DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 12/13/2025, claims 1-13 and 16-22 are pending. No Claim is currently amended. Claims 14-15 and 23-26 are canceled. No claim is newly added. Claims 17-22 are withdrawn. Claims 1-13 and 16 are considered in this Office 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13 and 16) in the reply filed on 12/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/13/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 should be corrected to “which a resin can be injected” (line 5), “injecting [[a]] the resin” (line 6).
Claim 2 should be corrected to “[[a]] the space” (line 5).
Claim 6 should be corrected to “at which the resin was previously injected” (line 3), “injecting [[a]] the resin” (line 4).
Claim 7 should be corrected to “the second mould” (line 2, line 4, line 8, line 9, respectively), “injecting [[a]] the resin” (line 8).
Claim 8 should be corrected to “the second mould” (line 5, line 8, line 9, respectively), “the side wall” (line 7).
Claim 9 should be corrected to “the
Claim 12 should be corrected to “the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-9 recite the limitations of “the edge of the turbine blade,” “the edge of the blade,” or “the curved edge of the blade.” Here, “the edge” would be interpreted as “the leading edge of a damaged wind turbine blade” (claim 1 lines 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the centerline of the sheet” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “a centerline of the sheet.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the mold” in line 4 and line 5, respectively. It is unclear whether the limitation means the same as (1) a mold (claim 1 line 3), (2) the re-fit mold (claim 6 line 2), or (3) a similar mold (claim 6 line 3). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the perpendicular direction” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “another direction perpendicular to the one direction.”
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being dependent from claim 9.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Petersen (US 11,014,202 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Petersen teaches a method of making a repair to the leading edge of a damaged wind turbine blade (col. 1 lines 7-11: method for repairing damage along the leading edge of a wind turbine blade without necessitating removal of the blade from the wind turbine), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a mould (an applicator tool 40), the mould comprising a flexible sheet (a spatula 42 including a flexible or bendable extrusion plate 44) (col. 7 lines 17-42; figs. 4-9), and fixing the mould to the turbine blade around the edge of the wind turbine blade to create a space between the turbine blade and the mould into which resin can be injected (col. 7 lines 43-62: the spatula 42 may include a spacer to provide a gap between the outer surface 34 of the blade 20 and the inner surface 58 of the extrusion plate 44; col. 8 lines 22-43: the spatula 42 is configured to engage with the wind turbine blade 20 and extrude coating material applied to the blade 20 immediately behind of the spatula 42; col. 9 lines 9-18: pressing spatula 42 against outer surface 34 of blade 20 as indicated by arrow F; figs. 4-9);
injecting a resin into the mould and allowing the resin to cure while the mould is fixed in place (col. 8 lines 22-43: the spatula 42 is configured to engage with the wind turbine blade 20 and extrude coating material applied to the blade 20 immediately behind of the spatula 42; col. 10 lines 7-19: after the coating 30 has dried or passes, the applicator tool 40 may be used to make additional passes over the damage 26 on the leading edge 22 of the blade 20); and
removing the mould from the blade (col. 10 lines 7-19).
Regarding claim 2, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, in which the flexible sheet includes side walls (a plurality of ribs 60 defining the height profile 70) in the form of extensions from the surface of the sheet (the inner surface 58) which faces the blade in use, the side walls being provided on sides of the sheet which run substantially perpendicular to the edge of the turbine blade in use, and acting to space the surface of the sheet away from the blade when the mould is fixed to the blade, creating a space between the blade and the mould (col. 7 line 17 col. 8 line 21; col. 8 line 44 – col. 9 line 7; figs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 3, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 2, in which the side walls are tapered, for spacing the surface of the sheet from the surface of the blade by a greater extent along the centreline of the edge of the blade than along edges of the sheet distant from the centreline (col. 8 line 44 – col. 9 line 8: the height profile 70 defined by the plurality of ribs 60 may be configured to have a maximum height in the central region 64 of the extrusion plate 44 and decreases in height away from the central region 64 and towards the side edges 50, 52 of the extrusion plate 44; figs. 5, 7, 9).
Regarding claim 4, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 3, in which the side walls space the centreline of the sheet from the blade by at least 3 mm (col. 8 line 44 – col. 9 line 8: the height profile 70 may have a wide range of configurations such that the height is a maximum near the central region 64 and then decays to substantially zero near the side edges 50, 52; figs. 5, 7, 9). Here, Petersen silent about the exact dimension of the space (i.e., at least 3 mm). A recitation of the relative dimension of the claimed mold, which would be variable depending on several factors such as a design of wind turbine blade and a level damage thereon would not make the claim to be patentably distinct from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A (In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device).
Regarding claim 5, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 3, in which the side walls space the sides of the sheet which run perpendicular to the edge of the turbine blade in use from the blade by at most 2 mm (col. 8 line 44 – col. 9 line 8: the height profile 70 may have a wide range of configurations such that the height is a maximum near the central region 64 and then decays to substantially zero near the side edges 50, 52; figs. 5, 7, 9). Here, the disclosed range anticipates the recited range.
Regarding claim 6, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising the steps of: re-fitting the mould, or a similar mould, to the blade at a position along the blade spaced from the position at which resin was previously injected; injecting a resin into the mould and allowing the resin to cure; removing the mould from the blade (col. 9 line 58 – col. 10 line 19; figs. 6, 8).
Regarding claim 9, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, in which the or each mould includes a framework (a plurality of ribs 60 spaced apart from each other, defining grooves between adjacent ribs 60) behind the flexible sheet, the framework being flexible in one direction to allow the mould to be conformed to the curved edge of the blade, and substantially rigid in the perpendicular direction (col. 7 line 17 col. 8 line 21; figs. 4-9). Of note, any faces of the flexible sheet would satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “behind the flexible sheet” as the direction of front or rear is not defined in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 9, in which the framework comprises a plurality of elongate elements (a plurality of ribs 60), joined to each other by hinges (a plurality of ribs 60) (col. 7 line 17 col. 8 line 21; figs. 4-9).
Regarding claim 11, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 10, in which the elongate elements are rods (a plurality of ribs 60 which are integrally formed or separately formed and fixedly coupled to the extrusion plate 44) (col. 7 line 17 col. 8 line 21; figs. 4-9).
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 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 11,014,202 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 6, further comprising the steps of:
providing a second mould (an applicator tool 40), the mould comprising a flexible sheet (a spatula 42 including a flexible or bendable extrusion plate 44) having a substantially smooth surface between sides of the sheet which run substantially perpendicular to the edge of the turbine blade in use, and fixing the mould to the turbine blade around the edge of the turbine blade, [at a position along the blade which covers the space between the resin repairs already made, and in which the second mould overlaps each of the resin repairs already made] (col. 7 lines 17-62; col. 8 lines 22-43; col. 9 lines 9-18; figs. 4-9; of note, the spatula 42 (as shown in figs. 5, 7, 9) has a substantially smooth outer surface 56, and the outer surface 56 satisfies the underlined limitation as well; OR another type of applicator tool 40: col. 10 line 20 – col. 13 lines 29: a spatula 42 having a smooth surface on inner surface 58 as show in figs. 10-16);
injecting a resin into the mould and allowing the resin to cure (col. 10 lines 7-19; col. 13 lines 30-46);
removing the mould from the blade (id.).
Here, although Petersen does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., the position of the second mold – “at a position along the blade which covers the space between the resin repairs already made, and in which the second mould overlaps each of the resin repairs already made,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to the method of making a repair of a damaged turbine blade of Petersen to further include a duplicate applicator tool (as shown in figs. 4-9) or an another type of applicator tool (as shown in figs. 10-16) as taught by Petersen in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of performing repair in parallel for improved efficiency, in use of coating material in a high viscosity, or for forming a different desired profile (Petersen: col. 10 lines 20 – col. 11 line 3). Moreover, upon the modification, it would have been also obvious to perform repair using a second/duplicate mold “at a position along the blade which covers the space between the resin repairs already made, and in which the second mould overlaps each of the resin repairs already made” in order to provide a profile of a repaired blade with minimized disruptions of airflow over the blade and any resulting reduction in aerodynamic performance by smoothing (i.e., overlapping) out two repaired portions in use of a mold having a desired surface profile or by applying a high-viscosity coating material thereon.
Regarding claim 8, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising the steps of:
providing a second mould (an applicator tool 40), the second mould comprising a flexible sheet (a spatula 42 including a flexible or bendable extrusion plate 44), and a single side wall in the form of an extension from the surface of the sheet which faces the blade in use, the side wall being provided on one of the sides of the sheet which runs substantially perpendicular to the edge of the turbine blade in use, and fixing the mould to the turbine blade around the edge of the turbine blade, [at a position along the blade at which the side of the second mould without the sidewall overlaps the resin repair already made] (col. 7 lines 17-62; col. 8 lines 22-43; col. 9 lines 9-18; figs. 4-9; of note, the spatula 42 (as shown in figs. 5, 7, 9) has a single side wall (i.e., the plurality of ribs 60 as a whole) as recited; OR another type of applicator tool 40: col. 10 line 20 – col. 13 lines 29: a spatula 42 having a rigid blade or spine 106, which runs substantially perpendicular to the edge of the turbine blade as pointing inward to blade, as show in figs. 10-16);
injecting a resin into the mould and allowing the resin to cure (col. 10 lines 7-19; col. 13 lines 30-46);
removing the mould from the blade (id.).
Here, although Petersen does not explicitly teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., the position of the second mold – “at a position along the blade at which the side of the second mould without the sidewall overlaps the resin repair already made,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to the method of making a repair of a damaged turbine blade of Petersen to further include a duplicate applicator tool (as shown in figs. 4-9) or an another type of applicator tool (as shown in figs. 10-16) as taught by Petersen in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of performing repair in parallel for improved efficiency, in use of coating material in a high viscosity, or for forming a different desired profile (Petersen: col. 10 lines 20 – col. 11 line 3). Moreover, upon the modification, it would have been also obvious to perform repair using a second mold “at a position along the blade at which the side of the second mould without the sidewall (e.g., a front portion of the applicator 40, which is in contact with the outer surface 32 of coating material 30, as shown in fig. 14) overlaps the resin repair already made in order to provide a profile of a repaired blade with minimized disruptions of airflow over the blade and any resulting reduction in aerodynamic performance by smoothing (i.e., overlapping) out already repaired portion in use of a mold having a desired surface profile or by applying a high-viscosity coating material thereon.
Claims 12, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 11,014,202 B1) in view of Laurberg (US 20200318619 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, in which fixing the or each mould to the turbine blade is achieved by tightening springs or other biasing mechanism coupled to a support frame around the mould to hold the mould against the blade (col. 9 lines 9-42; figs. 7, 9) but does not specifically teach that the tightening is done by cable(s) or strap(s).
Laurberg teaches a spreader tool is provided for spreading viscous material on the surface as a repair tool for such wind turbine blade (abstract, [0001], figs. 11a-c, 12a-b). The spreader tool comprises a mold (flexible band 53), and the mold is fixed by tightening cable(s) or strap(s) (chains 60B formed with a plurality of chain links 61B, linked to chains 60A formed with a plurality of chain links 61A via a corresponding plurality of support beams 62) around the mould to hold the mould against the blade ([0118-0119, 0126-0129]: when the actuators 58 are extended, the actuator rod 64 pushes the outer chain away 61B from the actuator 58 and forces the two spreader wings 54A, 54B to bent around the centre region 59; figs. 11a-c, 12a-b).
Therefore, in the same field of endeavor of an applicator/spreader tool for repairing wind turbine blade, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the fixing/fastening mechanism (i.e., spring/bias based) of the mold to a turbine blade of Petersen to have a known fastening mechanism using cables (chains) made of a plurality of chain links as taught by Laurberg in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of fastening the mold on a surface of the turbine blade with an improved load capacity, durability, a consistent tension.
Regarding claim 13, modified Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 12, in which anchors (two end portions where the outer chains 61B are connected to as shown in figs. 11b, 12b) are fixed to opposing top and bottom surfaces of the blade, for providing an anchor point for the cable(s) or strap(s) (Laurberg: [0118-0119, 0126-0129]; figs. 11a-c, 12a-b).
Regarding claim 16, modified Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 12, in which force transfer elements (actuator 58 comprising an actuator rod 64 which is fastened to an end of the outer chain 61) are provided for receiving the cable(s) or strap(s) around the mould and for transferring force from the cable(s) or strap(s) to press the mould perpendicularly against the blade (Laurberg: [0118-0119, 0126-0129]; figs. 11a-c, 12a-b).
Claims 9-11 are, alternatively, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 11,014,202 B1) in view of Laurberg (US 20200318619 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the or each mould includes a framework behind the flexible sheet (i.e., the surface of the flexible sheet which faces away the blade in use), the framework being flexible in one direction to allow the mould to be conformed to the curved edge of the blade, and substantially rigid in the perpendicular direction.
Laurberg teaches a spreader tool is provided for spreading viscous material on the surface as a repair tool for such wind turbine blade (abstract, [0001], figs. 11a-c, 12a-b). The spreader tool 52 comprises a mold (a flexible band 53), and the mold includes a framework behind the flexible sheet (a bendable constructions 54), the framework being flexible in one direction to allow the mould to be conformed to the curved edge of the blade, and substantially rigid in the perpendicular direction ([0118-0119, 0126-0129]: each chain can only bend in one plane, which is in a direction normal to the flat side 55 of the flexible band 53; figs. 11a-c, 12a-b).
Therefore, in the same field of endeavor of an applicator/spreader tool for repairing wind turbine blade, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention to modify the fixing/fastening mechanism (i.e., spring/bias based) of the mold to a turbine blade of Petersen to have a known fastening mechanism using the bendable construction as taught by Laurberg in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of fastening the mold on a surface of the turbine blade with an improved load capacity, durability, a consistent tension.
Regarding claim 10, modified Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 9, in which the framework comprises a plurality of elongate elements (chains 60A comprising a plurality of chain links 61A), joined to each other by hinges (by chain links 61A itself and/or with a corresponding support beams 62) (Laurberg: [0118-0119, 0126-0129]: a plurality of chain links 61A of one of the two chains 60A is connected to a corresponding plurality of chain links 61B of the other chain 60B by a corresponding plurality of support beams 62 which extends largely laterally from the chains 60A, 60B and which are individually rotationally coupled with their two ends to either of the two chain links 61A, 61B which they individually connect; figs. 11a-c, 12a-b).
Regarding claim 11, modified Petersen teaches a method as claimed in claim 10, in which the elongate elements are rods (e.g. lengthwise portions of the plurality of chain links 60A or a pin (not shown) connecting one chain link 61A, adjacent chain link 61A, and a corresponding support beams) (Laurberg: [0118-0119, 0126-0129]; figs. 11a-c, 12a-b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Muller (US 20170239682 A1) teaches a nozzle assembly for repairing wind turbine blades (abstract, fig. 10).
Eggleston (US 20100132137 A1) teaches a wind turbine blade inspection and cleaning system (abstract, figs. 3-4).
Jensen (US 20230048890 A1) teaches a coating applicator tool head configured for use with a robotic maintenance device (abstract, figs. 3, 8-10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744