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 non-final rejection in response to the communication filed 07/07/2026. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
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 use the word “means,” and are 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 the 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: a reinforcement means in claim 9.
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. See page 2, line 26-27 of the instant specification.
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 the limitation "which reinforcement layers bridge a gap between the two at least two precast root segments" in line 4-5. It’s unclear if reference is being made to the earlier “at least one of a reinforcement fabric” or if a new “reinforcement layers” is being introduced. This will be interpreted as the reinforcement fabric.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the core element of the preformed reinforcement element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "which reinforcement layers bridge a gap between the at least two root segments" in line 4-5. It’s unclear if reference is being made to the earlier “at least one of a reinforcement fabric” or if a new “reinforcement layers” is being introduced. This will be interpreted as the reinforcement fabric.
Claims 2-8 are indefinite based on their dependency on claim 1.
Claims 10-15 are indefinite based on their dependency on claim 9.
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) 9, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2013/0177428 to Zeller et al. (Zeller).
In Reference to Claim 9
Zeller discloses a root of a wind turbine rotor blade (Fig. 1, 17 for instance), comprising at least two root segments arranged next to each other (Fig. 2a, 12 for instance, see also ¶ [0043]), wherein at least one layer of a reinforcement fabric (11a and 11b for instance) is arranged at an outside and at an inside of the at least two root segments (top and bottom of 12 for instance), respectively, which reinforcement layers bridge a gap between the at least two root segments (11a and 11b across adjacent 12’s for instance), wherein the reinforcement fabric is embedded in a cured resin which also fills the gap (see ¶ [0046] and [0044] for instance), wherein a reinforcement means (14 for instance) is arranged in the gap and is embedded in the cured resin (between adjacent 12’s for instance, see also ¶ [0044]).
In Reference to Claim 12
Zeller discloses the root according to claim 9, wherein a shape of the reinforcement means (Fig. 2a, 14 for instance) corresponds to a shape of neighboring front surfaces of the at least two root segments bounding the gap (12 bounding a gap occupied by 14 for instance, see also ¶ [0045]).
In Reference to Claim 13
Zeller discloses the root according to claim 9, wherein the reinforcement means (Fig. 2a, 14 for instance) extends both to the outside and the inside of the at least two root segments (to the top and bottom of 12 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 15
Zeller discloses a wind turbine blade (Fig. 1, 5 for instance) comprising a root according to claim nine.
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) 1-6, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2013/0177428 to Zeller et al. (Zeller) in view of WO 2017/215735 to Sorensen et al. (Sorensen).
In Reference to Claim 1
Zeller discloses a method for producing at least a part of a root of a wind turbine rotor blade (a root side of a blade for instance, see figure 1 and ¶ [0042)),
wherein at least two precast root segments (Fig. 2a, 12 for instance) are arranged next to each other (see ¶ [0043]) and at least one layer of a reinforcement fabric (11a and 11b for instance, of glass fiber material, see ¶ [0042]) is arranged at an outside and at an inside of the root segments (radially outer and inner of root portion for instance), respectively, which reinforcement layers (of 11a and 11b for instance) bridge a gap between the two at least two precast root segments (as across adjacent 12 for instance), whereafter a resin is applied for embedding the reinforcement layers and for filling the gap (see ¶ [0044]), and the resin is cured, wherein, for providing a reinforcement means in a final root (the system as finally formed for instance, see ¶ [0044]), a preformed reinforcement element (14 for instance).
Zeller does not explicitly teach the preformed reinforcement “... which is permeable for the resin and which comprises several fiber mats, is arranged in the gap and is embedded in the resin penetrating through the preformed reinforcement element ....”
Sorensen is related to a method for producing at least a part of a root of a wind turbine rotor blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches a preformed reinforcement element (Fig. 1, 11 for instance, see p. 4, l. 20-22), which is permeable for the resin and which comprises several fiber mats (p. 12, l. 29-33 and p. 13, l. 28-30, the spacer or preformed reinforcement element formed of several mats and can be infused to instance), is arranged in a gap (between precast root segments 7 for instance, Fig. 1) and is embedded in the resin penetrating through the preformed reinforcement element (as can be infused 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 Zeller wherein the preformed reinforcement element (of Zeller), which is permeable for the resin (as taught by Sorensen) and which comprises several fiber mats (as taught by Sorensen), is arranged in the gap (of Zeller) and is embedded in the resin penetrating through the preformed reinforcement element (as taught by Sorensen), so as to use an art known technique (of the forming of at least a part of a root of a wind turbine blade and using a preformed reinforcement element that is permeable as taught by Sorensen) into the system of Zeller and predictably form a part of the root portion of the blade.
In Reference to Claim 2
Zeller, as modified by Sorensen, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the preformed reinforcement element comprises several fiber mats fixated to each other, or that the preformed reinforcement element comprises a core element sandwiched between at least two fiber mats arranged at sides of the core
Element (the preformed reinforcement element at least stitched and thus fixated to each other as further taught by Sorensen, the other limitation satisfied as being in the alternative).
In Reference to Claim 3
Zeller, as modified by Sorensen, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a shape of the preformed reinforcement element (Zeller, 14 for instance) corresponds to a shape of neighboring front surfaces of the at least two precast root segments bounding the gap (Zeller, precast root segments 12 for instance, see also ¶ [0045]).
In Reference to Claim 4
Zeller, as modified by Sorensen, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the preformed reinforcement element (Zeller, 14 for instance) extends both to an outside an inside of the at least two precast root segments (Zeller, to the top and bottom of 12 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 5
Zeller, as modified by Sorensen, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the preformed reinforcement element (Zeller, 14 for instance) is fixated to at least one front surface of one of the at least two precast root segments bounding the gap (Zeller, 12 for instance, see also ¶ [0044]).
In Reference to Claim 6
Zeller, as modified by Sorensen, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the preformed reinforcement element (Zeller, 14 for instance) is glued to a front surface of at one of the at least two precast root segments (Zeller, to face of 12 for instance, see ¶ [0044]).
In Reference to Claim 10
Zeller discloses the root according to claim 9, except, "... wherein the reinforcement means comprises several fiber mats or several fiber mats and a core element sandwiched between the fiber mats penetrated by the resin ....”
Sorensen is related to a method for producing at least a part of a root of a wind turbine rotor blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches a reinforcement means (Fig. 1, 11 for instance, see also p. 4, l. 20-22) comprising several fiber mats penetrated by the resin (p. 12, l. 29-33 and p. 13, l. 28-30, the spacer or reinforcement element formed of several mats and can be infused to 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 Zeller wherein the reinforcement means (of Zeller) comprises several fiber mats (as taught by Sorenson) or several fiber mats and a core element sandwiched between the fiber mats (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative) penetrated by the resin (as taught by Zeller), so as to use an art known technique (of the forming of at least a part of a root of a wind turbine blade and using a reinforcement means that is permeable as taught by Sorensen) into the system of Zeller and predictably form a part of the root portion of the blade.
In Reference to Claim 11
Zeller, as modified by Sorensen, discloses the root according to claim 10, wherein the fiber mats (as taught by Zeller for instance) or the fiber mats and the core element (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative) are part of a prefabricated preform element (as taught by Zeller, see p. 4, l. 20-22).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2013/0177428 to Zeller et al. (Zeller) in view of WO 2017/215735 to Sorensen et al. (Sorensen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0347820 to Smith et al. (Smith).
In Reference to Claim 7
Zeller, as modified by Sorensen, discloses the method according to claim 1, except, "... wherein a binder, which fixates the fiber mats or the fiber mats and the core element of the preformed reinforcement element, is softened by heating the preformed reinforcement element, wherein a softened binder fixates the preformed reinforcement element to a front surface of at least one of the at least two precast root segments ....”
Smith is related to a method for producing at least a part of a root of a wind turbine rotor blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a binder (¶ [0041]), which fixates the fiber mats a fibrous element, is softened by heating the element (¶ [0041]), wherein a softened binder fixates the element to adjoining structures (¶ [0041]).
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 Zeller wherein a binder (as taught by Smith), which fixates the fiber mats (of Zeller) or the fiber mats and the core element (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative) of the preformed reinforcement element (of Zeller), is softened by heating (as taught by Smith) the preformed reinforcement element (of Zeller), wherein a softened binder (as taught by Smith) fixates the preformed reinforcement element to a front surface of at least one of the at least two precast root segments (of Zeller), so as to use an art known technique (of using a binder in the forming of root portions of a wind turbine as taught by Smith) into the system Zeller and predictably connect the components in the system.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2013/0177428 to Zeller et al. (Zeller) in view of WO 2017/215735 to Sorensen et al. (Sorensen) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0022968 to Caruso et al. (Caruso).
In Reference to Claim 8
Zeller, as modified by Sorensen, discloses the method according to claim 1, except, "... wherein one or more spacer elements are arranged at a front surface of at least one of the root segments bounding the gap which spacer element or spacer elements contact the front surface of the other root segment, wherein the preformed reinforcement element is arranged around the one or more spacer elements ....”
Caruso is related to a method for producing at least a part of a root of a wind turbine rotor blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein one or more spacer elements (Fig. 17, 68 and 70 for instance and for maintaining space see ¶ [0052]) are arranged at a surface of at least two root segments (46 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 Caruso wherein one or more spacer elements (as taught by Caruso) that is arranged at a surface of at least one of the root segments (of Zeller), so as to use an art known technique (of using a spacer element to situate components during assembly as taught by Caruso) into the system of Zeller and predictably situate the components of root assembly during manufacturing.
It is not taught arranged at a front surface of at least one of the root segments bounding the gap which spacer element or spacer elements contact the front surface of the other root segment, wherein the preformed reinforcement element is arranged around the one or more spacer elements.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the one or more spacer elements at this specific disposition solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the one or more spacer elements provides proper spacing during assembly and it appears that the spacer of Caruso would perform equally well with a disposition as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the system of Zeller with the spacer of Caruso by utilizing the specific disposition as claimed for the purpose of situating the components of the root during assembly.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2013/0177428 to Zeller et al. (Zeller) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0022968 to Caruso et al. (Caruso).
In Reference to Claim 14
Zeller discloses the root according to claim 9, except, "... wherein one or more spacer elements are arranged at a front surface of at least one of the at least two root segments bounding the gap, which spacer element or spacer elements contact the front surface of the other root segment, wherein the reinforcement means is arranged around the one or more spacer elements ....”
Caruso is related to a root of a wind turbine rotor blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein one or more spacer elements (Fig. 17, 68 and 70 for instance and for maintaining space see ¶ [0052]) are arranged at a surface of at least two root segments (46 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 Caruso wherein one or more spacer elements (as taught by Caruso) that is arranged at a surface of at least one of the at least two root segments (of Zeller), so as to use an art known technique (of using a spacer element to situate components during assembly as taught by Caruso) into the system of Zeller and predictably situate the components of root assembly during manufacturing.
It is not taught arranged at a front surface of at least one of the at least two root segments bounding the gap, which spacer element or spacer elements contact the front surface of the other root segment, wherein the reinforcement means is arranged around the one or more spacer elements.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the one or more spacer elements at this specific disposition solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the one or more spacer elements provides proper spacing during assembly and it appears that the spacer of Caruso would perform equally well with a disposition as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the system of Zeller with the spacer of Caruso by utilizing the specific disposition as claimed for the purpose of situating the components of the root during assembly.
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 root portions of wind turbine blades and forming root portions of wind turbine blades and reinforcing layers used in wind turbine manufacture.
Conclusion
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
