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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘830 (JP 2022/175830, quotations from machine translation attached herewith) in view of US ‘699 (U.S. PGPub 2006/0090699).
Claim 1 – JP ‘830 teaches a method for constructing a leading edge protective layer for a wind turbine blade (“FIG. 10 is a schematic configuration diagram of a wind turbine generator including a wing structure according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the blade structure 1 described above consists of a wind turbine blade 1A,”) that is provided with a protective layer at a tip portion and a leading edge portion of a wind turbine blade main body made of FRP in a blade spanwise direction (“The blade body 2 is made of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) such as carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) or glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP). As shown in FIG. 2, the blade body 2 has a thermal sprayed surface 27A covered with the erosion suppression layer 3 on a portion of the surface 27 of the blade body 2 (the outer surface of the leading edge 21). The thermal sprayed surface 27A is a surface of the surface 27 that includes at least a portion of the front edge 21 .”), the method comprising:
a first thermal spraying step of performing thermal spraying in the blade spanwise direction (“The intermediate layer 3B is provided on the thermal sprayed surface 27A of the blade body 2 . The intermediate layer 3B is formed on the sprayed surface 27A of the blade body 2 before forming the sprayed layer 3A. Like the sprayed layer 3A, the intermediate layer 3B also functions as a protective layer for protecting the blade body 2 from droplet erosion such as raindrops and dust. Intermediate layer 3B can be formed by various methods. For example, the intermediate layer 3B may be formed by thermal spraying, or the sheet-like intermediate layer 3B may be attached to the surface 27 of the blade main body 2”); and
a second thermal spraying step of performing the thermal spraying in the blade spanwise direction (“As shown in FIG. 2, the erosion suppressing layer 3 includes a thermal spray layer 3A formed on the (thermal sprayed surface 27A) of the blade body 2 by thermal spraying”).
JP ‘830 is silent as to a blade chord position changing step of performing a position change such that the thermal spraying is performed at an adjacent position adjacent to a blade chord direction of the protective layer formed in the first thermal spraying step. US ‘699 is drawn to a thermal spraying apparatus (Title) with the capacity to spray multiple materials in separate or identical locations (PG 0030), with the ability to move the spray pistol and the substrate independently and synchronously such that control of material deposition location is enabled (PG 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made or filed to have modified the invention of JP ‘830 to perform the required spraying processes using the apparatus of US ‘699, as JP ‘830 contemplates embodiments where multiple thermally sprayed materials are applied to a substrate and US ‘699 discloses an apparatus suitable for the purpose. Selection of particular movement patterns to obtain desired coating effects is held as prima facie obvious as a matter of design choice.
Claim 2 – JP ‘830 / US ‘699 renders obvious the method for constructing a leading edge protective layer for a wind turbine blade according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein in the blade chord position changing step, a position in the blade chord direction is changed from one blade surface to the other blade surface of the wind turbine blade main body via a leading edge. US ‘699 expressly discloses that the movement between substrate and spray pistol need not be strictly linear (PG 0034). Control of the movable spray pistol and movable substrate to apply coating material in a desired fashion is held as prima facie obvious as JP ‘830 desires complete coverage of the three-dimensional leading edge.
Claim 3 – JP ‘830 / US ‘699 renders obvious the method for constructing a leading edge protective layer for a wind turbine blade according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest the method further comprising: an end portion thermal spraying step of performing the thermal spraying such that a thickness of an end portion of the protective layer formed on a blade surface of the wind turbine blade main body in the blade chord direction and/or the blade spanwise direction gradually decreases toward an edge of the end portion. JP ‘830 acknowledges that damage to a wind turbine blade occurs over time (“As shown in FIG. 3, the erosion process is roughly divided into three regions (latent period T1, steady erosion speed period T2, final erosion period T3). FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram for explaining the surface of the material in the latent period shown in FIG. FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram for explaining the surface of the material in the stationary erosion rate period shown in FIG. FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram for explaining the surface of the material in the final erosion stage shown in FIG. In FIGS. 4-6, D is the droplet and 4 is the material exposed to the droplet D.”) Therefore, selection of a coating thickness sufficient to extend the life of the blade to a desired value is held as result-effective in the absence of unexpected results derived from the particular selection.
Claim 4 – JP ‘830 / US ‘699 renders obvious the method for constructing a leading edge protective layer for a wind turbine blade according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a dimension of the wind turbine blade main body in the blade spanwise direction is 80 m or more. It is settled that mere changes in size are not suitable to effect patentability; selection of the blade length is held as a prima facie obvious design choice for a particular application.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP ‘830.
Claim 5 – JP ‘830 teaches a protective layer for a wind turbine blade (“FIG. 10 is a schematic configuration diagram of a wind turbine generator including a wing structure according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, the blade structure 1 described above consists of a wind turbine blade 1A,”) that is provided with a protective layer at a tip portion and a leading edge portion of a wind turbine blade main body made of FRP in a blade spanwise direction (“The blade body 2 is made of fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) such as carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) or glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP). As shown in FIG. 2, the blade body 2 has a thermal sprayed surface 27A covered with the erosion suppression layer 3 on a portion of the surface 27 of the blade body 2 (the outer surface of the leading edge 21). The thermal sprayed surface 27A is a surface of the surface 27 that includes at least a portion of the front edge 21 .”). JP ‘830 does not expressly teach or suggest wherein a thickness of an end portion of the protective layer formed on a blade surface of the wind turbine blade main body in a blade chord direction gradually decreases toward an edge of the end portion. JP ‘830 acknowledges that damage to a wind turbine blade occurs over time (“As shown in FIG. 3, the erosion process is roughly divided into three regions (latent period T1, steady erosion speed period T2, final erosion period T3). FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram for explaining the surface of the material in the latent period shown in FIG. FIG. 5 is an explanatory diagram for explaining the surface of the material in the stationary erosion rate period shown in FIG. FIG. 6 is an explanatory diagram for explaining the surface of the material in the final erosion stage shown in FIG. In FIGS. 4-6, D is the droplet and 4 is the material exposed to the droplet D.”) Therefore, selection of a coating thickness profile sufficient to extend the life of the blade to a desired value is held as result-effective in the absence of unexpected results derived from the particular selection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL G MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL G MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights