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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (2 – 10 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Karsten Schibsbye (US 20170151696 A1, hereinafter Schibsbye) does not teach the newly amended feature of detecting, via at least one sensor arranged below at least one further resin inlet arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold, that a flow front of the resin flowing downward due to the vacuum and supported by gravitational force .
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Schibsbye / Schibsbye as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
Schibsbye discloses on ([0010]) that the mould comprises at least one inlet for injecting a matrix material which penetrates the layers to build up the blade. The at least one inlet is integrated into the inner surface of the mould. Moreover, the mould may comprise at least one flow duct for guiding the injected matrix material. Preferably, the at least one flow duct may be integrated into the inner surface of the mould. ([0033]) teaches that preferably a technical vacuum may be applied to at least one of the flow ducts to guide the matrix material (resin or liquid polymer). Thus, a uniform and fast flow of the matrix material is ensured. ([0139]) teaches that in the inner surface 61 of the lower mould part 51 a number of flow ducts or inlet channels 57, 59 are integrated. In the inner surface 62 of the upper mould part 52 a number of flow ducts or inlet channels 58, 60 are integrated. As such and as best illustrated in (Fig. 13), at least one further resin inlet (60) is understood arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold, such that the flow front of the resin flowing downward due to the vacuum and supported by gravitational force through the dry fiber lay-up in the upper mold has passed at the least one further resin inlet. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of the at least one further resin inlet that is arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144. Nevertheless, while the examiner is confident that Schibsbye / Schibsbye as modified teaches all the amended features. Further evidence provided by Sekido et al. (US 20110192531A1, hereinafter Sekido) details explicitly at least one further resin inlet arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold. With evidence provided by Sekido as best illustrated in (Figs. 8 & 21) which are provided within, for a molding method and device includes disposing a reinforcing fiber substrate in a cavity of a mold consisting of a plurality of dies, clamping the mold, and injecting resin to complete molding, (Sekido, Abstract) shows that the resin is injected at a pressurized condition into the cavity 133 via tube for resin injection 134, (Sekido [0243]). Highlighting as
PNG
media_image1.png
349
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
illustrated and provided within, that the resin injection port is found at connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold. Shows that it is known in the art to
PNG
media_image2.png
312
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
place a resin inlet that is arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a blade by injecting resin into a mold, the mould having an inner surface for supporting a plurality of layers for forming the blade and he mould also has at least one inlet for injecting a matrix material which penetrates the layers to build up and form the blade of Schibsbye. By modifying the placement of the resin injection inlet, as taught by Sekido, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known placement of a resin injection inlet, for its intended use, in a known. environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Sekido.
Additionally, Sekido et al. (US 20040130072 A1, hereinafter Sekido II) teaches on ([0081]) that the molding method is performed in which in accordance with signals supplied from resin detection sensors which is communicated with inside a molding die, timing of starting injection of the resin from the individual injection ports is controlled. ([0082]) adds that as the detection sensor for detecting a resin described above, when a detection sensor for liquid detection is used, a resin in plain view can be efficiently detected. ([0134]) teaches that a time when the resin flows through a predetermined position is precisely detected by a resin detection sensor C2. By this sensor C2, when the timing of injecting the resin in the second resin injection line A2 is recognized, the second valve D2 is opened, thereby injecting a new resin from the position thereof. ([0201]) adds that when induction sensors (G1 and G3) provided in the vicinities of the two ends at the lower surface side detected the resin reaching the lower surface, the injection of the resin was started from the resin injection lines 45 at the two sides. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 2 & 6), the various sensor and injection inlets are found along the length of the article being molded, including induction sensors (G1 and G3) found a the lower surface side of the mold use for detecting the resin reaching the lower surface of the mold. As such, the control system with various sensor and injection inlets provides for a response to the detecting resin at various points in the mold, including induction sensors (G1 and G3) found at the lower surface side of the mold, implemented for further infusing the dry fiber lay-up by providing resin through the at least one further resin inlet arranged at the upper mold or the lower model at a target location / smaller height.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Schibsbye / Schibsbye as modified.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 4, 7 – 8, 11 – 13 & 16 – 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Karsten Schibsbye (US 20170151696 A1, hereinafter Schibsbye) as evidenced by Sekido et al. (US 20110192531A1, hereinafter Sekido) in view of Sekido et al. (US 20040130072 A1, hereinafter Sekido II) Regarding claim 1,
A method for manufacturing a wind turbine blade, comprising:
arranging an upper mold on a lower mold,
wherein a dry fiber lay-up is arranged in the upper mold or in the upper mold and the lower mold;
applying vacuum to a space between the upper mold and the lower mold;
infusing the dry fiber lay-up in the upper mold with resin,
the infusing the dry fiber lay-up being started by providing resin through at least one upper resin inlet arranged at an upper portion of the upper mold;
detecting, via at least one sensor arranged below at least one further resin inlet arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold, that a flow front of the resin flowing downward due to the vacuum and supported by gravitational force through the dry fiber lay-up in the upper mold has passed at the least one further resin inlet;
in response to the detecting, further infusing the dry fiber lay-up by providing resin through the at least one further resin inlet so that the downward resin flow is continued through the dry-fiber lay-up in the lower mold.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
& b.) (Abstract) teaches a mould for building up a blade is described. The mould has an inner surface for supporting a plurality of layers forming the blade. ([0139]) teaches that the mould comprises a lower mould part 51 and an upper mould part 52.
([0033]) teaches that a technical vacuum may be applied to at least one of the flow ducts to guide the matrix material (resin or liquid polymer). Thus, a uniform and fast flow of the matrix material is ensured. ([0034]) adds that the technical vacuum is used additionally, to suck arranged blade-material (fibre mats or single fibres for example) to a certain part of the mould. Thus, if the blade material is rolled onto the supporting mould, it is held in place due to the technical vacuum.
([0035]) teaches a reservoir is used to store and to provide matrix material to the moulds. ([0058]) teaches a reservoir with matrix material can be connected with flow ducts and a distribution system. The matrix material can be injected by an applied pressure in the flow ducts of the distribution system.
([0018]) teaches that the matrix material is injected through an inlet which is integrated into an inner surface of the mould. ([0139]) teaches as shown in (Fig. 13) in the inner surface 62 of the upper mould part 52 is provided with a number of flow ducts or inlet channels 58, 60, noting that the various flow ducts / inlets are found at different heights along the length of the fiber lay-up.
([0115]) adding that a flow control valve is provided. This valve is arranged in a way that the amount and the flow of the matrix material is measured for control-purposes. ([0116]) teaches that a stop is provided to control the flow of the injected matrix material. The flow is stopped for example if a sufficient amount of matrix material was injected, or it is stopped if an error (like a leaking hose) is detected. As such, the gauging and determining the flow and an amount of the matrix material through the dry fiber lay-up is understood to be measured and detected at the various inlets via a flow control valve is provided for.
([0036]) teaches a control valve is used to ensure a certain amount of material enters the mould. ([0037]) teaches that a stop cock is used to stop the flow of matrix material. ([0054]) teaches that the amount of matrix material is controlled in its flow from the flow duct/lining into the fibre reinforced laminated structure of the blade. ([0042]) adding that when a sufficient amount of matrix material has penetrated the layers, the injection is stopped, and the matrix material will harden to finish the blade-production process. As such, the flow of material is understood to be controlled / controllable with the capability of being turned on and off. As such, the flow of material is understood to be controlled / controllable with the capability of being turned on and off. ([0149]) teaches the mould comprises more than one inlet channel. Resin may be injected in each of these inlets at different pressures, dependent on which structure and which permeability the resin is facing. This is schematically illustrated in (Fig. 16). Accordingly, as illustrated in (Fig. 13) the various flow ducts / inlets are found at different heights along the length of the fiber lay-up.
([0010]) teaches that the mould comprises at least one inlet for injecting a matrix material which penetrates the layers to build up the blade. The at least one inlet is integrated into the inner surface of the mould. Moreover, the mould may comprise at least one flow duct for guiding the injected matrix material. Preferably, the at least one flow duct may be integrated into the inner surface of the mould. ([0033]) teaches that preferably a technical vacuum may be applied to at least one of the flow ducts to guide the matrix material (resin or liquid polymer). Thus, a uniform and fast flow of the matrix material is ensured. ([0139]) teaches that in the inner surface 61 of the lower mould part 51 a number of flow ducts or inlet channels 57, 59 are integrated. In the inner surface 62 of the upper mould part 52 a number of flow ducts or inlet channels 58, 60 are integrated. As such and as best illustrated in (Fig. 13), at least one further resin inlet (60) is understood arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold, such that the flow front of the resin flowing downward due to the vacuum and supported by gravitational force through the dry fiber lay-up in the upper mold has passed at the least one further resin inlet. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of the at least one further resin inlet that is arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144. Furthermore, evidence provided by Sekido as best illustrated in (Figs. 8 & 21) which are provided within, for a molding method and device includes disposing a
PNG
media_image1.png
349
615
media_image1.png
Greyscale
reinforcing fiber substrate in a cavity of a mold consisting of a plurality of dies, clamping the mold, and injecting resin to complete molding, (Sekido, Abstract) shows that the resin is injected at a pressurized condition into the cavity 133 via tube for resin injection 134, (Sekido [0243]). Highlighting as illustrated and provided within, that the resin injection port is found at connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold. Shows that it is known in the art to
PNG
media_image2.png
312
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
place a resin inlet that is arranged at a connection region between the upper mold and the lower mold. Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a blade by injecting resin into a mold, the mould having an inner surface for supporting a plurality of layers for forming the blade and he mould also has at least one inlet for injecting a matrix material which penetrates the layers to build up and form the blade of Schibsbye. By modifying the placement of the resin injection inlet, as taught by Sekido, due to the fact it would amount to nothing more than a use of a known placement of a resin injection inlet, for its intended use, in a known. environment, to accomplish entirely expected result, as suggested by Sekido.
Regarding Claim 1, Schibsbye as evidenced by Sekido is silent on detect a position of the resin within the cavity and in response to the detecting the resin front, further infusing the dry fiber lay-up by providing resin through the at least one further resin inlet arranged at the upper mold or the lower model at a smaller height. In analogous art for a method for manufacturing a large composite, (Abstract) that utilizes a an injection port for impregnating the reinforcing fiber base material with the resin, (Abstract), Sekido II suggests details regarding detect a position of the resin within the cavity and in response to the detecting the resin front, further infusing the dry fiber lay-up by providing resin through the at least one further resin inlet arranged at the upper mold or the lower model at a smaller height, and in this regard, Sekido II teaches the following:
& g.) ([0081]) teaches that the molding method is performed in which in accordance with signals supplied from resin detection sensors which is communicated with inside a molding die, timing of starting injection of the resin from the individual injection ports is controlled. ([0082]) adds that as the detection sensor for detecting a resin described above, when a detection sensor for liquid detection is used, a resin in plain view can be efficiently detected. ([0134]) teaches that a time when the resin flows through a predetermined position is precisely detected by a resin detection sensor C2. By this sensor C2, when the timing of injecting the resin in the second resin injection line A2 is recognized, the second valve D2 is opened, thereby injecting a new resin from the position thereof. ([0201]) adds that when induction sensors (G1 and G3) provided in the vicinities of the two ends at the lower surface side detected the resin reaching the lower surface, the injection of the resin was started from the resin injection lines 45 at the two sides. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 2 & 6), the various sensor and injection inlets are found along the length of the article being molded, including induction sensors (G1 and G3) found a the lower surface side of the mold use for detecting the resin reaching the lower surface of the mold. As such, the control system with various sensor and injection inlets provides for a response to the detecting resin at various points in the mold, including induction sensors (G1 and G3) found at the lower surface side of the mold, implemented for further infusing the dry fiber lay-up by providing resin through the at least one further resin inlet arranged at the upper mold or the lower model at a target location / smaller height.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a blade by injecting resin into a mold, the mould having an inner surface for supporting a plurality of layers for forming the blade and he mould also has at least one inlet for injecting a matrix material which penetrates the layers to build up and form the blade of Schibsbye as evidenced by Sekido. By modifying the impregnation inlets to comprise detection sensors provided within the molding die, as taught by Sekido II. Highlighting, one would be motivated to include sensors at the mold inlets utilized for impregnation of the fiber body as it provides for the timing of injecting the resin from individual injection ports such to fabricate a reinforcing fiber base material without non-impregnated portions of the reinforcing fiber base material, voids, and the like are unlikely to be formed, ([0009]). Accordingly, while not required, due to implementation of an injection valve control system of Sekido onto the mold contour of Schibsbye provides for a further infusion of the dry fiber lay-up by providing resin through the at least one further resin inlet arranged at the upper mold or the lower model at a smaller height. The case law for sequential vs. simultaneous may be recited. Where, in general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959).Additionally, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the flow front of the resin is detected at a lower portion or a bottom portion of the lower mold.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
([0115]) adding that a flow control valve is provided. This valve is arranged in a way that the amount and the flow of the matrix material is measured for control-purposes. ([0116]) teaches that a stop is provided to control the flow of the injected matrix material. The flow is stopped for example if a sufficient amount of matrix material was injected, or it is stopped if an error (like a leaking hose) is detected. As such, the amount and the flow of the matrix material is understood to be measured and detected at the various inlets via a flow control valve.
Regarding Claim 4, Schibsbye as evidenced by Sekido is silent on the flow front of the resin is detected at the at least one further resin inlet. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, Sekido II suggests details regarding detect a position of the flow front of the resin being detected at the at least one further resin inlet, and in this regard, Sekido II teaches the following:
([0081]) teaches that the molding method is performed in which in accordance with signals supplied from resin detection sensors which is communicated with inside a molding die, timing of starting injection of the resin from the individual injection ports is controlled. ([0082]) adds that as the detection sensor for detecting a resin described above, when a detection sensor for liquid detection is used, a resin in plain view can be efficiently detected. ([0134]) teaches that a time when the resin flows through a predetermined position is precisely detected by a resin detection sensor C2. By this sensor C2, when the timing of injecting the resin in the second resin injection line A2 is recognized, the second valve D2 is opened, thereby injecting a new resin from the position thereof. ([0201]) adds that when induction sensors (G1 and G3) provided in the vicinities of the two ends at the lower surface side detected the resin reaching the lower surface, the injection of the resin was started from the resin injection lines 45 at the two sides. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 2 & 6), the various sensor and injection inlets are found along the length of the article being molded, including induction sensors (G1 and G3) found a the lower surface side of the mold use for detecting the resin reaching the lower surface of the mold. As such, the control system with various sensor and injection inlets provides for a response to the detecting resin at various points in the mold, including induction sensors (G1 and G3) found a the lower surface side of the mold, further infusing the dry fiber lay-up by providing resin through the at least one further resin inlet arranged at the upper mold or the lower model at a target location / smaller height.
The same rejection rationale, case law(s) and analysis that was used previously for claim 1, can be applied here and should be referred to for this claim as well.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising detecting when the resin provided through one of the at least one upper resin inlet and the at least one further resin inlet has traveled to the other one of the at least one upper resin inlet and the at least one further resin inlet, and in response to the detecting, providing resin through the other one of the at least one upper resin inlet and the at least one further resin inlet.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
([0115]) adding that a flow control valve is provided. This valve is arranged in a way that the amount and the flow of the matrix material is measured for control-purposes. ([0116]) teaches that a stop is provided to control the flow of the injected matrix material. The flow is stopped for example if a sufficient amount of matrix material was injected, or it is stopped if an error (like a leaking hose) is detected. As such, the amount and the flow of the matrix material is understood to be measured and detected at the various inlets via a flow control valve. ([0036]) teaches a control valve is used to ensure a certain amount of material enters the mould. ([0037]) teaches that a stop cock is used to stop the flow of matrix material. ([0054]) teaches that the amount of matrix material is controlled in its flow from the flow duct/lining into the fibre reinforced laminated structure of the blade. As such, the flow of material is understood to be controlled / controllable with the capability of being turned on and off. With ([0145]) teaches optimizing the position of the flow duct and/or inlet channels in the mould depending on the thickness and/or permeability of the layers. ([0147]) adds that placing the flow ducts and/or inlet channels 44 at positions of high thickness (d) or low permeability (p) of the laminated structure 42 ensures a fast and uniform dispersion of the matrix material throughout the laminated structure 42. ([0149]) teaches the mould comprises more than one inlet channel. Resin may be injected in each of these inlets at different pressures, dependent on which structure and which permeability the resin is facing. This is schematically illustrated in (Fig. 16). Accordingly, as illustrated in (Fig. 13) the various flow ducts / inlets are found at different heights along the length of the fiber lay-up.
Regarding claim 8 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein an inlet pressure of the resin being provided through the at least one upper resin inlet and/or
the at least one further resin inlet is controlled to a pressure below atmospheric pressure.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
([0024]) teaches that the matrix material can be injected with a pressure depending on the local permeability of the laminated structure formed by the number of layers adjacent to the inlet and/or flow duct. ([0101]) teaches that a cavity is built by the two moulds, which contains the blade. Later resin is injected into the cavity to combine the layers of the blade. For this injection pressure or a technical vacuum is applied to the mould-system. ([0107]) teaches that resin is applied to a number of first flow ducts 3A, while a technical vacuum is applied to a number of second flow ducts 3B. The flow ducts 3A are part of a vacuum or a pressure distribution system 5. The flow ducts 3B are part of a matrix material or resin distribution system 4. Vacuum units are used to generate the technical vacuum, or they are used to generate low pressure. Where the application of a vacuum at the flow ducts is understood to provide an inlet pressure of the resin at pressure below atmospheric pressure.
Highlighting, that only a single limitation between (a) and (b) is required.
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Further comprising extracting excess resin from a lower portion or a bottom portion of the upper mold, from the lower mold and/or from a lower portion or a bottom portion of the lower mold.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
([0114]) teaches an increased pressure difference between the flow ducts 3A, where the matrix material is injected, and the flow ducts 3B, where surplus matrix material may leave the mould system is established. Thus, an even higher flow rate is established. Recalling, that the top and bottom portion of the mold are understood to mirror each other in appearance and capability. As such, both the top and bottom mold portions are understood to provide for extracting excess resin from the impregnated article.
Regarding claim 12 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the at least one upper resin inlet is arranged exclusively at a lengthwise section of the upper mold configured for manufacturing an inboard blade section of the wind turbine blade.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
([0145]) teaches optimizing the position of the flow duct and/or inlet channels in the mould depending on the thickness and/or permeability of the layers. ([0147]) adds that placing the flow ducts and/or inlet channels 44 at positions of high thickness (d) or low permeability (p) of the laminated structure 42 ensures a fast and uniform dispersion of the matrix material throughout the laminated structure 42. As such, Schibsbye discloses that the positioning of the resin flow ducts and/or inlets may be optimized depending on the article being impregnated with resin. Where, that the article’s (to be impregnated) thickness or permeability are understood to be significant factors in the consideration for the positioning of the resin flow ducts and/or inlets. Accordingly, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited regarding the placement of the resin inlets. Where, the courts held that when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400 & In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975), MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein: the at least one upper resin inlet is arranged at a height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding, as seen in cross-section, to an angle larger than 15 degrees, and
the angle is defined between a horizontal plane including the lower end of the upper mold and a plane intersecting a longitudinal axis of the manufactured blade and the at least one upper inlet.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
& b.) As shown in (Figs. 13) the article being manufactured is a fiber layup in the shape of an airfoil / wind turbine blade. (Fig. 13) shows resin injection inlets at all points around the airfoil / wind turbine blade. Including, resin injection inlets at a
PNG
media_image3.png
314
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding to an angle larger 15 and larger than 80 degrees. Highlighting, the recreated image provided depicts the various angles of the upper resin inlet provided at an angle in the upper mold including one inlet found at 90 degrees amongst other, smaller angles. Additionally, ([0145]) teaches optimizing the position of the flow duct and/or inlet channels in the mould depending on the thickness and/or permeability of the layers. ([0147]) adds that placing the flow ducts and/or inlet channels 44 at positions of high thickness (d) or low permeability (p) of the laminated structure 42 ensures a fast and uniform dispersion of the matrix material throughout the laminated structure 42. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of the at least one upper resin inlet arranged at a height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding, as seen in cross-section, to an angle larger than 15 degrees. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144.
As shown in the image provided the angle is defined between a horizontal plane including the lower end of the upper mold and a plane intersecting a longitudinal axis of the manufactured blade and the at least one upper inlet.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein: the at least one upper resin inlet is arranged at a height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding, as seen in cross-section, to an angle larger than 60 degrees, and
the angle is defined between a horizontal plane including the lower end of the upper mold and a plane intersecting a longitudinal axis of the manufactured blade and the at least one upper inlet.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
& b.) As shown in (Figs. 13) the article being manufactured is a fiber layup in the shape of an airfoil / wind turbine blade. (Fig. 13) shows resin injection inlets at all points around the airfoil / wind turbine blade. Including, resin injection inlets at a
PNG
media_image3.png
314
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding to an angle larger 15 and larger than 80 degrees. Highlighting, the recreated image provided depicts the various angles of the upper resin inlet provided at an angle in the upper mold including one inlet found at 90 degrees amongst other, smaller angles. Additionally, ([0145]) teaches optimizing the position of the flow duct and/or inlet channels in the mould depending on the thickness and/or permeability of the layers. ([0147]) adds that placing the flow ducts and/or inlet channels 44 at positions of high thickness (d) or low permeability (p) of the laminated structure 42 ensures a fast and uniform dispersion of the matrix material throughout the laminated structure 42. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of the at least one upper resin inlet arranged at a height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding, as seen in cross-section, to an angle larger than 60 degrees. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144.
As shown in the image provided the angle is defined between a horizontal plane including the lower end of the upper mold and a plane intersecting a longitudinal axis of the manufactured blade and the at least one upper inlet.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein: the at least one upper resin inlet is arranged at a height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding, as seen in cross-section, to an angle larger than 80 degrees, and
the angle is defined between a horizontal plane including the lower end of the upper mold and a plane intersecting a longitudinal axis of the manufactured blade and the at least one upper inlet.
Schibsbye teaches the following:
& b.) As shown in (Figs. 13) the article being manufactured is a fiber layup in the shape of an airfoil / wind turbine blade. (Fig. 13) shows resin injection inlets at all points around the airfoil / wind turbine blade. Including, resin injection inlets at a
PNG
media_image3.png
314
780
media_image3.png
Greyscale
height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding to an angle larger 15 and larger than 80 degrees. Highlighting, the recreated image provided depicts the various angles of the upper resin inlet provided at an angle in the upper mold including one inlet found at 90 degrees amongst other, smaller angles. Additionally, ([0145]) teaches optimizing the position of the flow duct and/or inlet channels in the mould depending on the thickness and/or permeability of the layers. ([0147]) adds that placing the flow ducts and/or inlet channels 44 at positions of high thickness (d) or low permeability (p) of the laminated structure 42 ensures a fast and uniform dispersion of the matrix material throughout the laminated structure 42. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the placement of the at least one upper resin inlet arranged at a height above a lower end of the upper mold corresponding, as seen in cross-section, to an angle larger than 80 degrees. However, the case law for the rearrangement of parts may be recited. Where, it has generally been recognized by the courts that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400, MPEP 2144.
As shown in the image provided the angle is defined between a horizontal plane including the lower end of the upper mold and a plane intersecting a longitudinal axis of the manufactured blade and the at least one upper inlet.
B.) Claim(s) 15 as applied to claim 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schibsbye es evidenced by Sekido in view of Sekido II and in further view of Karsten Schibsbye (US 20100201045 A1, hereinafter Schibsbye II)
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the at least one upper resin inlet is arranged between the dry fiber lay-up and a vacuum
Regarding Claim 15, Schibsbye as evidenced by Sekido and as modified by Sekido II is silent on the upper resin inlet being arranged between the dry fiber lay-up and a vacuum bag. In analogous art for a method for producing a composite structure comprising fibre reinforced material by means of vacuum assisted resin transfer moulding, Schibsbye II suggests details regarding upper resin inlet being arranged between the dry fiber lay-up and a vacuum bag, and in this regard, Schibsbye II teaches the following:
([0003]) teaches that so-called distribution layers or distribution tubes, also called inlet channels, are used between the vacuum bag and the fibre material in order to obtain as sound and efficient a distribution of polymer as possible. In most cases, the polymer applied is polyester or epoxy, and the fibre reinforcement is most often based on glass fibres or carbon fibres. Highlighting, as illustrated in (Fig. 1) the upper resin channels 3, 21, 22 are found to be arranged between the fiber insert 14 and a vacuum bag 13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing a blade by injecting resin into a mold, the mould having an inner surface for supporting a plurality of layers for forming the blade and he mould also has at least one inlet for injecting a matrix material which penetrates the layers to build up and form the blade of Schibsbye as evidenced by Sekido and as modified by Sekido II. By further modifying the vacuum bag placement such that the upper resin inlet is arranged between the dry fiber lay-up and the vacuum bag, as taught by Schibsbye II. Highlighting, one would be motivated to modify the vacuum bag placement as it provides for obtaining as sound and efficient a distribution of polymer as possible, ([0003]). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable result provides for the recitation of KSR case law. Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), MPEP 2143. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
William H. Seemann (US 5052906 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) an apparatus for the production of high strength fiber reinforced plastic structures via an improved vacuum assisted technique. A fluid impervious outer sheet is marginally sealed upon a mold to provide an enclosure, or chamber, in which a fiber lay up can be placed.
William H. Seemann (US 5439635 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) An vacuum bag for forming of a fiber reinforced composite article, made of a curable elastomer, having molded in resin distribution means. Optional vacuum conduits are molded into the periphery of the bag, causing the bag to be adapted to any number of mold shapes.
Jay Johnson (US 4132755 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a technique for the manufacture of a resin-impregnated, reinforced article while resin fumes are prevented from escaping into the surrounding atmosphere. In this technique a permeable reinforcing material, for example of fiberglass, is deposited on a mold or on a structure to be reinforced; a sheet of perforated material (preferably flexible) is placed over the reinforcing material, with the marginal areas of this sheet preferably sealed to the mold so as to define an inner chamber;
Thomas M. Foster (US 5565162 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) A method of molding an article of fiber reinforced material includes a step of providing a mold in the shape of the article for receiving fiber material. The mold includes a top and a bottom. A source of liquid resin located exterior of the mold is provided. The liquid resin is supplied from the source to the bottom of the mold and contacts the fiber materials.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights