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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Nov. 21, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-15 and 17-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-7, 17-18 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, lines 6-7, ‘a clamping arrangement formed through the mold body near an end of the mould body spaced apart from the leading edge in a chordwise direction’ are proposed/amended.
However, in the specification of Applicant, for example as illustrated in Fig. 3, only some features of the vacuum elements/arrangements, such as the first vacuum outlet 48, may be penetrated through the mold body 22 near its end.
Claims 9-15 depended on claim 8 are objected as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-9, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windbichler et al. (WO 2015/014724, English translation provided).
Regarding claims 8, 9, Windbichler discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1-4, a mould (item 1, Fig. 1 (page 6, line 17 from bottom)) for forming a leading-edge protection shield (item 11, Fig. 1 (page 5, lines 21-25)) on a wind turbine blade shell, the mould comprising:
a mould body (item 1, Fig. 1) defining a concave curved mould surface (item 9, Fig. 1 (page 5, line 21)) for arranging over a leading edge (page 6, line 16 from bottom) of a blade shell to define a substantially C-shaped cavity (for example, as shown in Fig. 1, represented by item 11 (page 1, in ABSTRACT, lines 3-5) (i.e., a gap filled with medium then cured to form the leading-edge protection shield));
a clamping arrangement (e.g., As illustrated in Fig. 4, the tension strap 40 (page 6, line 1)) for clamping the mould to a windward surface and/or a leeward surface of the blade shell;
the clamping arrangement formed through the mould body near an end of the mould body spaced apart from the leading edge in a chordwise direction (see labels of clamping near the end of the mould body in attached annotated Figures I and II), the clamping arrangement configured to clamp the mould body to one or both the windward surface and the leeward surface (as shown in Figs. 2 and 4 (also see attached annotated Figures I and II));
At least, when the blade leading edge 2 is pulled against the blade leading edge 2 by means of the tension straps 40 which are hooked with devices on the blade trailing edge 41 (page 6, lines 21-23 from bottom) (as shown in Fig. 4), it would have been obvious to have the similar device such as a hook to clamp through the mold body in the blade leading edge for securing the mounting of the tension straps 40.
and
an edge sealing arrangement (items 12, 13, 14 Fig. 2 (page 5, lines 32-35 and page 6, lines 1-4); here, the cheeks 12, 13 having vacuum intake channels 14 can be considered to provide a pair of mutually spaced first (airtight) seals (related to claim 9)) located between the mould surface and the clamping arrangement, the edge sealing arrangement being configured for sealing the mould surface to the blade shell at windward and leeward edges of the C-shaped cavity such that the C-shaped cavity tapers in thickness towards said windward and leeward edges (e.g., as shown in Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
787
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure I (based on Fig. 4 in the teachings of Windbichler)
PNG
media_image2.png
560
738
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure II (based on Fig. 2 in the teachings of Windbichler)
Regarding claims 13, 14, 15, Windbichler discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the cheeks 12, 13 are at least portions of the mold 1. Windbichler discloses that, the flexible design of the cheeks 12, 13 makes it possible to form an airtight seal of the leading-edge form/mold 1 (page 6, lines 18-21 from bottom). Windbichler discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the stiffening element 20 is embedded in the mold 1 for ensuring the aerodynamic shape of the inner profile of the mold (page 4, lines 15-16 from bottom) (related to claim 14). As illustrated in Fig. 3, Windbichler discloses that, through the outlets 31, it is cucked so much and so long the filling medium in the gap is completely filled with filling medium (page 6, lines 25-31 from bottom) (related to claim 15).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windbichler et al. (WO 2015/014724, English translation provided) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Jespersen et al. (WO 2019/115457).
Regarding claims 10-12, Windbichler discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the multiple suction channels 14 are extending along the longitudinal direction L (page 6, lines 1-2). Thus, the related areas occupied by the suction channels 14 can be considered to provide extra sealing to the gap space 11. However, Windbichler does not disclose detailed sealing elements in these areas.
In the same field of endeavor, a reinforced wind turbine blade, Jespersen discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 9, 10, 11, 12, the moulding surface 97 of the mould body 96 comprises a sealing element 110 in the form of a sealing strip enclosing a section 112 of the mounting surface (page 22, lines 15-19). Jespersen discloses that, the sealing strip 110 is arranged in the groove 116 (page 22, lines 30-31). Here, the recess 116 can be considered as providing one portion of the seal carrier (related to claim 12). Jespersen discloses that, these sealing element(s) may protrude beyond the surrounding moulding surface. In one embodiment, the sealing elements are elastically deformable (page 7, lines 2-4) (related to claim 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Windbichler to incorporate the teachings of Jespersen to provide extra sealing elements. Doing so would be possible to assist in forming a seal between the mounding surface and a surface of the cured blade element, as recognized by Jespersen (page 7, lines 1-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 8 that the base reference Windbichler does not provide a clamping arrangement that is formed through the mould body near an end of the mould body spaced apart from the leading edge of the balde in a chordwise direction and an edge sealing arrangement that is located along the mould body between the mould surface and the clamping arrangement, it is not persuasive.
In attached annotated Figures I and II (see above), labels of ‘device (such as hook) clamping tension strap through mold body near end of the mold body’ plus ’vacuum clamping (channels)’ are demonstrating the claimed features of “a clamping arrangement that is formed through the mould body near an end of the mould body spaced apart from the leading edge of the balde in a chordwise direction and an edge sealing arrangement that is located along the mould body between the mould surface and the clamping arrangement”.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights