Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2025-05-29)
Rejection types: 102 - Lack of Novelty, 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
CLAIMS

claims 2-13.

1\. A method of manufacturing a composite part (70) for reinforcing a spar cap of a wind turbine blade shell part, the method comprising the steps of:- providing:o a mould (50) comprising a mould depression (51) with a floor surface (53) and an adjacent receiving section (54), and
o a mould inlay (60) having an insertion section (61) and a first side (63);
\- arranging the insertion section (61) of the mould inlay (60) in the receiving section (54) of the mould depression (51) so that a junction of the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60) and the floor surface (53) of the mould depression (51) forms a first mould edge (66) and so that a moulding surface (52) is formed at least by the floor surface (53) of the mould depression (51) and the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60);
\- arranging a fibre material (74) on the moulding surface (52) adjacent to the junction and the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60);
\- infusing the fibre material (74) with a resin (75) and curing the infused fibre material (74) to manufacture the composite part (70) having a first part edge (73) being formed by the junction of the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60) and the floor surface (53) of the mould depression (51), wherein the material of the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60) is chemically inert with the resin (75);
\- demoulding the composite part (70) from the mould depression (51); and
\- mating a first side of the composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) to a first side of the spar cap of the wind turbine blade shell part so as to reinforce an end section of the spar cap.

2\. A method according to claim 1, wherein the first mould edge (66) is substantially sharp, and wherein the first part edge (73) of the composite part (70) formed by the junction is correspondingly substantially sharp, preferably defined as having a maximum rounding radius of 1 mm.

3\. A method according to any one of the previous claims, wherein the material of the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60) is a polymer material, preferably silicone.

4\. A method according to claim 3, wherein the mould inlay (60) is formed in one piece of the polymer material, preferably silicone.

5\. A method according to any one of the previous claims, wherein the receiving section (54) of the mould depression (51) comprises a longitudinal groove (55) and the insertion section

(61) of the mould inlay (60) comprises a corresponding protrusion (62) matching the shape of the longitudinal groove (55), wherein the step of arranging the mould inlay (60) in the receiving section (54) of the mould depression (51) comprises arranging the protrusion (62) in the groove (55) so as to retain the mould inlay (60) in the mould (50).

6\. A method according to any one of the previous claims, wherein the moulding surface (52) extends along a curved and/or twisted course in the longitudinal direction (L).

7\. A method according to any one of the previous claims, wherein an intermediate draft angle (1') of the first side (71) of the composite part (70) is negative and wherein the step of demoulding the composite part (70) comprises demoulding the composite part (70) together with the mould inlay (60) from the mould depression (51).

8\. A method according to any one of the previous claims, wherein the mould inlay (60) comprises a plurality of mould inlay segments (67) arranged end-to-end in series in the receiving section (54) of the mould (50).

9\. A method according to any one of the previous claims, wherein the mould (50) is formed in one piece.

10\. A method according to any one of the previous claims, wherein a second side (64) of the mould inlay (60), which is opposite of the first side (63), is arranged in contact with a first lateral side (56) of the receiving section (54), wherein the first lateral side (56) forms a positive first draft angle (p13) with respect to a parting line (13) of the mould depression 51, and wherein the mould depression (51) comprises a second lateral side (57) being opposite of the first lateral side (56) and forming a positive second draft angle (132) with respect to a parting line (13) of the mould depression 51, wherein the step of demoulding the composite part (70) comprises:- removing the composite part (70) and the mould inlay (60) from the mould depression
(51) along the parting line (13) and separating the composite part (70) from the mould inlay (60).

11\. A method according to any one of the previous claims, wherein the step of infusing the fibre material (74) with a resin (75) and curing the infused fibre material (74) comprises the steps of:- arranging a vacuum foil (90) over the fibre material (74) so as to create a mould cavity (59) bounded by the moulding surface (52) and the vacuum foil (90);
\- evacuating the mould cavity (59) via a vacuum source (92);
\- infusing the fibre material (74) in the mould cavity (59) with the resin (75);

\- causing or letting the resin (75) cure to manufacture the composite part (70); and
\- debagging the composite part (70) by removing the vacuum foil (90).

12\. A method according to any one of the previous claims further comprising:- cutting the composite part (70) to provide a second side (72) tapering along the
longitudinal direction (L), the second side (72) being opposite of a first side (71) of the composite part (70); and
\- mating and bonding the first side (71) of the composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) to a first side (82) of a spar cap (80) at an end section (81) of the spar cap (80).

13\. A method according to claim 12, wherein the composite part (70) is a first composite part,and the method further comprises the steps of:
\- providing a second composite part (70') by a method according to any one of claims 1- 11;
\- cutting the second composite part (70') to provide a second side (72') tapering along
the longitudinal direction (L), the second side (72') being opposite of a first side (71') of the second composite part (70'); and
\- mating and bonding the first side (71') of the second composite part (70') including the first part edge (73') to a second side (83) of the spar cap (80) at the end section (81) of the spar cap (80) and so that the end section (81) of the spar cap (80) flares towards an end (84) of the spar cap (80).

14\. A method of manufacturing a composite part (70) for a wind turbine blade (10), the method comprising the steps of:- providing:
o a mould (50) comprising a mould depression (51) with a floor surface (53) and
an adjacent receiving section (54), and
o a mould inlay (60) having an insertion section (61) and a first side (63);
\- arranging the insertion section (61) of the mould inlay (60) in the receiving section (54) of the mould depression (51) so that a junction of the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60) and the floor surface (53) of the mould depression (51) forms a first mould edge (66) and so that a moulding surface (52) is formed at least by the floor surface (53) of the mould depression (51) and the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60);
\- arranging a fibre material (74) on the moulding surface (52) adjacent to the junction and the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60);
\- infusing the fibre material (74) with a resin (75) and curing the infused fibre material (74) to manufacture the composite part (70) having a first side including a first part

edge (73), the first part edge (73) being formed by the junction of the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60) and the floor surface (53) of the mould depression (51), wherein the material of the first side (63) of the mould inlay (60) is chemically inert with the resin (75), wherein the first side (71) is configured to be mated to a first side of a spar
cap for the wind turbine blade; and
\- demoulding the composite part (70) from the mould depression (51).

15\. A method according to claim 14, wherein the method includes any of the steps recited in

16\. A method of manufacturing a blade shell part, the method comprising the steps of:- manufacturing and providing a spar cap, the spar cap (80) having a first side (82) and a second side (83);
\- manufacturing a first composite part (70) according to the method of any of claims 14- 15; and
\- arranging the first composite part (70) such that the first side (71) of the first composite part (70) is mated to the first side (82) of the spar cap.

17\. A method according to claim 16, further comprising:- manufacturing a second composite part (70') according to the method of any of claims 14-15; and
\- arranging the second composite part (70') such that the first side (71') of the second
composite part (70') is mated to the second side (82) of the spar cap.

18\. A composite part (70) for a wind turbine blade shell part obtainable by a method according to any one of claims 1-15.

19\. A wind turbine blade shell part comprising a first composite part (70) and a second composite part (70') and a spar cap, wherein a first side (71) of the first composite part (70) includes a first part edge (73) and is adhered to a first side (82) of the spar cap (80), and wherein a first side (71') of the second composite part (70') includes a first part edge (73') and is adhered to a second side (83) of the spar cap (80), the second side of the spar cap (80) being opposite of the first side (82) of the spar cap (80) so that the first and second composite parts (70, 70') and the spar cap (80) flares towards an end (84) of the spar cap (80). 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2-4 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.
Regarding claims 2-4, the phrase preferably renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.  See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “A method according to claim 14, wherein the method includes any of the steps recited in claim 14”.  Claim 15 is improper since it does not include all of the limitations of claim 14, from which it depends as “any of the steps” is construed as “at least one”, which does not include all steps.  In the alternative, if “any of the steps” is construed as “all”, the claim fails to further limit the method of claim 14.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 16-17 are also rejected as not including all limitations of claim 14, from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(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, 2, 6-9, 11, 14-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wischolewski et al. (DE 102012223707), hereinafter: “Wischolewski”.  The English translation of DE 102012223707 provided to be referenced hereinafter.
In Regard to Claim 1
Wischolewski teaches:
A method of manufacturing a composite part (18) for reinforcing a spar cap (16) of a wind turbine blade (10,12l Fig 4,5,6; P[0063],[0081]), the method comprising the steps of:
providing:
a mould (52) comprising a mould depression (54) with a floor surface (66) and an adjacent receiving section (the portion of 66 receiving the inlay 78,76; Fig 4; P[0073]), and
a mould inlay (78,76) having an insertion section (76) and a first side (78; Fig 4,5; P[0073],[0085]);
arranging the insertion section of the mould inlay in the receiving section of the mould depression(visually apparent from Fig 4-6) so that a junction of the first side of the mould inlay and the floor surface of the mould depression forms a first mould edge (visually apparent from Fig 4-6) and so that a moulding surface is formed at least by the floor surface of the mould depression and the first side of the mould inlay (a moulding surface is formed by 66 and 78 as visually apparent in Fig 4; P[0071],[0072]);
arranging a fibre material (18) on the moulding surface adjacent to the junction  and the first side of the mould inlay (as shown in Fig 5-6, 18 is arranged on the moulding surface adjacent the junction of 66 and 78; P[0074]);
infusing the fibre material (18) with a resin and curing the infused fibre material to manufacture the composite part(P[0048],[0074]) having a first part edge being formed by the junction of the first side of the mould inlay and the floor surface of the mould depression (a first part edge of 18 is visually apparent in Fig 5,6), wherein the material of the first side of the mould inlay is chemically inert with the resin (P[0082], the component 76,78 is detached/demoulded and therefore inert/incompatible with the resin); and
demoulding the composite part from the mould depression (P[0082]); and
mating a first side (36) of the composite part including the first part edge to a first side of the spar cap of the wind turbine blade shell part so as to reinforce an end section of the spar cap (as shown Fig 1, first side 36 of 18 which includes the first part edge is mated to a first side of the spar cap 14 of blade shell part 10 to reinforce the end of the spar cap; P[0063],[0064]).
In Regard to Claim 2
Wischolewski teaches:
A method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the first mould edge is substantially sharp, and wherein the first part edge of the composite part formed by the junction is correspondingly substantially sharp, preferably defined as having a maximum rounding radius of 1 mm (P[0081]-[0083], the interior angle(180 – α) formed by surfaces 78 and 66 form a first mould edge and corresponding first part edge that is substantially sharp as is visually apparent from Fig 4-6).
In Regard to Claim 6
Wischolewski teaches:
A method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the moulding surface extends along a curved course in the longitudinal direction (P[0073], at least 78 may be curved in the longitudinal x direction).
In Regard to Claim 8
Wischolewski teaches:
A method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the mould inlay comprises a plurality of mould inlay segments arranged end-to-end in series in the receiving section of the mould (mould inlay 78,76 comprises a plurality of coextensive mould inlay segments arranged end-to end in series in the longitudinal x direction in the receiving section).
In Regard to Claim 9
Wischolewski teaches:
A method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the mould is formed in one piece(the mould is one-piece as shown in Fig 3-6; P[0028]).
In Regard to Claim 11
Wischolewski teaches:
A method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the step of infusing the fibre material with a resin and curing the infused fibre material comprises the steps of:
- arranging a vacuum foil over the fibre material so as to create a mould cavity(space between moulding surface and foil) bounded by the moulding surface and the vacuum foil (P[0048]);
- evacuating the mould cavity via a vacuum source (P[0048]);
- infusing the fibre material in the mould cavity with the resin (P[0048]);
- causing or letting the resin cure to manufacture the composite part (P[0048]); and
- debagging the composite part by removing the vacuum foil (P[0048]-[0049], debagging including removal of the foil is an inherent step in the manufacturing process as demoulding could not be performed before a debag and foil removal).
In Regard to Claim 14
Wischolewski teaches:
A method of manufacturing a composite part (18) of a wind turbine blade (10,12; Fig 4-6; P[0063],[0081), the method comprising the steps of:
providing:
a mould (52) comprising a mould depression (54) with a floor surface (66) and an adjacent receiving section (the portion of 66 receiving the inlay 78,76; Fig 4; P[0073]), and
a mould inlay (78,76) having an insertion section (76) and a first side (78; Fig 4,5; P[0073],[0085]);
arranging the insertion section of the mould inlay in the receiving section of the mould depression(visually apparent from Fig 4-6) so that a junction of the first side of the mould inlay and the floor surface of the mould depression forms a first mould edge (visually apparent from Fig 4-6) and so that a moulding surface is formed at least by the floor surface of the mould depression and the first side of the mould inlay (a moulding surface is formed by 66 and 78 as visually apparent in Fig 4; P[0071],[0072]);
arranging a fibre material (18) on the moulding surface adjacent to the junction (24) and the first side of the mould inlay (Fig. 5; paragraph [0074));
infusing the fibre material (18) with a resin and curing the infused fibre material to manufacture the composite part(P[0048],[0074]) having a first side(36) including a first part edge being formed by the junction of the first side of the mould inlay and the floor surface of the mould depression (a first part edge of side 36 is visually apparent in Fig 5,6), wherein the material of the first side of the mould inlay is chemically inert with the resin (P[0082], the component 76,78 is detached/demoulded and therefore inert/incompatible with the resin), wherein the first side (36) is configured to be mated to a first side of the spar cap of the wind turbine blade (as shown Fig 1, first side 36 of 18 which includes the first part edge is mated to a first side of the spar cap 14 of blade shell part 10 to reinforce the end of the spar cap; P[0063],[0064]); and
demoulding the composite part from the mould depression (P[0082]).
In Regard to Claim 15
Wischolewski teaches:
A method according to claim 14(see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the method includes any of the steps in claim 14(the method includes all steps of claim 14, see rejection of claim 14 above).
In Regard to Claim 16
Wischolewski teaches:
A method of manufacturing a blade shell part(10; Fig 1), the method comprising the steps of:
- manufacturing and providing a spar cap((14,16; Fig 1), the spar cap having a first side (side adjacent 18) and a second side (side adjacent 10);
- manufacturing a first composite part (18) according to the method of any of claims 14-15(see rejection of claims 14-15 above); and
- arranging the first composite part such that the first side of the first composite part is mated to the first side of the spar cap(Fig 1; 36 mates with 14; P[0064]).
In Regard to Claim 18
Wischolewski teaches:
A composite part (18) for a wind turbine blade shell part(10,12) obtainable by a method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1 above).
In Regard to Claim 19
Wischolewski teaches:
A wind turbine blade shell part (10) comprising a first composite part (28) and a second composite part (30) and a spar cap (14), wherein a first side of the first composite part includes a first part edge and is adhered to a first side of the spar cap (a first side of 28 includes a first part edge that is adhered to a leading edge side of 14; Fig 1-2), and wherein a first side of the second composite part includes a first part edge and is adhered to a second side of the spar cap (a first side of 30 includes a first part edge that is adhered to a trailing edge side of 14; Fig 1-2), the second side of the spar cap being opposite of the first side of the spar cap so that the first and second composite parts and the spar cap flares towards an end of the spar cap (as shown in Fig 1, both 28 and 30 are flared or angled toward an leading edge side end of the spar cap).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Busbey et al. (US 20130224032), hereinafter: “Busbey”.
In Regard to Claim 19
Busbey teaches:
A wind turbine blade shell part (Fig. 7,8; paragraph [0001]) comprising a first composite part (176) and a second composite part (182) and a spar cap (40,146), wherein a first side of the first composite part (176) includes a first part edge and is adhered to a first side of the spar cap (40,146) (Fig. 9; paragraph [0049]), and wherein a first side of the second composite part (182) includes a first part edge and is adhered to a second side of the spar cap (Fig. 9; paragraph [0049]), the second side of the spar cap being opposite of the first side of the spar cap so that the first and second composite parts and the spar cap flares towards an end of the spar cap (Fig. 9).
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 (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.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wischolewski.
In Regard to Claim 3
Wischolewski teaches:
A method according to claim 1(see rejection of claim 1), wherein the material of the first side of the mould inlay is a heat-conducting material and/or a heat conducting structure(P[0041]).
Wischolewski fails to teach:
polymer material, preferably silicone.
However, Wischolewski does teach the mould inlay may be formed to comprise a heat conducting material and/or a heat conducting structure as described for the insert(P[0039]-P[0041]).  Wischolewski further teaches it is known to construct the insert of a polymer material, silicone, and a metallic fleece form the heat-conducting structure(P[0039]-[0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wischolewski to use silicone to construct the mould inlay as Wischolewski teaches the use of a silicone is a known material suitable for making composite moulding components. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected a silicone because it is merely the selection of an art known material suitable for the construction of a composite moulding component.
In further support of this position, the selection of a known material to make an
composite moulding component prior to the invention was held to be obvious see In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In Regard to Claim 4
Wischolewski teaches:
A method according to claim 3(see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the mould inlay is formed in one piece(the mould is one-piece as shown in Fig 3-6; P[0028]) of the polymer material, preferably silicone(Wischolewski as modified above for claim 3).
In further support of this position, it is noted that making a part integral, as it is disclosed and claimed in the instant application, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, as the use of a one piece construction instead of a multi-piece structure would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice (In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 10, 12-13 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.
The combination of the features of dependent claims 5, 7, 10, 12, 13, 17 is neither known from, nor rendered obvious by, the available prior art. The reasons are as follows:
Regarding Claim 5, Wischolewski teaches to shift the inlay (76,78) in paragraph [0085] to adjust a gap in the mold therefore the person skilled in the art would have no motivation to arrange the inlay in a groove thereby permanently fixing the position of the inlay (76,78). The inlay is fixed by a screw that can also prevent the inlay from tilting. A person skilled in the art would therefore not replace the screw by a groove.
Regarding Claims 7 and 10, Wischolewski teaches the mold inlay is permanently fixed to the mold and not designed to be removed when demoulding. A person skilled in the art would have no motivation to change that.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, Wischolewski teaches the second side of the composite parts comprises a web. A person skilled in the art would not cut into this web to provide a tapered portion as this would impair the load bearing capabilities of the web.
Claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 17, Wischolewski teaches the composite part is arranged between the spar caps and therefore only on one side of each spar cap. Arranging the composite part on both (i.e. also the opposite) sides of said spar caps would make no sense as this would correspond to the outer suction and pressure side of the blade.
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
By the present amendment, Applicant has amended claims 1, 2 and 6-19. Applicant has further inserted new claims 20-23. No new subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 132 has been inserted. Claims 3-5 have been canceled by the present amendment without prejudice or disclaimer to the subject matter contained therein. Claims 1, 2 and 6-23 are presented herein for examination. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections set forth in the Office Action dated May 29, 2025 are respectfully requested in view of this amendment and the following remarks.
Re
jection Under 35 U.S.C.
J
112(b)
Claims 2-4 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection for the following reasons:
Response
It is respectfully noted that claim 2 has been amended to remove the clause beginning with "preferably." Claims 3 and 4 have been cancelled.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been overcome and should be withdrawn.
Re
jection Under 35 U.S.C.
J
112(d)
Claims 15-17 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) as being of improper dependent form. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection for the following reasons:
Response
It is respectfully noted that claim 15 has been amended as follows: "...
wherein the method includes any of the steps recited in claim 14.
further comprising mating a first side of the
composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) to a first side of the spar cap so as to reinforce an end section of the spar cap."
Additionally, each of claims 16 and 17 has been amended to depend from claim 14.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of claims 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) has been overcome and should be withdrawn.
Re
jections Under 35 U.S.C.
J
102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C.
J
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 6-9, 11, 14-16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wischolewski et al. (DE 102012223707 A1). Claim 19 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Busbey et al. (US 2013/0224032 A1). Claims 3 and 4 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wischolewski et al. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections for the following reasons:
Response
For a reference to anticipate an invention, all of the elements of that invention must be present in the reference. The test for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is whether each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987); MPEP §2131. The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the claim. Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1989); MPEP §2131. Additionally, the elements must be arranged as required by the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The test for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is referred to as the "Graham Test", as laid out in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 86 S. Ct. 684 (1966). Under the Graham Test,
in order to determine whether an invention is obvious in light of the prior art, the following factors are considered: 1) the scope and content of the prior art; 2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; 3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and 4) secondary considerations of non-obviousness. See id. at 17-18. Subsequent to Graham, the court further refined the test for obviousness in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). In KSR, the court stated: "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id. at 416. Further, the court added several factors that may be considered along with the Graham factors, including the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, design incentives, market forces, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent, and the background knowledge, creativity and common sense of the person of ordinary skill. See id. at 418-421. These factors assist in determining whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent application at issue.
"A patent is invalid if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." Star Sci., Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011). One way to measure alleged obviousness is whether material found in a collection of prior art references suggest that an application's claims would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of conception. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Such prior art disclosure is established only when an asserted combination of references, when viewed in combination, discloses or suggests every claimed feature as recited in the claims currently under examination. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner must establish that the prior art references teach or suggest all of the claim features. Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 18,
USPQ2d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Fine, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988); In re Wilson, 165 USPQ2d 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). A prima facie case of obviousness must also include a showing of the reasons why it would be obvious to modify the references to produce the present invention. See Dystar Textilfarben GMBH v. C. H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Examiner bears the initial burden to provide some convincing line of reasoning as to why the artisan would have found the claimed invention to have been obvious in light of the teachings. Id. at 1366.
It is respectfully noted that claims 3 and 4 have been canceled. It is further noted that independent claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of allowable claim 5, specifically, newly-amended independent claim 1 recites: "wherein the receiving section (54) of the mould depression (51) comprises a longitudinal groove (55) and the insertion section (61) of the mould inlay (60) comprises a corresponding protrusion (62) matching the shape of the longitudinal groove (55), wherein the step of arranging the mould inlay (60) in the receiving section (54) of the mould depression (51) comprises arranging the protrusion (62) in the groove
(55) so as to retain the mould inlay (60) in the mould (50)." As admitted by the Examiner on page 13 of the Office Action, Wischolewski et al. neither teaches nor suggests the above subject matter from allowable claim 5.
It is further noted that claims 2, 6-9 and 11 have each been amended to depend from independent claim 14. Claims 15, 16 and 18 each include a dependency on independent claim 14. Independent claim 14 has been amended to recite: "... a first surface of the composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) and a first surface of the spar cap form a substantially continuous surface ...". See, for example, page 11, lines 11-16, of the originally-filed specification, for example (... a bottom surface 76 of the composite part 70 including the first part edge 73 and a bottom surface 86 of the spar cap 80 forms a substantially continuous surface."). Independent claim 19 has been similarly amended.
In contrast, Wischolewski et al. discloses a T-shaped shear web 18 that is mated to the internal faces of two separate spar caps 14, 16:
FIG. 1
It is clear that the above arrangement does not, and cannot, form a continuous exterior surface with the spar cap. Thus, Wischolewski et al. does nor provide for: "... so that a first surface of the composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) and a first surface of the spar cap form a substantially continuous surface ...", as recited by newly-amended independent claim 14.
Similarly, Wischolewski et al. does not provide for: "... so that a first surface (76) of the first composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) and a first surface (86) of the spar cap
(80) form a substantially continuous surface ...", as recited by newly-amended independent claim 19.
With regard to the Busbey et al. reference, as shown in, for example, Fig. 9 of Busbey et al., flare laminates 176, 182 overlap the exterior surface of the spar cap 146:
The overlapping of the flare laminates 176, 182 inherently creates a stepped and discontinuous surface. As such, it is clear that Busbey et al. does not provide for: "... so that a first surface (76) of the first composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) and a first surface (86) of the spar cap (80) form a substantially continuous surface ...", as recited by newly-amended independent claim 19.
It is believed that claims 2, 6-9, 11, 15, 16, 18 and 23 show patentable distinction over the prior art cited by the Examiner for at least the same reasons as those given above with respect to independent claim 14. Further, it is respectfully noted that newly-inserted claims 20-22 each depends from independent claim 19, thus it is believed that each of claims 20-22 shows
patentable distinction over the prior art cited by the Examiner for at least the same reasons as those given above with respect to independent claim 19. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejections of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11 and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been overcome and should be withdrawn.
Moreover, with regard to newly-inserted dependent claim 20, it is respectfully noted that claim 20 recites a symmetrical arrangement, with a second composite part flaring on the opposite side of the spar cap. It is noted that Busbey et al. shows a two-sided flare, which is a stepped and overlapping structure, which is readily distinguishable from a two-sided flare with a substantially continuous surface. As such, it is believed that dependent claim 20 is further patentably distinguished over the cited prior art.
Further, with regard to newly-inserted dependent claims 21 and 22, claims 21 and 22 recite a sharp edge feature, with a 1 mm radius, respectively, which improves the substantially continuous surface. Busbey et al. is entirely silent on edge geometry and provides no teaching or suggestion to create such an interface to solve the problem of achieving a seamless butt joint. As such, it is believed that dependent claims 21 and 22 are each further patentably distinguished over the cited prior art.
In addition to the above, newly-inserted dependent claim 23 recites that the surfaces being manufactured are "configured for being oriented towards an exterior of the wind turbine blade." Wischolewski's process is drawn to the manufacture of an internal shear web component and does address components that form part of the blade's exterior aerodynamic profile. As such, it is believed that dependent claim 23 is further patentably distinguished over the cited prior art.
CONCLUSION

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: ALLOWABILITY NOTICE
Status
The amendments filed on 8/29/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2 and 6-23 are pending.  Claims 1-2 and 6-19 are amended.  Claims 3-5 are cancelled. Claims 20-23 are new.
Response to Arguments
Regarding amended claim 1 Applicant has merely incorporated the indicate allowable subject matter of original claim 5.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 8/29/2025, with respect to claim 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive.  The previous rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding amended claim 19 Applicant has agreed to incorporate the subject matter of 20 into claim 19 to place the application in condition for allowance.
The rejections of 5/29/25 have been withdrawn and claims 1-2, 6-19 and 21-23 are in condition for allowance.
EXAMINER’S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Morgan D. Rosenburg (Reg. No. 80425) on 9/18/25.
The application has been amended as follows:
Claim 19 has been rewritten as:
“A wind turbine blade shell part comprising a first composite part (70) and a second composite part (70') and a spar cap,
wherein a first side (71) of the first composite part (70) includes a first part edge (73) and is adhered to a first side (82) of the spar cap (80) so that a first surface (76) of the first composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) and a first surface (86) of the spar cap (80) form a substantially continuous surface, wherein the first surface (76) of the composite part (70) and the first surface (86) of the spar cap (80) are oriented towards the exterior of a wind turbine blade,
wherein a first side (71') of the second composite part (70') includes a first part edge (73') and is adhered to a second side (83) of the spar cap (80), the second side (83) of the spar cap (80) being opposite of the first side (82) of the spar cap (80) so that the first and second composite parts (70, 70') and the spar cap (80) flare towards an end (84) of the spar cap (80) so that an exterior surface (76) of the first composite part (70) including the first part edge (73), an exterior surface (76') of the second composite part (70') including the first part edge (73') and an exterior surface (86) of the spar cap (80) form a substantially continuous surface, wherein the first surface (76) of the first composite part (70), a first surface of the second composite part, and the first surface (86) of the spar cap (80) are oriented towards the exterior of the wind turbine blade.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 6-19 and 21-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 1, Wischolewski teaches to shift the inlay (76,78) in paragraph [0085] to adjust a gap in the mold therefore the person skilled in the art would have no motivation to arrange the inlay in a groove thereby permanently fixing the position of the inlay (76,78). The inlay is fixed by a screw that can also prevent the inlay from tilting. A person skilled in the art would therefore not replace the screw by a groove.
Therefore, the prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest “wherein the receiving section (54) of the mould depression (51) comprises a longitudinal groove (55) and the insertion section (61) of the mould inlay (60) comprises a corresponding protrusion (62) matching the shape of the longitudinal groove (55), wherein the step of arranging the mould inlay (60) in the receiving section (54) of the mould depression (51) comprises arranging the protrusion (62) in the groove (55) so as to retain the mould inlay (60) in the mould (50)”.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest in combination with the other limitations of the claim “a first surface of the composite part (70) including the first part edge (73) and a first surface of the spar cap form a substantially continuous surface”.
Claims 2, 6-13, 15-18 and 23 are also allowed by virtue of their dependency on Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art of record fails to fairly teach or suggest in combination with the other limitations of the claim “the first and second composite parts (70, 70') and the spar cap (80) flare towards an end (84) of the spar cap (80) so that an exterior surface (76) of the first composite part (70) including the first part edge (73), an exterior surface (76') of the second composite part (70') including the first part edge (73') and an exterior surface (86) of the spar cap (80) form a substantially continuous surface, wherein the first surface (76) of the first composite part (70), a first surface of the second composite part, and the first surface (86) of the spar cap (80) are oriented towards the exterior of the wind turbine blade.”
Claims 21-22 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 19.
It is the Examiner’s opinion that one having ordinary skill in the art, considering the prior art of record, alone or in combination, would not have arrived at the inventions of claims 1, 14 and 19 without the benefit of Applicant’s disclosure.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref DE102012223707A1: Claims:
Shaping device for producing a T-bar ( 18 ) for a rotor blade of a wind turbine, which has a web support section ( 20 ) and at least one at one end of the web support portion ( 20 ) provided T-shaped web foot section ( 24 . 26 ), wherein the molding device has a main shape ( 44 ) and at least one depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ), the main form ( 44 ) at least one depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) and the at least one recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) at least partially delimiting main section ( 52 ) with a depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) surrounding surface section ( 56 . 56 ' ) and one to the depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) surrounding surface section ( 56 . 56 ' ) adjacent, outside the recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) arranged forming surface section ( 60 ), wherein the at least one insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) at least partially complementary to the at least one recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ) and the at least one depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) and the main form ( 44 ) are designed so that when the at least one depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) into the at least one depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ), a first surface section ( 62 . 62 ' ) of the depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) to a shaping surface section ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) bounding edge ( 57 . 57 ' ) of the main section ( 52 ) is at least substantially flush and the first surface portion ( 62 . 62 ' ) of the depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) at its forming surface portion ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) opposite side of a second surface portion ( 64 . 64 ' ), which extends into the at least one recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) extends into it.
Shaping device according to claim 1, characterized in that the first surface section ( 62 . 62 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ) inserted ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) together with the shaping surface section ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) of the main form ( 44 ) a shaping surface for the web support portion ( 20 ).
Shaping device according to claim 1 or 2, characterized in that the first surface section ( 62 . 62 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ) inserted ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) together with the shaping surface section ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) of the main form ( 44 ) forms an at least substantially planar surface.
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the second surface section ( 64 . 64 ' ) of the depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) a shaping surface for a portion of a leg ( 30 . 30 ' ) one of the at least one web foot section ( 24 . 26 ).
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the shaping device several (in the main form ( 44 ) insertable inserts ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) with different dimensions for the production of webs ( 18 ) having different shapes, wherein preferably the width of the first surface portion ( 62 . 62 ' ) of an depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) of the width of the first surface section ( 62 . 62 ' ) of another depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) deviates.
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the main shape ( 44 ) two depressions ( 54 . 54 ' ), each through the main section ( 52 ) of the main form ( 44 ) and on opposite sides of the main section ( 52 ), wherein the molding device preferably at least two depositors ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ), each of which is at least partially complementary to one of the two depressions ( 54 . 54 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ), the depositors ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) and the main form ( 44 ) are designed so that when each of the depositors ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) in each case a depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ), in each case a first surface section ( 62 . 62 ' ) the depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) to a shaping surface section ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) bounding edge ( 57 . 57 ' ) of the main section ( 52 ) is at least substantially flush adjacent and in each case the first surface section ( 64 . 64 ' ) of the depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) at its forming surface portion ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) opposite side of a second surface portion ( 64 . 64 ' ), which extends into the at least one recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) extends into it.
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the first surface section ( 62 . 62 ' ) and the second surface section ( 64 . 64 ' ) of the at least one depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) include an interior angle (Î±, Î± ') of less than 90 degrees, preferably less than 75 degrees, and more preferably less than 60 degrees.
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) surrounding surface section ( 56 . 56 ' ) of the main section ( 52 ) and to which the depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) surrounding surface section ( 56 . 56 ' ) adjacent, outside the recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) arranged shaping surface section ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) an inner angle (Î², Î² ') of  greater than 90 degrees, preferably at least 100 degrees, and more preferably at least 105 degrees.
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the main shape ( 44 ) two depressions ( 54 . 54 ' ), which on opposite sides of the main section ( 52 ) of the main form ( 44 ), each of the depressions ( 54 . 54 ' ) on its main section ( 52 ) facing side by a recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) surrounding surface section ( 56 . 56 ' ) of the main section ( 52 ) of the main form ( 44 ) is limited, wherein the sum of the inner angle (Î²) between the shaping surface portion ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) and one of the depressions ( 54 ) umwandenden section ( 56 ) of the main section ( 52 ) and the inner angle (Î² ') between the shaping surface portion ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) and the other depression ( 54 ' ) umwandenden section ( 56 ' ) of the main section ( 52 ) is more than 180 degrees, preferably more than 181 degrees, more preferably more than 182 degrees, most preferably more than 183 degrees, and most preferably more than 184 degrees.
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the at least one insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) into the main form ( 44 ) can be inserted in such a way that it engages positively with the main shape (at least in a direction different from the demoulding direction of the molding device) ( 44 ) connected is.
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the shaping device has several inserts ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ), which are next to each other and / or in succession in the at least one recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ) can be inserted.
Shaping device according to at least one of the preceding claims, characterized in that the shaping device has at least one web foot angle ( 76 . 76 ' ) which is deposited on the soil surface ( 66 . 66 ' ) of the at least one recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ) can be placed, wherein the web foot angle ( 76 . 76 ' ) preferably at least one of the second surface portion ( 64 . 64 ' ) of the at least one depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) opposite surface portion ( 78 . 78 ' ) having.
Method for producing a molding device for producing a T-bar ( 18 ) for a rotor blade of a wind turbine according to one of the preceding claims, which comprises - at least one insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) for a main form ( 44 ) of the molding device, wherein the at least one insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) using one or more model parts ( 88 ), at least in sections, the shape of the web to be produced ( 18 ) and one or more model parts ( 84 . 86 ), at least in sections, the shape of the main form ( 44 ), is molded, and - using the insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) and the one or more model parts ( 88 ), at least in sections, the shape of the web to be produced ( 18 ), the main form ( 44 ) is molded.
A method according to claim 13, characterized in that using the main form ( 44 ) or one or more model parts ( 84 . 86 ), at least in sections, the shape of the main form ( 44 ), and one or more model parts ( 90 ), which at least in sections take the form of another bridge ( 18 ), another depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) is molded.
Method according to claim 14, characterized in that the further insert ( 80 ) has a smaller width than that for the production of the main form ( 44 ) used depositors ( 58 . 58 ' ).
Method for producing a T-bar ( 18 ) for a rotor blade of a wind energy plant using a molding device according to at least one of the preceding claims 1 to 12, which comprises that - the at least one insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) into the main form ( 44 ), - the material for the T-bar to be produced ( 18 ) is introduced into the molding device, - the web ( 18 ) and - the bridge ( 18 ) of the main form ( 44 ) is removed from the mold.
A method according to claim 16, characterized in that the T-bar ( 18 ) together with the at least one depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) in a first direction from the main form ( 44 ) is removed from the mold and then the insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) in a second direction different from the first direction from the web (FIG. 18 ) is removed from the mold.
Method according to claim 16 or 17, characterized in that the insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) is provided with a release agent prior to introducing the material into the molding apparatus.
Depositors ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) for a molding device for producing a T-bar ( 18 ) for a rotor blade of a wind turbine, wherein the insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) at least in sections complementary to at least one depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) of a main form ( 44 ) of the molding device is formed and the insert ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) like that  is designed that when the depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) into the at least one depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) of the main form ( 44 ), a first surface section ( 62 . 62 ' ) of the depositor ( 58 . 58 ' . 80 . 80 ' ) to one outside the depression ( 54 . 54 ' ) arranged forming surface section ( 60 ) of a main section ( 52 ) of the main form ( 44 ) adjoins flush and the first surface section ( 62 . 62 ' ) of the insert at its forming surface portion ( 60 ) of the main section ( 52 ) opposite side of a second surface portion ( 64 . 64 ' ), which extends into the at least one recess ( 54 . 54 ' ) extends into it.
Ref US20130224032: Claims:
1. A rotor blade assembly, comprising:
a first blade segment having a first joint end; a second blade segment having a second joint end; and, a blade insert having a first end coupled to the first joint end such that a first interface is defined between the blade insert and the first blade segment and a second end coupled to the second joint end such that a second interface is defined between the blade insert and the second blade segment, the blade insert defining a chord, the chord at the first interface being substantially equal to the chord at the second interface.
2. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the chord of the blade insert is substantially constant between the first and second interfaces.
3. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the blade insert defines an airfoil-shaped cross-section, the airfoil shaped cross-section at the first interface being substantially the same as the airfoil-shaped cross-section at the second interface.
4. The blade insert of claim 3, wherein the airfoil-shaped cross-section of the blade insert is substantially constant between the first and second interfaces.
5. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the blade insert defines a length between the first and second ends ranging from about 1 meter to about 20 meters.
6. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the first blade segment defines a first length and the second blade segment defines a second length, the first and second lengths together defining a total segment span, wherein the first length ranges from about 40% to about 95% of the total segment span.
7. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the first blade segment defines a maximum chord location for the rotor blade assembly.
8. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein a center of gravity of the rotor blade assembly is positioned within the first blade segment.
9. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the blade insert defines a longitudinal axis between the first and second ends, at least a portion of the blade insert being twisted about the longitudinal axis.
10. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the blade insert defines a longitudinal axis between the first and second ends, at least a portion of the blade insert being curved relative to the longitudinal axis.
11. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of the blade insert is formed from a material having a greater stiffness than a material used to form the first and second blade segments.
12. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the blade insert has a constant stiffness between the first and second interfaces.
13. The rotor blade assembly of claim 1, wherein the first blade segment comprises a root segment and the second blade segment comprises a tip segment.
14. A blade insert for coupling a first blade segment to a second blade segment, the blade insert comprising:
an aerodynamic body extending between a first end configured to be coupled to the first blade segment and a second end configured to be coupled to the second blade segment, the aerodynamic body including a pressure side and a suction side extending between a leading edge and a trailing edge, the aerodynamic body defining a chord, the chord at the first end being substantially equal to the chord at the second end.
15. The blade insert of claim 14, wherein the chord is substantially constant between the first and second ends.
16. The blade insert of claim 14, wherein the aerodynamic body defines an airfoil-shaped cross-section, the airfoil shaped cross-section at the first end being substantially the same as to the airfoil-shaped cross-section at the second end.
17. The blade insert of claim 14, wherein the aerodynamic body defines a length between the first and second ends ranging from about 1 meter to about 20 meters.
18. The blade insert of claim 14, wherein the aerodynamic body defines a longitudinal axis between the first and second ends, at least a portion of the aerodynamic body being twisted about the longitudinal axis.
19. The blade insert of claim 14, wherein the aerodynamic body defines a longitudinal axis between the first and second ends, at least a portion of the aerodynamic body being curved relative to the longitudinal axis.
20. A rotor blade assembly, comprising:
a first blade segment having a first joint end; a second blade segment having a second joint end; and, a blade insert having a first end coupled to the first joint end such that a first interface is defined between the blade insert and the first blade segment and a second end coupled to the second joint end such that a second interface is defined between the blade insert and the second blade segment, wherein a stiffness of the blade insert is greater than a stiffness of at least one of the first blade segment at the first joint end or the second blade segment at the second joint end.
21. A rotor blade assembly, comprising:
a first blade segment having a first joint end; a second blade segment having a second joint end; and, a blade insert having a first end coupled to the first joint end such that a first interface is defined between the blade insert and the first blade segment and a second end coupled to the second joint end such that a second interface is defined between the blade insert and the second blade segment, wherein the blade insert transitions between a constant cross-section and a varying cross-section between the first and second interfaces.
22. The rotor blade assembly of claim 21, wherein the blade insert transitions between a constant cross-section and a varying cross-section at more than one location between the first and second interfaces.