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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Lamberton does not disclose any heating assembly nor any component that actively directs heat at an adhesive layer. Instead, Lamberton relies on exothermic properties of the adhesive itself to generate heat during curing. Further, Lamberton teaches that this approach is beneficial precisely because a heating assembly, and associated positioning of the heating assembly, is not required. As stated in the reference, "the use of the exothermic adhesive 230 has the benefit of positioning a heat source exactly at the area of interest without the influence of an operator."”
In response, Lamberton discloses, at paragraph 0020, that “[t]he amount of heat generated must be controlled so as to avoid damage to the materials involved.” Thus, any assembly is configured to control the amount of heat generated corresponds the claimed “heating assembly”.
Applicant argues that “Krampe does not mention the leading edge of the rotor blade and does not discuss any type of protector applied about the leading edge using an adhesive layer.”
In response, Lamberton discloses the claim limitation “inspecting an adhesive layer applied about the leading edge of a wind turbine rotor blade” ( see Fig. 3, para. 0018).
In response to applicant's argument that “Krampe discloses a flying robot for inspecting rotor blades that are already installed in a wind energy installation. This approach, and the solution realized by Krampe, is entirely different from the approach of the instant application, namely inspecting and addressing defects in the adhesive layer before the rotor blade is mounted to the wind turbine”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamberton (US 2014/0363294) in view of Krampe (US 2015/0267688).
As to claim 1, Lamberton discloses an apparatus for inspecting an adhesive layer applied about the leading edge of a wind turbine rotor blade (Fig. 3, (para. 0018), which apparatus comprises:
a heating assembly configured to direct heat at a portion of the adhesive layer between the outer edges of the adhesive layer (para. 0019, 0020);
an infrared imaging means arranged to obtain an infrared image of a heated portion (para. 0018);
means configured to move the inspection apparatus during operation of the heating assembly and the infrared imaging means to facilitate infrared imaging of the adhesive layer (para. 0018-0020).
Krampe teaches a displacement means configured to move the inspection apparatus alongside the rotor blade during operation of the heating assembly and the infrared imaging means to facilitate infrared imaging of the adhesive layer (para. 0023, 0037, 0038, 0069).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Krampe’s teaching of displacement means into Lamberton since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and enable successively inspecting the entire rotor blade from the bottom to the top as suggested by Krampe at paragraph 0035.
As to claim 2, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the displacement means comprises a guide assembly configured to maintain an essentially constant distance between the heating assembly and the adhesive layer (Krampe, Figs. 2, 3, para. 0043, 0069).
As to claim 3, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the displacement means comprises a number of spring-mounted rollers configured to roll along the surface of the rotor blade (Krampe, Figs. 3, 4, 13, para. 0044, 0045, 0092).
As to claim 4, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the heating assembly is mounted on a telescopic support blade (Lamberton, para. 0018-0020; Krampe, para. 0058, 0069).
As to claim 5, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, comprising an image processing module configured to detect an anomaly in the adhesive layer from evaluation of the infrared images (Lamberton, para. 0017, 0019; Krampe, para. 0084).
As to claim 6, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a defect reporting module configured to report a detected anomaly and the position of that anomaly (Lamberton, para. 0017-0020; Krampe, para. 0084).
As to claim 7, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a position tracking means configured to determine the position of the infrared imaging means relative to the rotor blade (Lamberton, para. 0017-0020; Krampe, para. 0038, 0069).
As to claim 8, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the heating assembly comprises a plurality of heat sources arranged in a U-shaped configuration (Krampe, para. 0037, 0058, 0069).
As to claim 9, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the infrared imaging means comprises a plurality of cameras, and comprises at least one camera arranged to obtain an image of the heated portion of the adhesive layer on the suction side of the rotor blade and at least one camera arranged to obtain an image of the heated portion of the adhesive layer on the pressure side of the rotor blade (Krampe, para. 0038, 0069).
As to claim 10, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the displacement means is configured to move the inspection apparatus at an essentially constant rate (Krampe, para. 0035, 0037, 0041, 0043).
As to claim 11, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, wherein at least the heating assembly and the infrared imaging means are mounted on a wheeled support and the displacement means comprises a motor configured to drive the wheels of the support (Krampe, para. 0038, 0045, 0069).
As to claim 12, the combination of Lamberton and Krampe discloses the inspection apparatus according to claim 1, comprising a temperature sensing means arranged to measure the temperature of the heated portion (Lamberton, para. 0020, Krampe, para. 0070, 0082).
As to claims 13-15, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
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 PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights