Office Action 2: Notice of Allowance (2025-10-07)

CLAIMS:
IN THE CLAIMS:

This listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application:

Listing of Claims:

Claim 1 (currently amended): A method of manufacturing a composite part (70) for a wind turbine blade (SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1170.143), the method comprising the steps of:
\[\[-\]\]
\[\[o\]\] providing a mould (50) comprising a mould depression (51) with a floor surface (53) and an adjacent receiving section (54)\[\[, and\]\];
\[\[o\]\] providing 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); and
\[\[-\]\] 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)\[\[;\]\], wherein the first side (71) is configured to be mated to a first side of a spar cap for the wind turbine blade,
\[\[-\]\] \[\[-\]\]

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).

Claim 2 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim \[\[1,\]\] 4 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\[\[,\]\]

Claims 3-5 (canceled)44

Claim 6 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim \[\[1,\]\] 4 wherein the moulding surface (52) extends along a curved and/or twisted course in the longitudinal direction (L).

Claim 7 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim \[\[1,\]\] 4 wherein an intermediate draft angle (RI) 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).

Claim 8 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim \[\[1,\]\] 4 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).

Claim 9 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim \[\[1,\]\] 4 wherein the mould (50) is formed in one piece.
Claim 10 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim \[\[1,\]\] 4 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 \[\[( 1)\]\] (00 with respect to a parting line (3) 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 SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.2332)\]\] (J2) with respect to a parting line (3) of the mould depression \[\[51,\]\] (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 (3) and separating the composite part (70) from the mould inlay (60).

Claim 11 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim \[\[1,\]\] 4 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).

Claim 12 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim \[\[1\]\] 4 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).

Claim 13 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The 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 claim 12;
\[\[-\]\] 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).

Claim 14 (currently amended): A method of manufacturing a composite part (70) for a wind turbine blade (10), the method comprising the steps of:
\[\[-\]\]
\[\[o\]\] providing a mould (50) comprising a mould depression (51) with a floor surface (53) and an adjacent receiving section (54)\[\[, and\]\];
\[\[o\]\] providing 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\[\[; and\]\] 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; and
\[\[-\]\] demoulding the composite part (70) from the mould depression (51).

Claim 15 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to 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.

Claim 16 (currently amended): 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 ofclaim 14; 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.

Claim 17 (currently amended): \[\[A\]\] The method according to claim 16, further comprising:
\[\[-\]\] manufacturing a second composite part (70') according toclaim 14; 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 \[\[(82)\]\] (83) of the spar cap.

Claim 18 (currently amended): A composite part (70) for a wind turbine blade shell part manufactured by \[\[a\]\] the method according to claim \[\[1.\]\] 14.

Claim 19 (currently amended): A wind turbine blade shell part comprising a first 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 firstsurface (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.

Claim 20 (new): The wind turbine blade shell part according to claim 19, further comprising a second composite part (70'), 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.

Claim 21 (new): The wind turbine blade shell part according to claim 19, wherein the first part edge (73) of the first composite part (70) is substantially sharp.

Claim 22 (new): The wind turbine blade shell part according to claim 19, wherein the first part edge (73) of the first composite part (70) has a maximum rounding radius of 1 mm.

Claim 23 (new): The method according to claim 14, wherein the first surface of the composite part and the first surface of the spar cap are configured for being oriented towards an exterior of the wind turbine blade.

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

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