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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on October 28, 2025 was received. Claims 1, 9, 17 and 18 were amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued March 26, 2024.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 19, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejections of claims 9 and 18 as being indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn because Applicant amended the claims to fix the antecedent basis issues.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites the phrase “wherein the tank are directly attached…” which is clearly a typo that should obviously read “the tank is directly attached”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jost (US 2012/0318190) in view of Hoppel (US 2013/0122186) on claims 1-11 and 16-18 are maintained. The rejections are restated below.
[AltContent: textbox (Wheels/rollers)][AltContent: textbox (Wheels/rollers having cross hash)][AltContent: textbox (All other rollers have the same cross hash mark as the bottom rollers)]Regarding claim 1: Jost discloses a surface treatment device (1) for treating a wind turbine blade (110) which includes a drive wagon (32) which is a transportation unit for locomotion of the device, having rollers or wheels which move the drive wagon (32) along tracks (33), which allow the vehicle to move on a floor of a manufacturing hall (see annotated figs 1 and 2 below), the device (1) having a base body (21, 41) with a columnar frame structure including at least one arm in the form of a piston (26) which moves vertically along the columnar frame structure, where a plurality of tools are attached to the arm including a grinding belt (42), pressure members (44) and a coating unit (50) which includes a coating roller or spray unit (52), where a control unit controls the drive wagon (32) to move the device (1) in a horizontal direction along tracks (33) on the floor and the piston (26) to move in a vertical plane perpendicular to the floor (par. 26, 47-55, figures 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
440
648
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Jost further discloses that the coating device can apply a filler layer (par. 45) such that the coating unit is a filler unit which can have a dispensing head (52) and is attached to the piston (26) as disclosed above, which further can be adapted to apply a number of different materials including two-component polyurethane compounds and gel coats and cover lacquers, which are paints, suggesting that the filler compound is applied before the cover lacquer (par. 4). While Jost does not explicitly disclose or suggest that this filling compound is applied after casting, it is known in the art that wind turbine blades are typically formed initially by casting (see evidentiary reference Hibbard (US 2007/0036659), pars. 155-162) such that any subsequent treatment- including the filling and painting- is clearly done after casting.
Jost fails to explicitly disclose anything about where the source of the coating material actually is, i.e. that a tank containing the filler material is attached to the transportation unit. However, Hoppel discloses a similar autonomous coating vehicle which uses two containers (82) mounted on the vehicle but remote from the nozzle (60) carriage (52) for applying a mixture of two coating materials (84, 86) such as a resin and a catalyst after mixing them in a mixing device within the nozzle (60) (pars. 31-32 and 38, figures 1-2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use tanks mounted to the vehicle like in Hoppel for the device of Jost because using a known technique with a known device is not considered to be a patentable advance when no unexpected results are achieved and no criticality is shown (MPEP 2143) and because Hoppel shows that this arrangement is functionally equivalent to the simple generic treatment fluid supply system of Jost, and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claims 2-3: Jost and Hoppel disclose the above device in which the coating unit (50) is arranged to mix a two-component compound (Jost par. 4) as a filler (Jost par. 45) in which two containers of different materials are arranged with a mixing device to mix the two materials before applying them (Hoppel pars. 31-32 and 38, figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 4: Jost fails to explicitly disclose any sensors for obtaining sensor data of the surface. However, Hoppel discloses a similar automated coating vehicle which can either be controlled by a preset program designed by an operator, or use sensors to detect features of the surface being coated and automatically coat it by way of the sensors (par. 60). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sensors as taught by Hoppel for the device of Jost because Hoppel shows that automatic control by pre-programming and automatic control by using sensors are functionally equivalent mechanisms for automating control of a coating vehicle (par. 60) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Regarding claim 5: Jost discloses a grinding unit (10) which is a smoothing unit for smoothing the surface of the blade (110), the grinding belt (12) being a tool head attached to the piston arm (26) (pars. 39-41, figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 6: Jost discloses that the grinding unit (10) further includes a number of pressure rollers (23) which are rotating drums, where the grinding belt (12) can be considered a wiping element at an outer surface for wiping over the surface of the blade (110) (par. 42, figure 4).
Regarding claim 7: Jost discloses that the grinding unit (10) includes a grinding belt (12) which can be considered a rotating drum that rotates over the surface of the blade (110) and is made of a flexible material (par. 40, figures 1, 4).
Regarding claim 8: Jost discloses the grinding unit (10) above which can be considered a smoothing or grinding unit, as well as a suction device (24) which removes grinding dust and can therefore be considered a cleaning unit (par. 45, figure 2).
Regarding claim 9: Jost and Hoppel disclose the above combination having a control unit (Jost par. 26) which controls the movements of all of the various tools, which include the coating unit (50), a sensor unit taught by Hoppel, a grinding unit (10) which can be considered a smoothing unit and a suction unit (24) which is a cleaning unit. Jost teaches that the control unit numerically controls these movements (par. 26), and while Jost does not explicitly disclose that it controls execution of these units, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same control unit to control all of the above execution because automating and otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 10: Jost discloses that the device is meant to operate an automated manner (par. 8, 12, 29).
Regarding claim 11: Jost teaches that the control unit is configured to control locomotion in order to ensure constant contact pressure and to the desired degree, in order to follow the contours of the blade (par. 26), and this control degree includes surface treatment speed of the grinding belt (12) (par. 39).
Regarding claim 16: Jost discloses that the piston (26) is attached to a columnar base body (21, 41) of the drive wagon (32), where the plurality of tool heads such as the coating unit (50) and grinding unit (10, 40) are attached to the piston (26) via a frame such that movement of the piston (26) with respect to the base body (21, 41) results in movement of the tool heads, which can also be moved independently from the piston (26) as well (par. 39, figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 17: Jost discloses that the horizontal plane is arranged to be on tracks (33) which are on a floor surface, and where the blade (110) is in a horizontal orientation (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 18: Jost and Hoppel disclose the above combination in which the containers (82) are arranged on the transportation unit but remote from the carriage having the nozzle (60) and instead fluidically connected to the nozzle (60) by way of a number of hoses (80, 64) (Hoppel par. 32).
The claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jost and Hoppel as applied to claims 1-11 and 16-18 above and further in view of Laurberg et al. (US 2020/0238324) on claim 12 is maintained. The rejection is restated below.
Regarding claim 12: Jost and Hoppel disclose the above combination but fail to explicitly disclose that the control unit obtains data from the sensors regarding surface defects and controls the filling unit to apply filler material at the identified surface defects. However, Laurberg et al. discloses a similar turbine blade treatment robot (8) which includes a video camera (40) which is a sensor for inspecting the site and teaches that a control unit (35) uses data from the video signal, or other sensor data, to autonomously run a treatment program to clean, repair and dispense material, where damages are inherently identified prior to being repaired (par. 66, 102). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sensor data to identify and repair damages automatically as taught by Laurberg et al. for the device of Jost because Laurberg et al. teaches that doing this automatically via sensor data is functionally equivalent to using an operator’s input to do so (pars. 66-67) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Jost does not teach wheels on a floor but rather an electrically driven drive wagon guided over tracks, and does not teach that the filler material is applied after casting the blade shell and before painting/coating it.
In response:
Jost clearly shows that the drive wagon (32) is supported and moved by rollers on the tracks (33), which are wheels. The tracks can be considered a floor of a manufacturing hall, and even if not, the claim merely requires that the transportation unit is “for a locomotion of the surface treatment vehicle on a floor of a manufacturing hall” and even if the wheels do not directly contact the floor they still move it along the floor by way of the tracks. Additionally, this above limitation is only an intended use limitation. In apparatus claims, a claimed intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. MPEP § 2111.02. In the instant case the wheels of the vehicle of Jost are capable of directly contacting a manufacturing floor.
Regarding the filler process, Jost clearly teaches that the filler material is applied after the blade is formed, which as taught by the evidentiary reference is typically by casting. Further, the existence of a cover lacquer clearly indicates that it is an outer layer that covers the filler material, and therefore the filler material has to be applied after casting and before painting/coating. There is no other possible option for applying it- even though Jost does not explicitly lay out this process sequence it is inherent to the invention disclosed in Jost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
1/7/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717