Election/Restrictions
Claims 3 and 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 29 May 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (FIG. 5a-5b) in the reply filed on 29 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the amendments to the independent claim overcomes the Rojo reference. This is not found persuasive because of the new grounds of rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 29 May 2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 3 and 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-2, 4-14, and 17-20 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were considered by the Examiner.
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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
The claim language, "the number of strips in a web-supporting stack of the first spar cap is different to the number of strips in a non-web-supporting stack of the first spar cap," renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the aforementioned stacks are supposed to be the same stacks already mentioned in the claim, namely "at least one web-supporting stack and at least one non-web-supporting stack," or if an additional structure(s) is required. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to be, "[[a]] the at least one web-supporting stack of the first spar cap is different to the number of strips in [[a]] the at least one non-web-supporting stack of the first spar cap."
Regarding Claim 2:
The claim language, "a height of a web-supporting stack of the first spar cap is different to a height of a non-web-supporting stack," renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the aforementioned stacks are supposed to be the same stacks already mentioned in the claim 1 or if an additional structure(s) is required. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to be, "a height of [[a]] the at least one web-supporting stack of the first spar cap is different to a height of [[a]] the at least one non-web-supporting stack."
Regarding Claim 4:
The claim language, " wherein at the first spanwise location, a web-supporting stack of the first spar cap includes fewer strips than a non-web-supporting stack," renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the aforementioned stacks are supposed to be the same stacks already mentioned in the claim 1 or if an additional structure(s) is required. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to be, " wherein at the first spanwise location, [[a]] the at least one web-supporting stack of the first spar cap includes fewer strips than [[a]] the at least one non-web-supporting stack"
Regarding Claim 5:
The claim language, " wherein at a second spanwise location along the blade, the number of strips in a web-supporting stack of the first spar cap is the same as the number of strips in a non-web-supporting stack," renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the aforementioned stacks are supposed to be the same stacks already mentioned in the claim 1 or if an additional structure(s) is required. For purposes of examination the language is interpreted to be, " wherein at a second spanwise location along the blade, the number of strips in [[a]] the at least one web-supporting stack of the first spar cap is the same as the number of strips in [[a]] the at least one non-web-supporting stack."
Regarding claims 2-20:
Claims 2-20 are rejected by virtue of dependence on rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojo et al (US 20220341388), hereafter referred to as Rojo, in view of Corley et al (US 20180355096), hereafter referred to as Corley.
Regarding Claim 1, Rojo discloses the following:
A wind turbine blade comprising:
a blade shell (12, 13; FIG. 2) that extends longitudinally in a spanwise direction from a root end (7) to a tip end (8), and transversely in a chordwise direction between a leading edge (9) and a trailing edge (10), the blade shell (12, 13; FIG. 2) being formed from first and second opposing half shells (12, 13) of composite laminate construction;
each half shell (12, 13) comprising an inner skin (23; FIG. 3-4) on an inside of the blade shell (12, 13; FIG. 2) and an outer skin (26; FIG. 3-4) on an outside of the blade shell (12, 13; FIG. 2);
a first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) located between the inner (23) and outer skins (26; FIG. 3-4) of the first half shell (13; FIG. 2) and a second spar cap (27 in 12; FIG. 2; [0042]) located between the inner (23) and outer skins (26; FIG. 3-4) of the second half shell (12; FIG. 2), the first (27 in 13) and second spar caps (27 in 12; FIG. 2; [0042]) being mutually opposed;
wherein the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) comprises a plurality of side-by-side stacks (29-31; FIG. 3-4; [0050-51, 55-59]) of longitudinally-extending strips of reinforcing material (29, 31), the stacks (29-31; FIG. 3-4; [0050-51, 55-59]) including at least one web-supporting stack (29; FIG. 3-4) and at least one non-web-supporting stack (31; FIG. 4);
the strips of reinforcing material (29, 31) comprising the at least one web-supporting stack (29) being pultrusions (see [0056]),
the strips of reinforcing material (29, 31) comprising the least one non-web-supporting stack (31, FIG. 4) being balsa wood, foamed material, or the like ([0057]),
a shear web (16) connected between the first (27 in 13) and second spar caps (27 in 12; FIG. 2; [0042]), the shear web (16) comprising a longitudinally-extending web panel (18; [0039]) and first and second mounting flanges (19; [0039]), the first and second mounting flanges (19; [0039]) extending transversely to the web panel (18; [0039]) along respective longitudinal edges of the web panel (18; [0039]), the first mounting flange (19; [0039]) being adhesively bonded (via adhesive 24; FIG. 2-3; [0040]) to the inside of the first half shell (13; FIG. 2) in the region of the web-supporting stack(s) of the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) and the second mounting flange being adhesively bonded (via adhesive 24; FIG. 2-3; [0040]) to the inside of the second half shell (12; FIG. 2) in the region of the second spar cap (27 in 12; FIG. 2; [0042]);
wherein, at a first spanwise location along the blade, the number of strips in a web-supporting stack (29; FIG. 3-4) of the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) is different (as seen in FIG. 3-4) to the number of strips in a non-web-supporting stack (31; FIG. 4) of the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]).
Rojo does not explicitly disclose the following:
the strips of reinforcing material comprising the least one non-web-supporting stack being pultrusions,
However Corley teaches the following:
It is well known in the art to substitute balsa wood with a series of pultrusions aligned lengthwise in a desired spar cap geometrical configuration, such as shown as a series of stacked columns of rectangular cross-sectional pultrusions 406 (see FIG. 4; [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the balsa wood as disclosed by Rojo, with the pultruded stacks, as disclosed by Corley, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing a known reinforcement material substitute in wind turbine blades (see Corley, [0108]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the balsa wood of Rojo with the stacks of pultrusions of Corley yields the predictable result of providing a known reinforcement material substitute in wind turbine blades (i.e. substituting one known means to provide reinforcement for a wind turbine blade for another known means to provide reinforcement for a wind turbine). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner further notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case both Rojo and Corley disclose the aforementioned material(s) (i.e. stacks of pultrusions) are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of reinforcing wind turbine blades (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 2, Rojo as modified by Corley discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 1,
wherein at the first spanwise location, a height of a web-supporting stack (29) of the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) is different to a height of a non-web-supporting stack (406; FIG. 4 of Corley as substituted above).
Regarding Claim 4, Rojo as modified by Corley discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 1,
wherein at the first spanwise location, a web-supporting stack (29) of the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) includes fewer strips than a non-web-supporting stack (406; FIG. 4 of Corley as substituted above; it is noted, there appear to be 9 stacks shown in FIG. 4 of Corley).
Regarding Claim 10, Rojo as modified by Corley discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 1,
wherein the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) varies in thickness across its full width in the chordwise direction at the first spanwise location (it is noted, the normal manufacturing process results in a thickness within manufacturing tolerances, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness would very within said tolerances).
Regarding Claim 17, Rojo as modified by Corley discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 1,
wherein the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) includes one or more first web-supporting stacks (29-31; FIG. 3-4; [0050-51, 55-59]) supporting a first shear web (16);
one or more second web-supporting stacks (29-31; FIG. 3-4; [0050-51, 55-59]) supporting a second shear web (17); and
one or more non-web-supporting stacks (406; FIG. 4 of Corley as substituted above) arranged between the first and second web-supporting stacks (29-31; FIG. 3-4; [0050-51, 55-59]).
Regarding Claim 18, Rojo as modified by Corley discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 17,
wherein the web-supporting-stacks (29-31; FIG. 3-4; [0050-51, 55-59]) of the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]) define longitudinal edges of the first spar cap (27 in 13; FIG. 2; [0042]).
Regarding Claim 19, Rojo as modified by Corley discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 1,
wherein the first and second mounting flanges (19; [0039]) of the shear web (16) are wider than the web panel (18; [0039]) in the chordwise direction.
Regarding Claim 20, Rojo as modified by Corley discloses the following:
The wind turbine blade of Claim 1,
Rojo as modified by Corley does not disclose the following:
wherein the strips of reinforcing material have an aspect ratio of at least 10:1, where the aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the width of the strips in the chordwise direction to the thickness of the strips.
However the Examiner notes the following:
Rojo discloses a wind turbine blade having strips of reinforcing material, but is silent on the specific dimensions of the aspect ratio of the strips. In other words, Rojo discloses the same structure as the Applicant, except the relative dimensions claimed. The Instant Application has not disclosed the limitation(s) of: wherein the strips of reinforcing material have an aspect ratio of at least 10:1, where the aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the width of the strips in the chordwise direction to the thickness of the strips; provides any criticality. Note that the mere existence of these relative dimensions themselves in the claim cannot impart criticality as any strip of reinforcement material could be described in such a way. Therefore without explicit support for the relative dimensions of the claim(s) providing a critical result, it appears Rojo would perform equally well with the relative values as claimed by Applicant. Since the courts have 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,” 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 strips of reinforcement material, as disclosed by Rojo, by utilizing the specific value(s) (relative dimensions) as described above, with the reasonable expectation of successfully providing strips of reinforcement material having specific dimensions (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A).
Rojo as modified by Corley and MPEP 2144.04, IV, A discloses the following:
wherein the strips of reinforcing material (29, 31) have an aspect ratio of at least 10:1, where the aspect ratio is defined as the ratio of the width of the strips in the chordwise direction to the thickness of the strips.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 and 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In combination with the other structures required by the independent claims, the inclusion of:
Regarding Claim 5:
wherein at a second spanwise location along the blade, the number of strips in a web-supporting stack of the first spar cap is the same as the number of strips in a non-web-supporting stack;
Regarding Claim 11:
wherein the strips forming the first spar cap are arranged in a plurality of layers, and wherein the number of strips in an outermost layer adjacent the outer skin is greater than the number of strips in an innermost layer;
Regarding Claims 6-9 and 12-14:
Claims 6-9 and 12-14 are dependent upon an allowable claim(s);
was not found or fairly taught by prior art and differentiated the claims from the closest prior art to Rojo et al (US 20220341388) and Corley et al (US 20180355096).
The Examiner notes Rojo et al is considered the closest prior art and does not teach the limitations as described above. Further, it appears there would be no reason to modify the prior art without the benefit of Applicant's disclosure and impermissible hindsight.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar wind turbine blade arrangements see Page 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights