DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden (US 20140234109) in view of Zwart (US 20160290313).
As to claim 1, Hayden teaches a method for manufacturing a root segment of a wind turbine rotor blade ([0033]). The Hayden method comprises providing multiple root segment sections (Fig. 2-3), drilling ([0040]) first holes (12) into each of the root segment sections, arranging the multiple drilled root segment sections into a mold (Fig. 3A), and casting (Fig. 3B, Fig. 4B, [0044]) the multiple drilled root segment sections in the mold to obtain the root segment.
Hayden is silent to drilling second holes transverse to and through the first holes in the root segment.
Zwart teaches drilling first holes ([0008]) and drilling transverse secondary holes ([0009]) that are at least partially through the first holes (Fig. 3D, 303 and 301).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Zwart hole drilling into Hayden because this is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. Hayden provides a base process with a first drilled hole upon which the claimed process can be seen as an improvement by providing a second/transverse hole. The Zwart prior art contained a comparable wind turbine blade improved in the same way as the claimed invention by providing a second transverse/radial hole in order to accommodate a T-bolt portion (310). One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied this known improvement of a T-bolt portion in the same way to Hayden and the results would have been predictable (T-bolt portion provides a fastener into which the fastener can be attached).
As to claim 2, Hayden’s holes are inherently drilled substantially perpendicular to the connection face portions of the root segment sections (see Fig. 4B). As to claims 3-5, Hayden is silent to the placement in a predetermined position on a first fixture and drilling using a first drilling jig at the first fixture. However, Zwart teaches a first drilling jig at a first fixture (110) and drilling a first hole in a predetermined hole at the first fixture (Figs. 3A-3B, item 301). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Zwart into Hayden motivated by drilling the first hole in a correct location, and a reasonable expectation of success is evident from the similarity in the two articles/processes in Hayden and Zwart. As to claim 6, Hayden teaches attaching an alignment frame to the drilled root segment sections to the mold by fastening the drilled root segment sections to the alignment frame via bolts inserted into the drilled first holes (Fig. 4A, item 16). While Hayden does not specifically teach attaching the alignment frame “to the mold”, one would have found it obvious to make integral the alignment frame and mold in order to fix the alignment of the drilled root segment sections to the mold. As to claims 8-9, Hayden is silent to a second fixture having a second drilling jig for drilling second holes comprising a mounting arrangement mounting to the root segment. Zwart teaches a second fixture (390) having a second drilling jig (Figs. 3C to 3D, item 391) which mounts to a root segment.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden (US 20140234109) in view of Zwart (US 20160290313), and further in view of Frydendal (US 9,132,590). Hayden and Zwart teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103. Note that this is alternative rejection of claims 3-5 since these claims were already rejected above over Hayden in view of Zwart.
As to claims 3-5, Hayden is silent to the placement in a predetermined position on a first fixture and drilling using a first drilling jig at the first fixture.
Frydendal teaches a first fixture (positioning device 3) and drilling using a first drilling jig (8:14-17) at the first fixture (“gripping elements…securely grip…while guiding a drilling tool”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Frydendal fixture and drilling jig/tool into Hayden because Hayden teaches/suggests drilled holes in a turbine blade root, and Frydendal teaches a device for drilling holes in a turbine blade root within the scope of the Hayden teaching/suggestion. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both references are directed to turbine blade roots.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden (US 20140234109) in view of Zwart (US 20160290313), and further in view of Garcia (WO 2018042063). Hayden and Zwart teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 8-9, Hayden is silent to the claimed second fixture having a second drilling jig mounted on the root segment with a mounting arrangement.
Garcia teaches a second fixture (16) mounted on the root segment using a mounting arrangement (Fig. 7) and a second drilling jig (12, 13) which is used to drill second holes which are transverse and intersect the first holes in the root segment (Fig. 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Garcia second fixture and second drilling jig into the modified Hayden process because the Garcia attachment configuration is an obvious interchangeable substitute for the attachment configuration already shown by Hayden. Hayden provides a known attachment configuration for attaching to a wind turbine blade root using one drilled hole and an inserted pin or bolt which differs from the claimed process by the use of a different attachment configuration using a second drilling step and a two-part fastener. However, the substituted component and its function (for attaching to a wind turbine blade root) were known from Garcia. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one attachment configuration (that of Garcia) for another (that of Hayden) and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (attachment to a blade root).
As to claim 10, Hayden is also silent to the alignment pins. Garcia also provides alignment pins (Fig. 7, below item 14) spaced apart from the second drilling jig (12, 13) and from one another and alignment pins inserted into the first holes (Fig. 7, item 12’). These features would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate these features into Hayden for the same reasons discussed above in the rejections of claims 8-9.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden (US 20140234109) in view of Zwart (US 20160290313), and further in view of Garcia (WO 2018042063). Hayden and Zwart teach the subject matter of claims 1, 8, and 9 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 10, Hayden and Zwart appear to be silent to an alignment pins mounting arrangement spaced from the second drilling jig and one another for insertion into the first holes. Garcia provides a drilling jig with alignment pins (Fig. 7, below item 14) spaced apart from the second drilling jig (12, 13) and from one another and alignment pins inserted into the first holes (Fig. 7, item 12’). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate these features from Garcia into the modified Hayden process as an obvious interchangeable substitute for the similar alignment features already provided by Hayden (Fig. 3C, item 390).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 28, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The arguments (pages 8-9) appear to be on the grounds that Zwart’s hole drilling technique depends on a stiffener ring 110 which serves as a template for positioning the first holes. Applicant contrasts this with Hayden’s process which provides drilled holes before they are assembled and cast. Applicant argues that Hayden’s separate jig does not use a stiffener ring, and adding a stiffener ring to drill transverse holes would add unnecessary cost and complexity to the manufacturing process.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 appear to conflate two different issues, whether it would be obvious to drill transverse secondary holes and what apparatus Zwart uses to drill those holes. The Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments appear to be directed at the second issue, and do not seem to address the first issue that is the basis for the rejection. Regardless of what apparatus is used to drill the Zwart transverse secondary holes, the Examiner maintains that it would be obvious to drill those holes with the Hayden process as an attachment feature. Applicant’s arguments do not appear to present reasons why the secondary holes are undesirable for use with Hayden.
However, even if the jig of Zwart is interpreted to be a required feature, it is unclear why this would be undesirable or nonobvious for use with Hayden. Using a jig such as that of Zwart would provide obvious benefits in the positioning of the holes. The Examiner does not see how the presence of a jig, even if it leads to additional cost and complexity, would be nonobvious given the clear benefits in positioning of the holes.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights