DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 27 October 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 20-23 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05 January 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
1. Claims 1, 6-11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/121521 to Jensen et al. (“Jensen”).
With regard to Claim 1, Jensen teaches an applicator tool for use in tandem with a robotic maintenance device for repairing wind turbine blade edges (see Abstract; FIG. 3). According to Jensen, the tool comprises a frame which connects to an end of a maintenance device, a spatula (242) including a flexible plate (244) defining a gap (288) between the plate and the work surface for shaping and confining coating material supplied by a nozzle (118) situated thereunder which delivers the coating material into the gap, and chamfer arms (282) which press-against the spatula for conformance against the work surface (see FIGs. 3, 14, 16; Pg. 31, Ln. 26 through Pg. 33, Ln. 16).
With regard to Claim 6, Jensen teaches a vision system 56 including an imaging device and control system 90 wherein the control system responds to vision system inputs and directs tool operations including positioning and coating material discharge via operative coupling with drive and motor elements (see Pg. 16, Ln. 26 through Pg. 18, Ln. 2; Pg. 21, Ln. 32 through Pg. 22, Ln. 13; Pg. 26, Lns. 18-19).
With regard to Claims 7-11, Jensen teaches an illumination system including a laser and UV light and confirmation of accuracy and sufficiency of tool operations by the vision system 56 and control system 90 (see Pg. 16, Lns. 28-30; Pg. 27, Lns. 8-24).
With regard to Claim 19, Jensen teaches a cleaning and abrading head (70) which prepares edge surfaces for repair treatment (see FIG. 3; Pg. 17, Lns. 10-17).
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.
2. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of WO 2020/176839 to Xiao et al. (“Xiao”).
With regard to Claims 2-5, Jensen teaches actuation of rigid chamfer arm distal ends featuring pads via spring biasing and the suitability of mechanical, pneumatic, and hydraulic actuators for device articulation (see FIGs. 14, 16; Pg. 22, Lns. 21-25; Pg. 31, Lns. 30-33); however the reference does not teach drive shaft actuation as claimed. Xiao is similarly directed to robotic devices which traverse wind turbine blades for maintenance operations, and teaches actuation of device arms via shaft-mounted gears (202, 203) (see Abstract; FIGs. 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have implemented the shaft and gear configuration of Xiao in the device of Jensen in tandem with pneumatic and/or hydraulic cylinder actuators in order to accommodate diverse blade edge geometries.
3. Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of US 2020/0318619 to Laurberg et al. (“Laurberg”).
With regard to Claims 12-15, Jensen does not teach multiple independently-supplied nozzles as claimed. Laurberg is directed to a robotic wind turbine edge coating application tool, and teaches inclusion of multiple independently-supplied nozzles (44, 46) arranged side-by-side to provide coating material on to curved surfaces (see Abstract; FIGs. 9-11; ¶¶ [0028]-[0034], [0112]-[0116]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the nozzle configuration of Laurberg in the device of Jensen in order to deliver diverse and/or increased quantities of coating material to blade edges.
4. Claims 16-18 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jensen as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Laurberg and US 2017/0252765 to Medard et al. (“Medard”).
Jensen teaches inspection-based control, and Laurberg teaches usage of infrared sensors therefor (see Jensen at Pg. 26, Lns. 18-20; Laurberg at ¶ [0066]); however the references do not teach the claimed configuration of sensors. Medard is directed to a multi-nozzle robotic coating application tool for curved surfaces, and teaches first and second sensors (62.1) to continuously detect coating thickness to inform a control loop (see Abstract; FIG. 5; ¶¶ [0070]-[0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated the claimed arrangement of infrared sensors in the device of Jensen, as taught by Laurberg and Medard, in order to continuously monitor coating operations and optimize tool performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael P Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571)270-3736. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 Eastern M-F.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Michael P. Rodriguez/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715