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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on April 13, 2026 was received. Claims 1, 17 and 18 were amended and claims 19-20 were newly added.
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.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 18 is withdrawn because Applicant amended the claim to fix the typo.
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U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Jost (US 2012/0318190) in view of Hoppel (US 2013/0122186) on claims 1-11 and 16-18 are withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 to require the wheels to be steerable wheels rotatable about a 180 degree axis.
Claims 1-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost in view of Hoppel and Vrolijk (WO 01/34309).
[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 figs 1-2), 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).
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).
Jost and Hoppel fail to explicitly disclose that the wheels are steerable wheels rotatable by an angle of at least 180 degrees such that the vehicle can move in all directions on a horizontal plane along the floor of the manufacturing hall. However, Vrolijk discloses a similar treatment vehicle for treating large structures in which the vehicle (6) can alternatively be moved by way of wheels (7) along a rail (8) (col. 8 lines 24-35, figure 1) or instead as a free-traveling vehicle (106) such as a boom truck (col. 15 lines 36+, col. 16 lines 1-13, col. 17 lines 19-40, figures 11-12 and 17), such that the two types of wheels are taught to be functionally equivalent embodiments for moving a vehicle which treats a large object like this. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use freely steerable wheels like those taught by Vrolijk for the apparatus of Jost and Hoppel because Vroljik teaches that they are functionally equivalent to wheels provided on a track or rail (col. 8 lines 24-35, col. 15 lines 36+, col. 16 lines 1-13, col. 17 lines 19-40, figures 1, 11-12 and 17) and simple substitution of functional equivalents is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06). While Jost, Hoppel and Vrolijk do not explicitly state that the wheels are rotatable at least 180 degrees, Vrolijk does state the wheels allow the vehicle to be “free-traveling” and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try allowing the wheels to rotate more than 180 degrees to increase steerability and freedom of travel because optimization of result effective variables such as freedom of motion is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215), because trying from a finite number of solutions (rotatable 90 degrees, 180, 360, etc.) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143E) and because rearrangement of parts and making parts adjustable is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
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).
Regarding claim 19: Jost and Hoppel disclose the above combination in which the containers (82) are at least two separate supplies that each contain a component of a two-component material such as a two-part resin, each supply (82) being fluidly connected to a mixing device within the applicator (60) (Hoppel par. 38, figure 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost, Hoppel and Vrolijk as applied to claims 1-11 and 16-19 above and further in view of Laurberg et al. (US 2020/0238324).
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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost, Hoppel and Vrolijk as applied to claims 1-11 and 16-19 above and further in view of Hargadon (US 2019/0255551).
Regarding claim 20: Jost, Hoppel and Vrolijk disclose the above combination having at least one piston (26) moving vertically along the columnar structure of the drive wagon (32) (Jost figure 1) but fail to explicitly disclose the exact mechanical arrangement of this piston relative to the columnar structure, particularly that the piston comprises a sled running in a groove of the drive wagon in a vertical direction such that the arm is movable in the vertical direction via the sled and groove. However, Hargadon discloses a similar mobile treatment apparatus which includes an arm (120) attached to a vertical beam (110) via an extension plate (125) such that movement of the extension plate (125) up and down along a vertical groove in the beam (110) moves the arm (120) vertically along with the extension plate (125), which can be considered a sled (pars. 31, 33-34, 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 a mechanical arrangement like the extension plate and grooved beam of Hargadon as the mechanism by which the piston of Jost moves vertically up and down the columnar structure because Hargadon teaches that this allows the arm attached to the columnar structure to be offset from the beam in such a way that it is able to reach a wider variety of treatment positions (par. 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that Jost does not teach steerable, omnidirectional wheels and that it cannot be modified with another reference to teach such because the rails are a necessary part of the function of the apparatus.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments are moot because they do not refer to the newly cited Vrolijk reference, which not only teaches the claimed limitations but also gives a very clear example of how and why a vehicle on rails like that of Jost could be modified to be a vehicle with steerable, free-travel wheels. Vrolijk shows that these two arrangements- a wheeled vehicle with the wheels on rails, and a wheeled vehicle with free steering- are functionally equivalent, such that in a combination with Jost the combination of wheels and rails would be substituted for simple steerable wheels instead. This in no way changes the principle of operation of Jost any more than the two equivalent embodiments of Vrolijk change their mode of operation, which is clearly minor as otherwise the two embodiments of Vrolijk could not be considered the same invention.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
6/11/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights