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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 is missing an ending punctuation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 5, 6, and 9-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “primarily” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “primarily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the instant case, it is not clear what percent is considered to be “primarily”.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “in the rear reinforcement structure, the layers of pultruded fibres of the first material”, however, claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 6, 5, and 1 and in those claims, the rear reinforcement structure doesn’t have the layers of pultruded fibres of the first material. This feature was introduced in claim 8. Hence, the metes and bounds of claims 9 and 10 are indefinite and unclear.
Any and all claims rejected herein under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, if rejected with art below under sections 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103, are rejected as best understood.
Claim 6 is rejected due to their dependency from a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bech (US 2018/0345603) in view of Akhtar (US 2010/0143142).
With regard to claim 1:
Bech discloses a wind turbine blade comprising: a root end (22) and a tip end (24), the blade extending in a spanwise direction between the root end and the tip end (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); a leading edge (26) and a trailing edge (28), the blade extending in a chordwise direction between the leading edge and the trailing edge (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); a leeward shell (42) and a windward shell (44), the blade extending in a thickness direction between the leeward shell and the windward shell (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); a main reinforcement structure, the main reinforcement structure comprising a main windward reinforcement structure (52) engaging the windward shell and extending in the spanwise direction of the blade and a main leeward reinforcement structure (54) engaging the leeward shell and extending in the spanwise direction of the blade (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); a rear reinforcement structure, the rear reinforcement structure comprising a rear windward reinforcement structure (56) engaging the windward shell and extending in the spanwise direction of the blade and a rear leeward reinforcement structure (58) engaging the leeward shell and extending in the spanwise direction of the blade (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11), the rear reinforcement structure being arranged between the main reinforcement structure and the trailing edge (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); and a trailing edge reinforcement structure (132a, 132b) extending in the spanwise direction of the blade and being arranged between the rear reinforcement structure and the trailing edge (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); wherein: the main windward reinforcement structure and the main leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a first material (64, [0054]); and the trailing edge reinforcement structure comprises fibres of a trailing edge reinforcement material ([0085], [0088], see CFRP or GRF) aligned with the trailing edge of the blade and engaging the leeward shell and/or the windward shell (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11).
Bech does not appear to explicitly disclose that the rear windward reinforcement structure and/or the rear leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a second material, the pultruded fibres of the first material having a Young's modulus greater than the pultruded fibres of the second material.
However, Akhtar teaches a wind turbine blade comprising a root end, a tip end, a leading edge, a trailing edge, a leeward shell, a windward shell (Fig. 2-5), a first reinforcement structure (40) comprising a first windward reinforcement structure and a first leeward reinforcement structure, a second reinforcement structure (44) comprising a second windward reinforcement structure and a second leeward reinforcement structure, the second reinforcement structure being arranged closer to the trailing edge (32, Fig. 3-5), wherein: the first windward and leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a first material; the second windward and leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a second material, the pultruded fibres of the first material having a Young's modulus greater than the pultruded fibres of the second material ([0016], [0017], Fig. 2-5). Akhtar further teaches that the first material is carbon ([0016]), second material is glass ([0017]), the fibres of the second reinforcement material are primarily unidirectionally arranged in a fabric of material, the fabric of material being in the form of tape ([0016], [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and have the second (i.e., rear) windward and/or leeward reinforcement structure of the blade of Bech comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a second material, and have the pultruded fibres of the first material having a Young's modulus greater than the pultruded fibres of the second material, and have the first material being carbon, the second material being glass, the fibres of the second reinforcement material being primarily unidirectionally arranged in a fabric of material, the fabric of material being in the form of tape.
With regard to claim 2:
The combination of Bech and Akhtar discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Bech and Akhtar does not appear to explicitly disclose that the pultruded fibres of the first material have a Young's modulus greater than the fibres of the trailing edge reinforcement material.
However, Akhtar teaches a wind turbine blade comprising a root end, a tip end, a leading edge, a trailing edge, a leeward shell, a windward shell (Fig. 2-5), a first reinforcement structure (40) comprising a first windward reinforcement structure and a first leeward reinforcement structure, a second reinforcement structure (44) comprising a second windward reinforcement structure and a second leeward reinforcement structure, the second reinforcement structure being arranged closer to the trailing edge (32, Fig. 3-5), wherein: the first windward and leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a first material; the second windward and leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a second material, the pultruded fibres of the first material having a Young's modulus greater than the pultruded fibres of the second material ([0016], [0017], Fig. 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and have the pultruded fibres of the first material have a Young's modulus greater than the fibres of the second (trailing edge) reinforcement material. Note that in Akhtar, the second reinforcement structure is the one that is closer to the trailing edge.
With regard to claim 3, the combination of Bech and Akhtar further discloses that the first material is carbon (Akhtar, [0016]).
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Bech and Akhtar further discloses that the second material and/or the trailing edge reinforcement material is glass (Akhtar, [0017]).
With regard to claim 5, the combination of Bech and Akhtar further discloses that the fibres of the trailing edge reinforcement material in the trailing edge reinforcement structure are primarily unidirectionally arranged in a fabric of material (Akhtar, [0016], [0017]).
With regard to claim 6, the combination of Bech and Akhtar further discloses that the fabric of material is in the form of tape (Akhtar, [0016]).
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Bech and Akhtar further discloses that the trailing edge reinforcement structure forms skins around a sandwich core of the leeward shell and/or the windward shell (Bech, Fig. 2, 3, 9-11).
With regard to claim 8:
The combination of Bech and Akhtar discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Bech and Akhtar does not appear to explicitly disclose that the rear reinforcement structure comprises layers of pultruded fibres of the first material.
However, Akhtar teaches a wind turbine blade comprising a root end, a tip end, a leading edge, a trailing edge, a leeward shell, a windward shell (Fig. 2-5), a first reinforcement structure comprising a first windward reinforcement structure and a first leeward reinforcement structure, a second reinforcement structure comprising a second windward reinforcement structure and a second leeward reinforcement structure, the second reinforcement structure being arranged closer to the trailing edge (32, Fig. 3-5), wherein the rear reinforcement structure comprises layers of pultruded fibres of the first material ([0023], Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and have the rear reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of the first material.
With regard to claim 9:
The combination of Bech and Akhtar discloses the wind turbine blade of claim 6, as set forth above.
The combination of Bech and Akhtar does not appear to explicitly disclose that in the rear reinforcement structure, the layers of pultruded fibres of the first material are nearer an outer surface of the blade than the layers of pultruded fibres of the second material.
However, Akhtar teaches a wind turbine blade comprising a root end, a tip end, a leading edge, a trailing edge, a leeward shell, a windward shell (Fig. 2-5), a first reinforcement structure comprising a first windward reinforcement structure and a first leeward reinforcement structure, a second reinforcement structure comprising a second windward reinforcement structure and a second leeward reinforcement structure, the second reinforcement structure being arranged closer to the trailing edge (32, Fig. 3-5), wherein in the second reinforcement structure, the layers of pultruded fibres of the first material are nearer an outer surface of the blade than the layers of pultruded fibres of the second material ([0023], Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and in the rear reinforcement structure, have the layers of pultruded fibres of the first material be nearer an outer surface of the blade than the layers of pultruded fibres of the second material.
With regard to claim 14:
Bech discloses a method for manufacturing a wind turbine blade, the method comprising the steps of: engaging a main windward reinforcement structure with a windward shell and a main leeward reinforcement structure with a leeward shell (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11), wherein the main windward reinforcement structure and the main leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a first material (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); engaging a rear windward reinforcement structure with the windward shell and a rear leeward reinforcement structure with the leeward shell (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); forming the wind turbine blade from the leeward shell and the windward shell such that the wind turbine blade extends in a spanwise direction between a root end and a tip end of the blade (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11), in a thickness direction between the leeward shell and the windward shell, and in a chordwise direction between a leading edge and a trailing edge of the blade (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11), wherein the main windward reinforcement structure, the main leeward reinforcement structure, the rear windward reinforcement structure, and the rear leeward reinforcement structure each extend in the spanwise direction of the blade (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11), wherein the main windward reinforcement structure and the main leeward reinforcement structure forms a main reinforcement structure and the rear windward reinforcement structure and the rear leeward reinforcement structure forms a rear reinforcement structure arranged between the main reinforcement structure and the trailing edge (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11); and engaging a trailing edge reinforcement structure with the wind turbine blade such that the trailing edge reinforcement structure extends in the spanwise direction and is arranged between the rear reinforcement structure and the trailing edge (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11), wherein the trailing edge reinforcement structure comprises fibres of a trailing edge reinforcement material aligned with the trailing edge of the blade and engaging the leeward shell and/or the windward shell (Fig. 2, 3, 9-11).
Bech does not appear to explicitly disclose that the rear windward reinforcement structure and/or the rear leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a second material, the pultruded fibres of the first material having a Young's modulus greater than the pultruded fibres of the second material.
However, Akhtar teaches a wind turbine blade comprising a root end, a tip end, a leading edge, a trailing edge, a leeward shell, a windward shell (Fig. 2-5), a first reinforcement structure (40) comprising a first windward reinforcement structure and a first leeward reinforcement structure, a second reinforcement structure (44) comprising a second windward reinforcement structure and a second leeward reinforcement structure, the second reinforcement structure being arranged closer to the trailing edge (32, Fig. 3-5), wherein: the first windward and leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a first material; the second windward and leeward reinforcement structure comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a second material, the pultruded fibres of the first material having a Young's modulus greater than the pultruded fibres of the second material ([0016], [0017], Fig. 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and have the second (i.e., rear) windward and/or leeward reinforcement structure of the blade of Bech comprise layers of pultruded fibres of a second material, and have the pultruded fibres of the first material having a Young's modulus greater than the pultruded fibres of the second material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 11-13 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(s) 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with regard to claim 10, the prior art doesn’t disclose that in the rear reinforcement structure, the layers of pultruded fibres of the first material extend further in the spanwise direction towards the tip end than the layers of pultruded fibres of the second material. With regard to claim 11, the prior art doesn’t disclose that the first average elastic modulus and the second average elastic modulus are determined with respect to unit area of the respective reinforcement structure perpendicular to the spanwise direction, wherein a ratio of the first average Young's modulus to the second average Young's modulus is between 1.1 and 2.6. With regard to claim 12, the prior art doesn’t disclose that the chordwise gap is at least 15% of a chord length from the trailing edge to the leading edge. It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application, nor any motivation, to modify the prior arts for these deficiencies, because they would require improper hindsight reconstruction. Claim 13 depends from claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar blades such as US 20110031758.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
