Detailed Action
The communications received 02/20/2025 have been filed and considered by the Examiner. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on applications filed as CN202221821127.6 and CN202210830996.3 on 07/15/2022. The certified copies have been received as of 01/15/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments supplied 02/20/2025 have overcome the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arias et al (US 2023/0012725) hereinafter ARI in view of Fosaaen et al (US 2003/0015308) hereinafter FOS.
As for claim 1, ARI teaches a wind turbine blade mold structure, comprising a lower mold (301) [Fig. 5a #115];
an upper mold (302) [Fig. 5a #125];
a lower mold shell support structure (201) [Fig. 5a #132] and an upper mold shell support structure (202) [Fig. 5a #132] located on inner surfaces of the lower mold (301) and the upper mold (302), respectively;
a turnover mechanism (401) configured for driving the upper mold shell support structure (202) to turn over above the lower mold shell support structure (201) [Fig. 5a #130a; 0091];
reinforcing structures (102) mounted between outer surfaces of the lower mold (301) and the upper mold (302) (when fully open they are between the outer surfaces along the longitudinal axis) [Fig. 3; Fig. 5a #162, 180-182; 0096];
and conformal support structures (501) or support structures (502), each with one end detachably mounted on the ground and the other end resisting the reinforcing structures (102) [Fig. 5a #161, 170-172 with #116; 0088; 0096], wherein the conformal support structures (501) or the support structures (502) are adjustable in horizontal heights;
the conformal support structures (501) or the support structures (502) are combined arbitrarily according to shapes of the reinforcing structures (102) (they are generally combined to support the hinge of the mold) [Fig. 4 #160];
each of the reinforcing structures (102) is a reinforcing rib structure, a box structure, a sandwich structure made of a low-density material, a frame structure, or a combined structure of two or more of the above structures (as they are frames) [Fig. 5a #160].
ARI does not teach the material of the frame structure.
FOS teaches a die used to cast turbine blades [0002] in which dies are typically made of steel (i.e. a metal) [0024].
In accordance with the MPEP a simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results is an exemplary rationale of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the steel material of the die of FOS to use as the material of the mold of ARI as FOS teaches that this material is a known typical material for molds which would then allow for the predictable result of having the mold be capable of molding turbine blades. As both ARI and FOS pertain to the arts of molding turbine blades they are analogous art and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect success in their combination.
As for claim 2, ARI/FOS teaches claim 1 and ARI further teaches wherein when each of the reinforcing structures (102) has a curved surface (there are curved surfaces) [Fig. 5a #162], the reinforcing structure (102) is resisted by the conformal support structure (501) [Fig. 5a #161].
As for claim 3, ARI/FOS teaches claim 1 and ARI further teaches wherein when each of the reinforcing structures (102) has a planar surface (there are flat surfaces) [Fig. 5a #162], the reinforcing structure (102) is resisted by the conformal support structure (501) or the support structure (502) [Fig. 5a #161].
As for claim 8, ARI/FOS teaches claim 3, and ARI further teaches wherein the support structure (502) is formed by arranging and combining a plurality of steel frames, steel pipes or support rods with different lengths fixed on the ground (support rods) [Fig. 4 #110B].
Claim(s) 4-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arias et al (US 2023/0012725) hereinafter ARI in view of Fosaaen et al (US 2003/0015308) hereinafter FOS as applied to claims 1-2 and further in view of Jones et al (US 2010/0102482) hereinafter JON.
As for claim 4, ARI/FOS teaches claim 2, and ARI further teaches wherein each of the conformal support structures (501) comprises a base (5011) [Fig. 5a #116] and an underframe (5012) for placing a controller (as a controller can be placed and its exact position is not shown nor described) [Fig. 5a #131A, 133, 161, 170-172], and a telescopic cylinder (5013) connected to a controller [Fig. 5a #163];
the underframe (5012) is mounted above the base (5011) [Fig. 5a #131A, 133, 161, 170-172],; 1
a plurality of telescopic cylinders (5013) connected to the controller are arranged on the underframe (5012) [Fig. 5a #163; 0099].
Although ARI does not explicitly teach that the controller is placed in the underframe, in accordance with the MPEP a selection from a finite number of identified and predictable solutions that obtain a reasonable expectation of success is rationale to support a conclusion of obviousness [MPEP 2143(I)(E)]. Therefore as the controller is otherwise not shown nor described but must be arranged in a manner that it can be in controlling connection with the telescopic cylinder, it would have been obvious to have placed the controller on the underframe as a choice of a location from the finite number of possible locations on/about the device with the predictable expectation that the controller is within controlling range of the telescopic cylinder.
However, ARI/FOS do not teach that this controller is a programmable logic controller (PLC).
JON teaches a molding apparatus for producing contoured parts [Abstract] in which the actuators of the molds are driven by PLC [0044] this allows for easy and automatic control of the actuators [0007-8].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller of ARI/FOS be a PLC as JON teaches that PLC controllers allow for easy and automatic control of actuators.
As for claim 5, ARI/FOS/JON teach claim 4, and wherein the telescopic cylinders (5013) is powered by a servo motor, a hydraulic system or a pneumatic system (as the cylinders are hydraulic) [ARI: 0041].
As for claim 6, ARI/FOS/JON teach claim 4, wherein the number of underframes (5012) is more than one, and is determined by size of the lower mold (301) or the upper mold (302) [ARI: Fig. 4 #160].
As for claim 7, ARI/FOS/JON teach claim 6, wherein a length between two adjacent underframes (5012) is L, and a deformation m of a mold shell in the lower mold (301) or the upper mold (302) is less than L/300 (as ideally there are no deformations in the mold shell therefore this is understood to be essentially 0).
As for claim 9, ARI/FOS/JON teach claim 7 and wherein the arranged and combined steel frames, steel pipes, or support rods with different lengths increase or decrease the heights of the support structures by means of a corner joint, snap fit, or threaded connection (by changing the absolute height of the structures via the hinge which is substantially a corner joint) [ARI: Fig. 5a #101].
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendments and corresponding arguments filed 02/20/2025 have successfully overcome the previously supplied prior art and its combinations, however a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Fosaaen et al (US 2003/0015308) hereinafter FOS which meets the newly supplied limitations.
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 Elisa Vera whose telephone number is (571)270-7414. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4:30.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. 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.
/E.V./ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/JACOB T MINSKEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748