DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 15 September 2026.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The invention relates,” etc.. 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 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 3 recites “corelayer” instead of “core-layer”.
Claim 5 recites “corelayer” (twice) instead of “core-layer”.
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 3-6 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 3 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) which 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 3 recites the broad recitation “arranged in a materially cohesive manner”, and the claim also recites “in particular adhesively” 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 4 recites “a plurality of shrinkage sections … a plurality of holding sections” and depends from claim 1 which recites “at least one shrinkage section … at least one holding section”; it is not clear if “a plurality of shrinkage sections … a plurality of holding sections” include “at least one shrinkage section … at least one holding section” or are different and additional.
Claim 5 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) which 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 5 recites the broad recitation “a retaining layer” (twice), and the claim also recites “in particular a textile layer” (twice) 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 6 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) which 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 “the core-layer body has a density between 0.02 and 0.70 g/cm3”, and the claim also recites “in particular the core-layer body is made of balsa wood” 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.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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) 1-5 and 7 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hurup/Chiesura et al – hereafter Hurup – (WO 2020244902 A1; US 12,152,561 B2; US 20220228553 A1 is being used for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Hurup teaches a core-layer body for a connecting member (Fig.15) for connecting a first part of a wind turbine blade along an extension direction of the wind turbine blade to a second part of the wind turbine blade (Fig.5), wherein the core-layer body comprises:
- in at least one shrinkage section (Annotated Fig.2) of the core-layer body a plurality of grooves (Fig.15, 16; note ¶86, “fiber lay-up 16 for the web joint comprises both fibers in dry condition as well as pre-casted fibers”, said fibers configuration creates grooves), wherein the grooves are arranged and configured from a first plate side of the core-layer body in a direction toward a second plate side different from the first plate side such that the core-layer body is bendable in a first bending direction (Annotated Fig.2),
- in at least one holding section (Annotated Fig.2) different from the at least one shrinkage section a plurality of grooves (Fig.15, 16; note ¶86, “fiber lay-up 16 for the web joint comprises both fibers in dry condition as well as pre-casted fibers”, said fibers configuration creates grooves), wherein the grooves are arranged and configured from the second plate side of the core-layer body in a direction towards the first plate side such that the core-layer body is bendable in a second bending direction different from the first bending direction (Annotated Fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
421
548
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hurup further teaches the core-layer body is formed in one piece (Annotated Fig.2; note 9/10/11 are joined as one piece when assembled).
Regarding claim 3, Hurup further teaches the at least one shrinkage section of the core-layer body is arranged in a materially cohesive manner, in particular adhesively, on the at least one holding section of the core-layer body (¶101, note infused resin embedding fibers 16).
Regarding claim 4, Hurup further teaches the core-layer body has a plurality of shrinkage sections and/or a plurality of holding sections (Annotated Fig.2) .
Regarding claim 5, Hurup further teaches in the at least one shrinkage section of the core-layer body on the second plate side of the core-layer body, at least in sections, a retaining layer (Fig.15, 8/16/49; ¶112-113), [[in particular a textile layer]], is arranged for holding the core-layer body together in the at least one shrinkage section and/or that in the at least one holding section of the core-layer body on the first plate side of the core-layer body, at least in sections, a retaining layer (Fig.15, 8/16/49; ¶112-113), [[in particular a textile layer]], is arranged for holding the core-layer body together in the at least one holding section.
Regarding claim 7, Hurup further teaches a first groove direction of the plurality of grooves arranged in the at least one shrinkage section of the core-layer body is parallel or substantially parallel to a second groove direction of the plurality of grooves arranged in the at least one holding section of the core-layer body (Annotated Fig.2 & Fig.15; note cross hatchings are oriented similarly across the whole core-layer body) .
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 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hurup.
Regarding claim 6, Hurup teaches all the limitations of claim 1, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the core-layer body has a density between 0.02 and 0.70 g/cm3, [[wherein in particular the core-layer body is made of balsa wood]].
However, it is noted that it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Note that in the current instance applicant has disclosed that the claimed density provides a material that is light in terms of weight, Hurup’s disclosed fiber lay-up is also considered a material that is light in terms of weight in the art, therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the core-layer body of Hurup where the core-layer body has a density between 0.02 and 0.70 g/cm3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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 E 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
