DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 27-30 are objected to because of the following informalities.
While these claims technically incorporate the subject matter previously indicated allowable, revision of these claims is recommended to remove occurrences of “wherein” from the substantive steps. “Wherein” should be used as a further limitation of an existing step, whereas active verbs are preferred for actual steps. For instance, “wherein transferring” in claim 27 seems to be intended as an actual step, but would preferably be written simply as “transferring”. Claim 31 could be used as a model.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this application, the following are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the structure is interpreted as being the following:
Claim 4 and claim 5: “connection means” (see Fig. 7, item 5)
Claim 10: “transport means” (see item 17) and “movable transport belt means” (see item 19)
Claim 11: “transport means” (see item 17) and “receiving means” (see item 32 in Fig. 16)
Claim 12: “transport means” (see item 17)
Claim 13: “cooling means” (see item 36) and “heating means” (see item 35) and “movable transport belt means” (Fig. 8, item 19) and “receiving means” (ropes or cables, with rollers on them)
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 1, 3-14, and 31 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.
As to claim 1, in the manner which claim 1 was amended, it is unclear and indefinite whether the “for subsequent heat processing” is an intended use or an actual limitation to the process in claim 1. It has been interpreted as an intended use in light of the word “for”. All other claims are rejected by dependence.
As to claim 31, the preamble suggests this claim is for manufacturing a preform, but there does not appear to be any features actually sufficient to manufacture a preform.
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, 3, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind (US 8,999,216) in view of Nakagawa (US 20050118376) and Flonc (US 5,080,851).
As to claims 1 and 3, Lind teaches a method for manufacturing a preform element for a wind turbine blade (1:16). Lind provides a shape defining mold (1) having a tray shaped mold surface (Figs. 2-5). Lind arranges a lower vacuum bag layer (13) in the mold and arranges a preform building material on the lower vacuum bag layer (4:5-7). Lind arranges an overlapping upper vacuum bag layer (4:8-9) over the preform and evacuating (4:10-11) for vacuum fixating the preform building material in the shape defined by the mold (1). The vacuum bag is inherently removed from the mold, and could be removed for subsequent heat processing.
Lind does not specifically teach (a) a “sealing lower and upper vacuum bag layers together” and (b) the preform building material comprising a heat meltable binding agent for building a cured binder matrix fixating the preform building material..
Regarding (a), Nakagawa teaches placing fiber reinforced plastic between two membranes (thereby forming a vacuum bag) and sealing with an adhesive (meets gluing). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Nakagawa sealing into Lind because Lind teaches/suggests an “air tight cover” and vacuum and Nakagawa’s adhesive seal would provide the air tight cover on a vacuum bag within the scope of the Lind teaching/suggestion. A reasonable expectation of success is present in light of the fact that both references use a vacuum bag and form a fiber composite.
Regarding (b), Flonc teaches a method for stabilizing a composite preform by providing a heat meltable binding agent ((Abstract lines 1-5; Fig. 1, item 4) for building a curable binder matrix fixating the preform building material (Figs. 1-3). In the combination with Lind, one would have incorporated the Flonc heat meltable binding agent in the Lind preform. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Flonc binding agent into the Lind process as an improvement that eliminates debulking as a problem in RTM molding and provides sufficient strength to allow the preform to be handled, cut, and trimmed to shape without disturbing the fibers. One could have applied this known improvement in the same way to the existing Lind process to provide these predictable results to Lind.
As to claim 6, Lind teaches a lower vacuum bag layer comprises two separate sublayers arranged in a stack (Fig. 3, item 13). As to claim 14, Lind teaches a polycarbonate lower vacuum bag layer, and one would have found it obvious to also use a polycarbonate for the upper vacuum bag layer. Polycarbonate inherently has a melt temperature greater than 100 C.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind (US 8,999,216) in view of Nakagawa (US 20050118376) and Flonc (US 5,080,851), and further in view of Yoshino (US 3,666,600). Lind, Nakagawa, and Flonc teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 4 and 5, Lind teaches a connection means, but does not specifically show the connection means punching through an upper vacuum bag and the claimed filter means coupled to the connection means.
Yoshino teaches a connection means (12) in the vacuum bag extending to the outside and punched through the vacuum bag (see Fig. 2) and a filter means (22) arranged in the vacuum bag and coupled to the connection means (12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to incorporate the Yoshino connection means and filter means into Lind because (a) Lind teaches/suggests a vacuum bag connection and this is what Yoshino provides with a reasonable expectation of success in view of the overall similarity of the Lind and Yoshino vacuum bags, and (b) Yoshino’s folded fabric filter means in a comparable process provides an obvious improvement that prevents plugging of vacuum lines, and one could have provided the same improvement to Lind’s vacuum bag to similarly prevent plugging of the Lind vacuum line.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind (US 8,999,216) in view of Nakagawa (US 20050118376) and Flonc (US 5,080,851), and further in view of Bansal (US 20090273111). Lind, Nakagawa, and Flonc teach the subject matter of claim 6 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claims 7 and 8, Lind is silent to metal or polymer rods or mesh as a stiffener.
Bansal teaches a polyethylene (polymer) mesh (60) that inherently acts as a stiffener that separates two layers of a bag (42, 82) in order to permit air to escape ([0020]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill to incorporate the Bansal mesh into and between the Lind lower vacuum bag layers because this is the application of a known technique (mesh between layers of a bag or membrane) to a base device (of Lind) and one would have recognized that applying the known the Bansal technique to Lind would permit air to escape between the layers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lind (US 8,999,216) in view of Nakagawa (US 20050118376) and Flonc (US 5,080,851), and further in view of Poe (US 7,785,517). Lind, Nakagawa, and Flonc teach the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 9, Lind teaches a vacuum bag, but is silent to reinforced handling holes on the sides/periphery of the vacuum bag.
Poe teaches processing an article with reinforcing grommets (3A) that meet the claimed reinforced handling holes which are used for reducing or eliminating defects such as cracking, tearing, curling, warping, and anisotropy (4:40-43).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to apply the Poe grommets and tension to Lind’s vacuum bag motivated by providing a reinforcing structure for holding or transporting the Lind vacuum bag. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in light of Lind’s flat perimeter (near 5) similar to Poe’s flat perimeter which holds the grommets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27-30 technically incorporate the subject matter of claims 10-13 in independent form and are allowed for the reasons described previously and below.
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to resolve the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue discussed above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 10 and 11, the prior art does not teach or render obvious the pin, hole, and rack combination in claims 10 and 11. While a rack is known from Lehmann (WO 2019115337), the claimed transferring step using the pins and holes distinguishes over any possible combination with Lind/Nakagawa. As to claim 12, while a rack is known from Lehmann (WO 2019115337), Lehmann uses the rack to hold/store an actual (rigid, not flexible) mold. Providing a flexible transport plate on a mold, arranging and evacuating the components in claim 1 on the flexible transport plate, and then transferring the flexible transport plate to a rack (from the mold) is a non-obvious distinction over the best available prior art. As to claim 13, the combination of the cooling means and heating means with the movable transport belt means with pins engaging in the holes of the vacuum back distinguishes over any possible combination with Lind/Nakagawa.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are addressed by the Flonc reference above. Applicant argues that Lind does not disclose the binding agent now recited in claim 1. See page 11 of the arguments. This feature is addressed by Flonc.
Applicant also argues that Nakagawa fails to disclose a preform element for a wind turbine. It is noted that Nakagawa was applied for obvious aspects about sealing a vacuum bag, and the Examiner maintains the view that Nakagawa teaches the features for which it was cited even if Nakagawa teaches fabricating different articles from those in Lind. The arguments appear to repeat the text of claim 1 several times over pages 11-13 without citing any specific element Applicant asserts to be missing. The Examiner believes that the combination of Lind, Nakagawa, and Flonc addresses all features of amended claim 1, and notes the indefiniteness rejection of claim 1.
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 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