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 .
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.
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 the limitation "the main bodies" in lines 8 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to amend to: “the plurality of plate-shaped pultruded main bodies”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the main bodies" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to amend to: “the plurality of plate-shaped pultruded main bodies”.
Claim 8 recites: “two adjacent main bodies” in line 7. It is unclear whether the ‘two adjacent main bodies” a part of the “plurality of plate shaped main bodies” recited in claim 1 or they are additional structures to the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. The claim further recites: “these two main bodies”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the main bodies" in lines 3, 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to amend to: “the plurality of plate-shaped pultruded main bodies”.
Claim 9 further recites: “a main body stack” in lines 4-5. This is a double inclusion; it is unclear whether this is the same “a main body stack” recited in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 9 further recites: “a main body stack” in line 4 and line 5, which is a double recitation. It is unclear whether this refers to the same “a body stack” recited in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the main bodies" in lines 6 and 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to amend to: “the plurality of plate-shaped pultruded main bodies”.
Claim 12 further recites: “an upper side of the second main body” in lines 22-23 which is a double inclusion. It is unclear whether this the same ““an upper side of the second main body” recited above in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 15 recites: “a spar cap” which is a double recitation. It is unclear whether this refers to the same “a spar cap” recited in claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 2-6, 10 and 11 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 and claims 13-14 are indefinite by virtue of their dependence on claim 11.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Randall (US 2024/0410332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Randall teaches a spar cap (20) for a wind turbine blade (10), wherein the spar cap (1) comprises:
a plurality of plate-shaped pultruded main bodies (22, 22a, 22b) (paras. 0008, 0040-0041; Figs. 1a-2c), wherein the main bodies are arranged one above the other in a stacking direction to form a main body stack in order to at least partially carrying longitudinal loads running at least in a longitudinal direction of the spar cap (paras. 0008, 0040-0041; Figs. 1a-2c), and
wherein at a first end face (24) (Fig. 1a, paras. 0040-0041) of the main body stack at least a first main body end (Figs. 1a-1b) of a first main body (22a) of the plurality of main bodies is arranged offset in the longitudinal direction of the spar cap (20) relative to a first main body end (end of strip 22b in Fig. 1b) of a second main body (22b) of the plurality of main bodies in such a manner that a transition portion (Fig. 1b) is formed by the second main body (22b) between the first main body end (32a) of the first main body (22a) and the first main body end of the second main body (22b) (Fig. 1b),
wherein the second main body (22b) is arranged adjacent to the first main body (22b) (Fig. 1b, paras. 0039-0041); and
at least a first stiffening body (44) (Figs. 1b-1c; 0044-0053), wherein the at least one first stiffening body (44) is arranged at least at the first main body end (32a) of the first main body (22a) (Figs. 1b-1c; 0044-0053) and at least partially at an upper side of the second main body (22b) in the transition portion formed by the second main body (22b) for at least partially carrying longitudinal loads running at least in the longitudinal direction of the spar cap (200 and transmitting the longitudinal loads to the main body stack (Figs. 1b-1c; 0044-0053).
Regarding claim 2, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches the at least one first stiffening body (46) is arranged on an upper side of the first main body in a region of the first main body end of the first main body (Figs. 1b-1c; 0044-0053).
Regarding claim 3, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches the at least one first stiffening body comprises a plurality of fiber layers (46) laminated with each other, wherein the plurality of fiber layers are arranged on top of each other in the stacking direction of the main body stack (Fig. 1c, paras. 0045-0049).
Regarding claim 4, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 3. Randall further teaches at least several fiber layers of the plurality of fiber layers are arranged offset to each other in the longitudinal direction of the spar cap (Fig. 1c, paras. 0045-0049).
Regarding claim 5, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches at least one stiffening body comprises a pultruded fiber body (Fig. 1c, paras. 0045-0049).
Regarding claim 6, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches the at least one first stiffening body comprises glass fibers (paras. 0045-0047), wherein the glass fibers are aligned unidirectional or substantially unidirectional (paras. 0045-0047).
Regarding claim 7, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches a second separately formed stiffening body (44), is arranged at the first end face of the main body stack at least at a first main body end of a third main body of the plurality of main bodies and at least partially arranged at an upper side of a fourth main body of the plurality of main bodies in a transition portion formed by the fourth main body (Fig. 1b shows several main bodies and several stiffening bodies), in order to carry at least partially longitudinal loads running at least in the longitudinal direction of the spar cap and to transmit them to the main body stack (Figs. 1b-1c; paras. 0044-0053).
Regarding claim 8, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches at a second end face of the main body stack (20) opposite the first end face (Fig. 1a-1b: note that although Fig. 1b shows just one end face, there is a second end face not shown) of the main body stack (10), at least one further stiffening body (44) (Fig. 1b, the stiffening is disposed on o both end face of the spar cap) for at least partially carrying longitudinal loads running in the longitudinal direction of the spar cap (Figs. 1b-1c; paras. 0044-0053), wherein the further stiffening body is arranged at a second main body end of a main body of two adjacent main bodies (22a, 22b) and at least partially at an upper side of a further main body of these two main bodies in a transition section formed by the further main body of the two main bodies (Figs. 1a, 1b).
Regarding claim 9, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches the main bodies (22a, 22b) are arranged on top of each other in the stacking direction (Fig. 1b) to form a main body stack (20) having a triangle- like cross section in longitudinal direction (Fig. 1b) and/or a main body stack (10) comprising at least a lower main body (Fig. 1b) of the main bodies and an upper main body (Fig. 1b) the main bodies, wherein in the longitudinal direction of the spar cap (1), the lower main body is longer than the upper main body (Fig. 1b).
Regarding claim 10, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches the spar cap is a produced component (Figs. 1a-3).
Regarding claim 11, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 1. Randall further teaches a wind turbine blade (10) comprising at least one spar cap (20) (Figs. 1a and 2a).
Regarding claim 12, Randall teaches a method of manufacturing a spar cap (20) for a wind turbine blade (10), the method comprising:
providing a plurality of plate-shaped main bodies (22a, 22b) (paras. 0008, 0040-0047; Figs. 1a-2c);
providing a plurality of fiber layers (46) or providing at least a first stiffening body (44) (paras. 0008, 0040-0047; Figs. 1a-2c);
arranging the main bodies (22a, 22b) one above the other in a stacking direction to form a main body stack (Fig. 1b; paras. 0044-0047) wherein at least a first main body end (32a) of a first main body (22a) of the main bodies is arranged on a first end face (Fig. 1b) of the main body stack offset in a longitudinal direction of the spar cap to be manufactured with respect to a first main body end (22a) of a second main body (22b) of the main bodies (22a, 22b) (Fig. 1) in such a way that a transition portion is formed by the second main body (22a) between the first main body end of the first main body (21) and the first main body end of the second main body (22a) (Figs. 1b-1c; para. 0041)b, and wherein the second main body (22b) is arranged adjacent to the first main body (Figs. 1b-1c);
arranging the plurality of fiber layers (46) to the first main body end of the first main body (21a) and at least partially at an upper side of the second main body (22b) in a transition portion formed by the second main body (22b) (Figs. 1b-1c; paras. 0045-0048) and;
laminating at least the arranged plurality of fiber layers (46) to the stiffening body to manufacture the spar cap (Figs. 1b-1c; paras. 0045-0048) or arranging the at least one first stiffening body (44) at least at the first main body end of the first main body (22a) and at least partially at an upper side of the second main body (22b) in the transition portion formed by the second main body (22b) to manufacture the spar cap (Figs. 1b-1c; paras. 0045-0048).
Regarding claim 13, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 12. Randall further teaches the main bodies (22a, 22b) are arranged in a materially bonded manner one above the other in the stacking direction to form the main body stack (Fig. 1b, paras. 0045-0048) and/or that the at least one first stiffening body (44) is arranged in a materially bonded manner to the first main body end of the first main body as well as in a materially bonded manner to the upper side of the second main body in the transition portion formed by the second main body (Figs. 1b-1c).
Regarding claim 15, Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 12. Randall further teaches a spar cap is manufactured (Figs. 1a and 2a).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randall in view of Girolamo et al. (US 11,454,208 B2) hereinafter Girolamo.
Randall teaches all the claimed limitations as stated above in claim 12 but does not specifically the spar cap is manufactured in a shell mold or a blade mold wherein the blade mold is configured to manufacture a wind turbine blade.
However, Girolamo teaches a method of manufacturing a spar cap (230), wherein the spar cap is manufactured in shell mold or blade mold and wherein the blade mold is configured to manufacture a wind turbine blade (Figs. 3-4; Col. 2, line 60-Col. 3, line 31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to manufacture the spar cap in shell mold as taught by Girolamo as molding is known for rapid production cycles and cost effective.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2019/0211806 A1 discloses a spar cap for a wind turbine blade comprising a plurality of main bodies.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIME M ADJAGBE whose telephone number is (571)272-4920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-6.
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.
/MAXIME M ADJAGBE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
