DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment of 23 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 is objected because “where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation” (MPEP 608.01(i)(i)).
Claim 4 recites “a curable binding agent” and also recites “the binding agent”; for claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends reciting “the curable binding agent”.
Claim 7 recites “a electrically conductible element” instead of “an electrically conductible element”.
Claim 8 recites “a curable binding agent” (twice) and also recites “the binding agent” (twice); for claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends reciting “the curable binding agent”.
Claim 9 recites “a curable binding agent” and also recites “the binding agent”; for claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends reciting “the curable binding agent”.
Claim 10 recites “a curable binding agent” (twice) and also recites “the binding agent” (twice); for claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends reciting “the curable binding agent”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one shaping element” in claim 6, and “at least one further shaping element” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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 1 recites “A method for manufacturing a carbon beam … the carbon beam comprises at least one core component being made of or comprising at least one carbon plank and/or a core arrangement of core mats …” and the claim does not contain any actual manufacturing steps for when the claimed carbon beam comprises a core arrangement of core mats, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 further recites plural “or”, “and/or” and “and” clauses while lacking proper use of commas, semicolons or indented separated lines for a person of ordinary skills in the art to clearly determined what limitations apply to previously recited limitations. For example, the claim recites “wherein the carbon beam comprises at least one core component being made of or comprising at least one carbon plank and/or a core arrangement of core mats comprising carbon fibers”; it is not clear if the carbon beam comprises at least one core component… and/or a core arrangement, or the at least one core component is made of or comprises at least one carbon plank and/or a core arrangement, and if the carbon fibers are comprised only in the core mats of the core arrangement or also in the carbon plank or the at least one core component.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein a prefabricated core component is used, and wherein either also prefabricated skin components are used or wherein the skin components are produced by arranging the skin stack in a predetermined shape and fixing the skin mats with an adhesive”. It is not clear what “wherein either also” means, and said recitation does not appear to be grammatically correct.
Claims 2-15 depend and/or include all the limitations of claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 4 recites “a first skin component, a first skin stack … a second skin component, a second skin stack” and depends from claim 1 which recites “skin components … a skin stack”; it is not clear if “a first skin component, a first skin stack … a second skin component, a second skin stack” are part of the previously recited “skin components … a skin stack” in claim 1 or different and additional components/stacks.
Claims 5-7 depend from claim 4 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 8 recites “a first skin component, a first skin stack comprising a curable binding agent … a second skin component, a second skin stack comprising a curable binding agent” and depends from claim 2 which recites “at least one of the skin components, the skin stack comprising a curable binding agent”; it is not clear if “a first skin component, a first skin stack comprising a curable binding agent … a second skin component, a second skin stack comprising a curable binding agent” are part of the previously recited “skin components … a skin stack … curable binding agent” in claim 2 or different and additional components/stacks/agents.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the respective skin stack”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and fails to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the at least one skin component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 2 recites “at least one of the skin components” which is a different limitation.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “the or a shaping element”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “wherein at least one blade preform element which is joined together with the at least one carbon beam”; it appears further limitations are missing by the end of the claim or the current claim recitation is not grammatically correct.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “The wind turbine”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-4, 6-8 and 11-15 (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 Silvert (FR 3041561 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Silvert teaches (Fig.1-8) a method for manufacturing a carbon beam (2) configured to be a part of a wind turbine blade (40) to increase or to cause a mechanical strength of the wind turbine blade, wherein the carbon beam comprises at least one core component being made of or comprising at least one carbon plank and/or a core arrangement of core mats comprising carbon fibers (10; machine translation page 3, note “blades 12 are made for example of resin reinforced with carbon fibers”), wherein at least a part of the at least one core component is arranged between skin components (8/18) being made of or comprising a skin stack (8/18) of skin mats (machine translation page 3, note “positioning in a mold 16 of at least one dry fiber web 18 intended to subsequently form a layer 8”; at least one includes plural mats) each, wherein the at least one core component and the skin components are provided and then joined together to build the carbon beam (2), wherein a prefabricated core component is used (machine translation page 3, note “blades 12 of each reinforcing insert 10 are advantageously pultruded blades”), and wherein either also prefabricated skin components are used or wherein the skin components are produced by arranging the skin stack in a predetermined shape and fixing the skin mats with an adhesive (machine translation page 4, note “ply of fibers 18 is placed on the mold 16 … infusing the fiber webs 18 with brewing resin 20”).
Regarding claim 2, Silvert further teaches for producing at least one of the skin components, the skin stack comprising a curable binding agent being the adhesive is arranged on a mold surface of a core mold (16) such that a shape of the skin stack adapts to a shape of the mold surface, wherein the curable binding agent is activated to conserve the shape of the skin stack (machine translation page 4, note “ply of fibers 18 is placed on the mold 16 … infusing the fiber webs 18 with brewing resin 20”).
Regarding claim 3, Silvert further teaches the skin stack is arranged
- or
- between the mold surface (16) and an upper vacuum foil (22), wherein a vacuum is created between the mold surface and the upper vacuum foil (machine translation page 4, note “a vacuum cover 22, which is airtight, is placed over the components placed on the mold 16 so as to define a vacuum chamber containing the components placed on the mold 16”).
Regarding claim 4, Silvert further teaches for manufacturing a first skin component, a first skin stack comprising the curable binding agent is arranged on the mold surface such that a shape of the first skin stack adapts to the shape of the mold surface (machine translation page 4, note “ply of fibers 18 is placed on the mold 16 … infusing the fiber webs 18 with brewing resin 20”), wherein the binding agent is activated to conserve the shape of the first skin stack (machine translation page 4, note “polymerizing the infusion resin 20”), wherein, for manufacturing a second skin component, a second skin stack comprising a curable binding agent is arranged on the first skin stack such that the shape of the second skin stack adapts to the shape of the first skin stack (machine translation page 3, note “positioning in a mold 16 of at least one dry fiber web 18 intended to subsequently form a layer 8”; at least one includes plural mats; machine translation page 4, note “ply of fibers 18 is placed on the mold 16 … infusing the fiber webs 18 with brewing resin 20”), wherein the curable binding agent is activated to conserve the shape of the second skin stack (machine translation page 4, note “polymerizing the infusion resin 20”). Note the first and second skin components could also be interpreted in view of Silvert as lower 18 and upper 18 in Fig.3/4.
Regarding claim 6, Silvert further teaches at least one shaping element (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a plastic or wood material to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Silvert teaches 36) is arranged between the first skin stack and the second skin stack such that a part of a surface of the first skin stack and a part of a surface of the second skin stack adapts to a shape of the at least one shaping element (Fig.4), wherein the shape of the at least one shaping element corresponds to a shape of the at least one core component which is arranged in contact with the skin components (Fig.4) in the carbon beam.
Regarding claim 7, Silvert further teaches at least one further shaping element (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a plastic or wood material to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Silvert teaches 36 which are disclosed in an embodiment as being two, see machine translation page 7 – “two adjacent additional reinforcing inserts”) is arranged between the first skin stack and the second skin stack such that a part of the surface of the first skin stack and a part of the surface of the second skin stack adapts to a shape of the at least one further shaping element (Fig.4), wherein the shape of the at least one further shaping element corresponds to a shape (Fig.4) of (a electrically conductible element of a lightning protection arrangement of the wind turbine; note the claimed elements grouped within the parenthesis are not required by the claim).
Regarding claim 8, Silvert further teaches for manufacturing a first skin component, a first skin stack (lower 8/18) comprising a curable binding agent (machine translation page 4, note “infusing the fiber webs 18 with brewing resin 20”) is arranged on the mold surface (16) such that a shape of the first skin stack adapts to a shape of the mold surface, wherein the binding agent is activated to conserve the shape of the first skin stack (machine translation page 4, note “polymerizing the infusion resin 20”), wherein, for manufacturing a second skin component, a second skin stack (upper 8/18) comprising a curable binding agent (machine translation page 4, note “infusing the fiber webs 18 with brewing resin 20”) is arranged of the second skin stack (machine translation page 4, note “polymerizing the infusion resin 20”), wherein the shape
Regarding claim 11, Silvert further teaches for joining the at least one core component and the skin components together, the at least one core component and the skin components are arranged in a carbon beam mold cavity (Fig.3/4), wherein a resin is infused into the carbon beam mold cavity (52), under vacuum conditions, and then cured (machine translation page 4, note “vacuum infusing the fiber webs 18 with brewing resin 20 … a vacuum cover 22, which is airtight, is placed over the components placed on the mold 16 so as to define a vacuum chamber containing the components placed on the mold 16 … polymerizing the infusion resin 20”).
Regarding claim 12, Silvert further teaches a carbon beam for a wind turbine blade (Fig.1-8), manufactured by a method according to claim 1 (see above).
Regarding claim 13, Silvert further teaches a wind turbine blade (Fig.7/8), comprising at least one carbon beam according to claim 12 (see above).
Regarding claim 14, Silvert further teaches the wind turbine blade according to claim 13, wherein at least one blade preform element (50) which is joined together with the at least one carbon beam (Fig.7/8).
Regarding claim 15, Silvert further teaches the wind turbine (machine translation page 2, note “the manufacture of wind turbine parts”), comprising at least one wind turbine blade (Fig.7/8) according to claim 13 (see above).
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) 5 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvert as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Doyle et al – hereafter Doyle – (US 20110254189 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Silvert teaches all the limitations of claim 4, see above, however does not explicitly teach the first skin stack is arranged between a first lower vacuum foil and a first upper vacuum foil, wherein a vacuum is created between the mold surface and the first lower vacuum foil and between the first lower vacuum foil and the first upper vacuum foil, wherein the second skin stack is arranged between a second lower vacuum foil and a second upper vacuum foil, wherein a vacuum is created between the first upper vacuum foil and the second lower vacuum foil and between the second lower vacuum foil and the second upper vacuum foil.
Doyle teaches an improved process for the manufacture of composite articles, in particular wind turbine blades (¶17). Doyle further teaches a step (ii) of providing one or more layers of material on a tool to build up a desired lay-up of an article; a step (iii) of placing a sacrificial bag on said lay-up and applying a vacuum to seal said lay-up to the tool; repeating steps (ii) and (iii) to form a desired lay-up (¶63-66). Said arrangement would provide a configuration of a first lower vacuum foil and a first upper vacuum foil wrapping a lay-up of material, and a second lower vacuum foil and a second upper vacuum foil wrapping a further lay-up of material.
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 method of Silvert by having the first skin stack is arranged between a first lower vacuum foil and a first upper vacuum foil, wherein a vacuum is created between the mold surface and the first lower vacuum foil and between the first lower vacuum foil and the first upper vacuum foil, wherein the second skin stack is arranged between a second lower vacuum foil and a second upper vacuum foil, wherein a vacuum is created between the first upper vacuum foil and the second lower vacuum foil and between the second lower vacuum foil and the second upper vacuum foil based on the teachings of Doyle because this would result in an improved process for the manufacture of composite articles, in particular wind turbine blades
Claim(s) 9-10 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silvert as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Grabau (US 20110164987 A1; also US 9,181,923 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Silvert teaches all the limitations of claim 2, see above, however does not explicitly teach the binding agent is a heat-meltable powder binder and is activated by applying heat to the respective skin stack.
Grabau teaches a method of manufacturing a shell construction part of a wind turbine blade, the shell construction part being made of a fibre reinforced polymer material including a polymer matrix and fibre reinforcement material embedded in the polymer matrix (¶1). Grabau further teaches a polymerizable thermoplastic material has the advantage that it may be handled in its pre-polymer state and can be handled in as a liquid, a powder or pellets (¶52) and being activated by heating (¶54).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of Silvert by having the binding agent being a heat-meltable powder binder and being activated by applying heat to the respective skin stack based on the teachings of Grabau because this would require a simple substitution of one known element (binding agent of Silvert) for another (binding agent of Grabau) to obtain predictable results (providing a suitable binding agent when joining layers of materials that will be part of a wind turbine blade as a final product and able to sustain the operating conditions of a wind turbine).
Regarding claim 10, Silvert and Grabau further teach
- the at least one skin component, which has been removed from the core mold, or the at least one skin component together with the core mold is or are brought to a heating means (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as an oven to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Silvert teaches machine translation page 4, note “infusion resin 20 and the interblade resin 14 are polymerized simultaneously and completely, for example by heating or cooking. The heating is carried out for example by conduction by heating the mold 16, or by radiation”) to activate the binding agent,
or - the activation of the binding agent takes place while the at least one skin component is still arranged on the core mold, wherein the core mold and/or the or a shaping element acts as a heating means.
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
Prosecution Insights