6 of Chiesura teaches wherein the layup (12, 13) comprises several lay-up portions (see 12, 13 composed of layers), a tapering ratio is defined as a ratio between a length (left to right with respect to view of Figure 6) of a scarf portion (see tapering slant portion) of the lay-up and the thickness (up to down with respect to view) of the lay-up.
Chiesura does not expressly teach wherein a tapering ratio of at least one lay-up portion, in particular the bottommost layup portion, is less than 30:1 as claimed. However, such a tapering ratio would have been obvious in view of Shimono.
Figures 1-4 of Shimono teach a method of joining a layup (11) to a scarfed portion (6). A tapering ratio of at least one lay-up portion, in particular the bottommost layup portion, is less than 30:1. This improves the strength of the portion in which the layup (11) is attached [0038-0039]. Thus, Shimono provides evidence that the tapering ratio for layups having scarf joints is a results-effective variable. One of ordinary skill would routinely optimize such a tapering ratio such that a desired strength is achieved (see MPEP 2144.05, II regarding routine optimization).
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 method taught by Chiesura such that a tapering ratio of at least one lay-up portion, in particular the bottommost layup portion, is less than 30:1 as evidenced by Shimono, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the tapering ratio so that a desired strength is attained.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiesura in view of Fredskild et al. (US 2013/0126089 A1), hereinafter Fredskild.
Regarding Claim 10, interpreting “mechanical means” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Chiesura teaches the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Chiesura does not expressly teach a step of mechanically connecting by means of mechanical means at least two of the first segment, the second segment and the joining portion before the fibre lay-up is infiltrated with resin or resins as claimed. However, a mechanical means would have been obvious in view of Fredskild.
Figure 7 of Freskild teaches a method of manufacture with a step of mechanically connecting by means of mechanical means (29) the segment (15) and the joining portion (20) before the fibre lay-up is infiltrated with resin or resins. The mechanical means (29) helps assist in fitting the parts together [0099].
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 method taught by Chiesura with a step of mechanically connecting by means of mechanical means at least two of the first segment, the second segment and the joining portion before the fibre lay-up is infiltrated with resin or resins as suggested by Freskild, to provide the benefit of assisting fitting the segments and portion together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
