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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20220088881).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kim et al. teach a method for manufacturing a metal frame support of a wind turbine blade mold (See paragraph [0003]-[0004], [0072]-[0073]). the method (A system for manufacturing a metal frame support of 8 wind turbine blade mold (para [0003]-[0004], [0072]-[0073]), the
system comprising: a first module (para [0063], [0084]-[0085], [0105]); 3 second module (para [0063], [0084]-[0085]. [0105]); a third module (para [0063], [0084]-[0085], [0105])) comprising:
receiving a wind turbine blade mold surface comprising a three-dimensional geometry file (e.g. an initial CAD model of a part having desired part geometry and generates a compensated CAD model. The compensated CAD model when sliced and printed into a part accounts for anisotropic deformation due to the additive manufacturing process and/or expected service loading such that the
compensated part geometry (after being additively manufactured and service loaded) substantially matches the part geometry of the initial CAD design The CAD model can be 3 solid model that represents a three dimensional (3D) solid geometry, a surface model that represents the 3D surface geometry, a combination thereof, or some other type of digital representation of the part, para [0079]-[0080]); receiving at least one input parameter (para [0084]-[0085], [0091]-[0096]. [0105]);
receiving a design scheme (e.g. The CAD software can export the model as a design file, such as a standard STP or STEP file The CAD software can export the CAD model as a slicing design file (a stereolithographic or STL file), para [0080]); outputting a first plurality of files comprising at least one line model wherein the line model represents a generated framework (para [0080]; Fig. 2 and 10A);
outputting B second plurality of files comprising at least one element of geometry data in text form (e.g. The CAD model, or derivative forms of the CAD model, can be provided to both the slicer software 308 and FEA software 304. The slicer software 308 can generate
additive manufacturing instructions, such as a toolpath based on what it receives from the CAD software. The additive manufacturing instructions can be provided to the FEA software 304 for use in the finite element analysis, para [0081]; 8.g. The simulation-assisted additive manufacturing design system communicates a slicer design file to the slicer software for toolpath generation. in many cases, a
slicer generates geometries which are not the same as the original CAD design. For example, where the slicer design file provided to the slicer defines a generally hollow part with only a few perimeters as shown in FIG. 2, the slicer may be configured to insert a specified infill.
structure into the hollow space (e.g., 50%-filled honeycomb structure or support lines 3S depicted in the alternative construction of FIG. 2). para [0084]):
performing finite element analysis of the line model and at least one element of geometry data (e.g. The FEA software 304 can generate a finite element mesh based on the provided CAD model of the part that has desired part geometry, or derivative thereof, para [0082]: para [0086]);
outputting a full frame model (e.g. surface machining the instance of the part based on the target design file to finalize the instance of the part, claim 9; Fig. 11A, 12A, 12D); and outputting at least one technical drawing of the full frame model (Fig. 11A, 12A, 12D).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kim et al. teach wherein the at least one input parameter comprises one of mold shell thickness, distance from the mold surface to a ground level, and structural tubing (See paragraph [0084]-[0085], [0091], [0105]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kim et al. teach wherein the design scheme is scaled automatically to the at least one input parameter and the mold surface (See paragraph [0072]-[0073]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kim et al. teach wherein the design scheme comprises a cross section of a metal frame (See paragraph [0072], [0073],[0091]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kim et al. teach wherein the design scheme comprises an adjacent side connection and a bottom connection (Fig. 11A, 12A, 120).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Kim et al. teach wherein the design scheme is selected from a plurality of design schemes (See paragraph [0086], [0108]).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kim et al. teach wherein the second plurality of files comprises at least one element of data representing lines, start points, end points, and orientation of a portion of the metal frame (See paragraph [0072]-[0073], [0091], [0109]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kim et al. teach further comprising: performing quality control with the at least one input parameter (See paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kim et al. teach further comprising: converting the mold surface to a point cloud (See para [0029], [0082]-[0083], [0097]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 10, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. In view of Dikovsky et al. (US 20200171739 ).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kim et al. teach all but fail to specifically teach wherein the point cloud comprises 100 points per 100 millimeters. However, Dikovsky et al. teach wherein the point cloud comprises 100 points per 100 millimeters (See paragraph [0164]-[0166]. [0305], [0336], [0587]-[0588], [0584]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of Kim et al by including wherein the point cloud comprises 100 points per 100 millimeters as taught by Dikovsky et al. because the modification would provide the AM system with sufficient information for dispensing the core, the shell, and an Intermediate shell within the gap between the inner surface of the shell and the outermost surface of the core (Dikovsky et al, para [0576]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hall et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20210363961) disclose that the present disclosure may be embodied as a blade for a wind turbine. The blade includes a spar and a blade body arranged around the spar. The blade may include a root, a tip, and one or more body sections, each body section having a length, a stiffness ratio. The blade may further include two or more boundary actuators, each boundary actuator positioned at a boundary end of a body section, wherein each boundary actuator is configured to engage the corresponding boundary end to twist the body section. The length and stiffness ratio of each section may be optimized for maximum efficiency during Region 2 operation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 EST.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661