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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 07/28/2026. Claims 1-4, 6-9 and 11-18 are currently pending. Claims 5 and 10 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 15 amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response, filed 07/28/2026, with respect to objections to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification of 04/29/2026 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to the specification.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026, with respect to objections to the claims and art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the claim objections, examiner contends that the claims still contains multiple periods. For instance, there is a period after the step “A.” and multiple instances thereafter.
In response to arguments the prior art Sorensen on page 8-9 of the response, examiner contends that prior art on page 12, line 11-24, describes that mats of the spacers/inlays are rolled to have different predetermined shapes of circular, rectangular, square or elliptical and further could be formed to match the gap between inserts. Thus, the prior art Sorensen teaches “constructing layered elements from the group of at least two dry fibre-fabric sheets, each of the layered elements having a respective pre-determined shape; folding each of the layered elements having the respective pre-determined shape to construct a respective one of the dry fibre-fabric inlays having a pre-determined 3-dimensional geometry.” Examiner also notes that instant specification describes the “layered element with a pre-determined shape and then the layered element is folded into a fibre-fabric inlay with a pre-determined 3-dimensional geometry,” (¶ [0045]) which is similar to the matching of the inlay of Sorensen to space between inserts.
In response to applicant's argument that Dahl does not teach or suggest the above-quoted limitations Bi to Biii, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). It is contended that the prior art Dahl is relied upon to teach where fibre-fabric sheets can have different characteristics.
In response to applicant's argument that Dahl is also different from the spacer 11 that is obtained from rolled fibre mats 12 in Sorensen (which is regarded, in the Office Action, as analogous to the claimed dry fibre-fabric inlays) and seemingly is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the prior art Sorensen and Dahl are in the field of the inventor’s endeavor and seem reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Examiner also contends that the prior art Dahl is listed as analogous to the claimed invention of a method for manufacturing a root section of a wind turbine blade shell.
Examiner disagrees with applicants arguments and contend that one of ordinary skills in the art would reasonably combine the references Sorensen and Dahl as in this and the last rejection.
Claim Objections
Applicant is reminded “The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).”
The Claims are objected to because of the following informalities: using multiple periods throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 6-12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by WO 2017/215735 to Sorensen (Sorensen) in view of WO 2012/140039 to Dahl et al. (Dahl).
In Reference to Claim 1
Sorensen discloses a method for manufacturing a root section or a part of a root section of a wind turbine blade shell (abstract and p. 1, l. 4-6), comprising:
A. arranging two or more bushings in a predefined pattern (Fig. 1, 8 for instance, as arranged in a mold for instance, see p. 11, l. 4 and 21-23) the two or more bushings are configured to connect a root section of a wind turbine blade directly or indirectly to a hub of a wind turbine (see p. 1, l. 7-8);
B. alternately arranging dry fibre-fabric inlays (12 for instance, and in the mold for instance, see p. 12, l. 33-34) with the bushings (8); and
C. consolidating the bushings and the dry fibre-fabric inlays together by an infusion process (see p. 11, l. 21-23; p. 12, l. 33-34 and p. 14, l. 1-3);
wherein operation B comprises:
Bi. providing a group of at least two dry fibre-fabric sheets (p. 12, l. 11-5 and l. 33, the mats of 12 for instance, mats being at least two);
Bii. constructing layered elements from the group of at least two dry fibre-fabric sheets (of 12 for instance), each of the layered elements having a respective pre-determined shape (the rolling of 12 for instance, see p. 13, l. 12-13 and having different shapes as rolled, see p. 12, l. 18-24); and
Biii. folding each of the layered elements having the respective pre-determined shape to construct a respective one of the dry fibre-fabric inlays having a pre-determined 3-dimensional geometry (the rolling of 12 to have a shape matching space between bushings, see p. 12, l. 18-24, see also Fig. 1, 12 as fitted between 8 for instance); and
Biv. arranging at least one respective dry fibre-fabric inlay of the dry fibre-fabric inlays (Fig. 1, 12 for instance) between each pair of adjacent bushings (8 for instance).
Sorensen does not teach “... having different characteristics from each other ....”
Dahl is related to a method for manufacturing a root section of a wind turbine blade shell (Abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches selecting a group of at least two fibre-fabric sheets comprising different characteristics from each other (in fibers used to form inlays of a root section for instance, see p. 9, l. 6-9).
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 Sorensen a group of at least two dry fibre-fabric sheets (of Sorensen) that has different characteristics from each other (as taught by Dahl), so as to use an art known technique (of the forming of sections of a root of a wind turbine blade and using fabrics having different materials as taught by Dahl) into the system of Sorensen and predictably form the root section of the wind turbine blade.
In Reference to Claim 2
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the dry fibre-fabric inlays (Sorensen, Fig. 1, 12 for instance) utilized in operation C are folded into a pre-determined shape (Sorensen, 12 as rolled for instance, see p. 12, l. 3 for instance) as to align to the shape of the pair of adjacent bushings (Sorensen, as fitted between 8 for instance, see figure 1, see also p. 12, l. 24-28 of 12 being deformable to be align to the shape between bushings).
In Reference to Claim 3
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein operation a comprises:
Ai. providing a surface suitable for supporting fibre-fabric and bushings during an infusion process (Sorensen, surface of a mold for instance, see p. 11, l. 21-23; p. 12, l. 33-34 and p. 14, l. 1-3, and including forming base 2 and holder 4 for instance, figure 1);
Aii. arranging fibre-fabric on the surface, thereby creating a bedding of fibre-fabric on the surface (Sorensen, layers 6 for instance); and
Aiii. arranging two or more bushings (Sorensen, 8 for instance) intended for connecting a root section of a wind turbine blade directly or indirectly to a hub of a wind turbine in a predefined pattern on the fibre-fabric bedding (Sorensen, as seen in figure 1 for instance);
wherein operation C comprises consolidating the bushings, the dry fibre-fabric inlays and the fibre-fabric bedding together (Sorensen, as seen in figure 1 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 4
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the surface provided in operation Ai is a mould suitable for manufacturing the root section or a part of the root section of the wind turbine blade shell (Sorensen, surface of a mold for instance, see p. 11, l. 21-23; p. 12, l. 33-34 and p. 14, l. 1-3).
In Reference to Claim 6
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein operation B comprises:
Bv. arranging an overlay of fibre-fabric (Sorensen, Fig. 1, 10 for instance) over the alternately arranged bushings and fibre-fabric inlays (Sorensen, 8 and 12 for instance); and
wherein operation C comprises consolidating the bushings, the dry fibre-fabric inlays, and the fibre-fabric overlay together, or consolidating the bushings, the dry fibre-fabric inlays, the fibre-fabric overlay, and the fibre-fabric bedding together (Sorensen, as seen in figure 1 for instance and as arranged before infusing and curing, see p. 14, l. 1-3).
In Reference to Claim 7
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the dry fibre-fabric inlays with pre-determined 3-dimensional geometry constructed in operation Biii are folded according to a pre-determined folding pattern (Sorensen, p. 12, l. 11-13 and 33-34, rolled pattern for instance).
In Reference to Claim 8
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the dry fibre-fabric inlays with pre-determined 3-dimensional geometry constructed in operation Biii are folded according to a pre-determined folding pattern (Sorensen, p. 12, l. 11-13 and 33-34, rolled pattern for instance).
In Reference to Claim 9
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the constructing of a layered fibre-fabric element having a respective pre-determined shape in operation Bii comprises cutting and/or tapering the group of at least two dry fibre-fabric sheets (Sorensen, p. 13, l. 8-9).
In Reference to Claim 11
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the constructing of a layered fibre-fabric element with a pre-determined shape in operation Bii comprises stitching the at least two sheets of fibre-fabric together (stitching of fabric used to form the root section as taught by Sorensen, see p. 5, l. 35 to p. 6, l. 1).
In Reference to Claim 12
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein dry fibre-fabric and/or a fibre-fabric with binder is utilized for the fibre-fabric bedding (Sorensen, p. 14, l. 1-3, layers of 6 being dry as before being infused and cured for instance).
In Reference to Claim 13
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein dry fibre-fabric and/or a fibre-fabric with binder is utilized for the fibre-fabric overlay (Sorensen, p. 14, l. 1-3, layers of 10 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 14
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses a root section or a part of a root section of a wind turbine blade manufactured using the method according to claim 1 (Sorensen, abstract and p. 1, l. 4-6).
In Reference to Claim 15
Sorensen discloses the method of claim 1 except, "... a semi-manufactured part of a root section of a wind turbine blade shell ..,” but does teach the system comprising two or more bushings, wherein the two or more bushings (8 for instance) are arranged in a predefined pattern and fibre-fabric inlays (12 for instance) are alternately arranged between each pair of adjacent bushings (see figure 1) according to the method according to claim 1.
Dahl further teaches a semi-manufactured part of a root section of a wind turbine blade shell (i.e. the manufacturing of blade in halves for instance, see p. 20, l. 23, see also p. 1, l. 30-34).
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 Sorensen wherein a semi-manufactured part of a root section of a wind turbine blade shell (as taught by Dahl) comprises two or more bushings, wherein the two or more bushings are arranged in a predefined pattern and fibre-fabric inlays are alternately arranged between each pair of adjacent bushings (of Sorensen), so as to use an art known technique (of the forming of sections of a wind turbine blade as taught by Dahl) into the system of Sorensen and predictably form the wind turbine blade.
In Reference to Claim 16
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses a root section or a part of a root section of a wind turbine blade shell comprising two or more semi-manufactured parts of a root section according to claim 15 (as taught by Dahl, the manufacturing of root sections of a blade and in halves for instance, see p. 20, l. 23, see also p. 1, l. 30-34).
In Reference to Claim 17
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses a wind turbine blade, comprising the root section or a part of the root section according to claim 16 (Sorensen, see abstract and p. 1, l. 4-6).
In Reference to Claim 18
Sorensen, as modified by Dahl, discloses a wind turbine, comprising the wind turbine blade according to claim 17 (Sorensen, see abstract and p. 1, l. 4-13).
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 the forming wind turbine blades including root sections, and the use of inlays between inserts of a root section.
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
