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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 02/27/2026. Claims 1, 3-11, 13-14 and 16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner contends that while claims 1 and 14 have been amended to include allowable subject matter, the limitations are presented in the alternative to limitations taught by the prior art. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 do not define over the prior art. See rejection to follow.
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, 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 6,966,758 to Grabau et al. (Grabau).
In Reference to Claim 1
Grabau discloses a wind turbine rotor blade (abstract and Fig. 1, 10 for instance) comprising:
a blade body having a shape that generates a lift when impacted by an incident airflow (an airfoil shape for instance), wherein the blade body comprises a pressure side (2) and a suction side (1) joining at a leading edge (left edge of 10 for instance, not labeled), and a trailing edge (right end of 10 for instance, not 4, not labeled); and
a chord extension system (4 for instance) mechanically coupled with the trailing edge (as seen at left side of figure 1), the chord extension system configured to enhance an aerodynamic performance of the wind turbine rotor blade (col 2, ll 15-19, such a changing the lift of the blade for instance);
wherein the chord extension system comprises a flat plate (as seen in figure 6 for instance) or a serration (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative),
wherein the chord extension system comprises a multi-layer composite body (col 2, ll 11-13 and col 3, ll 50-60, a laminate structure for instance) comprising:
a first composite layer (col 3, ll 50-60, a layer of fiberglass reinforced epoxy for instance) having a first elasticity parameter (inherently of fiberglass reinforced composites for instance, as further evident by Fiber Reinforced Polymers Characteristics and Behaviors, first table and elastic modulus for instance); and
a second composite layer (col 2, ll 24-30 and col 3, ll 50-60, a layer of caron fiber or aramid fiber reinforced epoxy for instance) mechanically coupled with the first composite layer (as formed as one laminate for instance), the second composite layer having a second elasticity parameter (inherently of carbon or aramid fiber reinforced composites for instance, as further evident by Fiber Reinforced Polymers Characteristics and Behaviors) different from the first elasticity parameter (inherently of the different kinds of composites); and
wherein either the first composite layer (of fiberglass for instance) and the second composite layer (of carbon or aramid for instance) extend in a continuous manner with respect to each other, forming a substantially two-dimensional, homogenous structure (Fig. 1 and col 2, ll 24-30, 4 as formed as one laminate for instance), or (the following is satisfied as being in the alternative) the first composite layer comprises two transverse parts joined by a flexible folding zone, the two transverse parts and the folding zone forming a reversibly foldable and substantially two-dimensional homogenous structure.
In Reference to Claim 3
Grabau discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 1, wherein the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity and a first buckling coefficient and the second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity and a second buckling coefficient (inherently of the fiberglass composite and the carbon or aramid composite, as further evident by Fiber Reinforced Polymers Characteristics and Behaviors, a factors of elastic modulus and tensile strength for instance).
In Reference to Claim 13
Grabau discloses a wind turbine comprising one or more wind turbine rotor blades, the one or more wind turbine rotor blades comprising the chord extension system of claim 1 (see abstract).
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) 4-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,966,758 to Grabau et al. (Grabau) in view of US Patent 7,059,833 to Stiesdal et al. (Stiesdal).
In Reference to Claim 4
Grabau discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 3, except explicitly “... wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer respond to a common external mechanical force in a different manner ....”
Stiesdal is related to a chord extension system (Figs. 9A and 9B, 22 and 25 for instance) for a wind turbine blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a composite layer (col 4, ll 55-56, a polycarbonate for instance) respond to a common external mechanical force (col 4, ll 32-42, respond to wind flow for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Grabau wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer (of Grabau) respond to a common external mechanical force (such as wind flow as taught by Stiesdal) in a different manner (the first and second composite having different inherent properties, as taught by Grabau, and would respond in different manners), so as to use an art known technique (of operating a chord extension system to flex under mechanical load, such as wind, as taught by Stiesdal) into the system of Grabau (a system made of multiple materials for instance) and predictably control the aerodynamic efficiency of the wind turbine blade of Grabau.
In Reference to Claim 5
Grabau, as modified by Stiesdal, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 4, wherein the common external mechanical force (wind flow as taught by Stiesdal for instance) comprises a stretching force and a buckling load (the flexing inherently including stretching on one side under load and compressive load on the other side while under load).
In Reference to Claim 6
Grabau, as modified by Stiesdal, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 5, wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer (of Grabau) remain in respective undeformed states with a first increase in the common external mechanical force until respective predetermined yield points are reached (such as change in wind flow as taught by Stiesdal, see col 4, ll 32-41), wherein a first predetermined yield point for the first composite layer is different from a second predetermined yield point for the second composite layer (inherently as the different composites have different inherent properties).
In Reference to Claim 7
Grabau, as modified by Stiesdal, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 6, wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer (of Grabau) deform with a second increase in the common external mechanical force beyond the respective predetermined yield points (the configured and predetermined deforming under a range of aerodynamic forces as taught by Stiesdal).
In Reference to Claim 8
Grabau, as modified by Stiesdal, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 7, wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer (of Grabau) deform linearly under the second increase in the common external mechanical force beyond the respective predetermined yield points (inherently of the materials of the composite).
It has also been held that, “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2112.01. As Grabau teaches substantially identical structure as the claimed invention, Claim 8 is rejected as obvious.
In Reference to Claim 9
Grabau, as modified by Stiesdal, discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 7, wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer (of Grabau) regain respective undeformed states when the common external mechanical force is withdrawn (the composite being flexible as taught by Stiesdal for instance).
In Reference to Claim 14
Grabau discloses a wind turbine rotor blade (abstract and Fig. 1, 10 for instance) comprising:
a blade body having a shape that generates a lift when impacted by an incident airflow (an airfoil shape for instance), wherein the blade body comprises a pressure side (2) and a suction side (1) joining at a leading edge (left edge of 10 for instance, not labeled), and a trailing edge (right end of 10 for instance, not 4, not labeled); and
a chord extension system (4 for instance) mechanically coupled with the trailing edge (4 for instance), the chord extension system configured to enhance an aerodynamic performance of the wind turbine rotor blade (col 2, ll 15-19, such a changing the lift of the blade for instance),
wherein the chord extension system comprises a flat plate (as seen in figure 6 for instance) or a serration (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative),
wherein the chord extension system comprises a multi-layer composite body (col 2, ll 11-13 and col 3, ll 50-60, a laminate structure for instance) comprising:
a first composite layer (col 3, ll 50-60, a layer of fiberglass reinforced epoxy for instance) having a first elasticity parameter (inherently of fiberglass reinforced composites for instance, as further evident by Fiber Reinforced Polymers Characteristics and Behaviors, first table and elastic modulus for instance); and
a second composite layer (col 2, ll 24-30 and col 3, ll 50-60, a layer of caron fiber or aramid fiber reinforced epoxy for instance) mechanically coupled with the first composite layer (as formed as one laminate for instance), the second composite layer having a second elasticity parameter (inherently of carbon or aramid fiber reinforced composites for instance, as further evident by Fiber Reinforced Polymers Characteristics and Behaviors) different from the first elasticity parameter (inherently of the different kinds of composites),
wherein either the first composite layer (of fiberglass for instance) and the second composite layer (of carbon or aramid for instance) extend in a continuous manner with respect to each other, forming a substantially two-dimensional, homogenous structure (Fig. 1 and col 2, ll 24-30, 4 as formed as one laminate for instance), or (the following limitation satisfied as being in the alternative) the first composite layer comprises two transverse parts joined by a flexible folding zone, the two transverse parts and the folding zone forming a reversibly foldable and substantially two-dimensional homogenous structure,
wherein the first elasticity parameter comprises a first modulus of elasticity and a first buckling coefficient and the second elasticity parameter comprises a second modulus of elasticity and a second buckling coefficient (inherently of the fiberglass composite and the carbon or aramid composite, as further evident by Fiber Reinforced Polymers Characteristics and Behaviors, a factors of elastic modulus and tensile strength for instance), but does not explicitly teach “... wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer respond to a common external mechanical force in a different manner ....”
Stiesdal is related to a chord extension system (Figs. 9A and 9B, 22 and 25 for instance) for a wind turbine blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a composite layer (col 4, ll 55-56, a polycarbonate for instance) respond to a common external mechanical force (col 4, ll 32-42, respond to wind flow for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Grabau wherein the first composite layer and the second composite layer (of Grabau) respond to a common external mechanical force (such as wind flow as taught by Stiesdal) in a different manner (the first and second composite having different inherent properties, as taught by Grabau, and would respond in different manners), so as to use an art known technique (of operating a chord extension system to flex under mechanical load, such as wind, as taught by Stiesdal) into the system of Grabau (a system made of multiple materials for instance) and predictably control the aerodynamic efficiency of the wind turbine blade of Grabau.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 6,966,758 to Grabau et al. (Grabau) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2006/0145031 to Ishikawa et al. (Ishikawa).
In Reference to Claim 11
Grabau discloses the wind turbine rotor blade of claim 2, except explicitly, “... further comprising an adhesive layer inserted between and mechanically coupled with the first composite layer and the second composite layer, the adhesive layer configured to enhance a mechanical bonding, and reduce a shear moment between the first composite layer and the second composite layer ....”
Ishikawa is related to a chord extension system formed of composite materials (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches an adhesive layer (¶ [0122) inserted between and mechanically coupled with a first composite layer (7 for instance) and a second composite layer (6 for instance), the adhesive layer configured to enhance a mechanical bonding, and reduce a shear moment between the first composite layer and the second composite layer (inherent of an adhesive used to connect components).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Grabau wherein an adhesive layer is inserted (as taught by Ishikawa) between and mechanically coupled with the first composite layer and the second composite layer (of Grabau), the adhesive layer configured to enhance a mechanical bonding, and reduce a shear moment between the first composite layer and the second composite layer (inherently of adhesives for instance), so as to use and art known technique (of mechanically coupling composite layers as taught by Ishikawa) into the system of Grabau and predictably couple the composite layers of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims in the application are deemed to be directed to an nonobvious improvement over the prior art. The prior art teaches various aspects of the claimed invention but the combination of elements presented in each claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art of record. In particular, the limitations identified below were not found in the prior art of record in a single reference in combination with the other recited claim elements, nor were they found in such a manner as to be able to be reasonably combined in order to meet the entirety of the respective claim.
Regarding claim 10 for instance, the prior art does not teach or make obvious wherein the at least two transverse parts of the first composite layer and the second composite layer bend about the folding zone under the second increase in the common external mechanical force beyond the respective predetermined yield points, forming a reversible folded structure.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not teach or make obvious wherein the at least two transverse parts of the first composite layer and the second composite layer bend about the folding zone under an increase in the common external mechanical force beyond the respective predetermined yield points, forming a reversible folded structure.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show chord extension systems for wind turbine blade and flexible composite structures.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights