DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of the elected and withdrawn claims do not present a serious search burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because as stated in the requirement for restriction dated 11/14/2025, and further established below, the features of the separate groups do not present a special technical feature to establish unity of invention. Further, the withdrawn claims require different search strategies, field of search, and claim scope analysis.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/31/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “and/or that an amount of the fluid” in line 3 should read -and/or an amount of the fluid-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations which utilize “means” and their interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) are as follows:
“tempering means” in claim 6. However, no specific structure is disclosed to perform the function of “tempering”. Instead, the disclosure appears to only have generic boxes as the structure of the means (See Fig. 1 numerals 15 and 16).
“fluid supplying means” in claim 7. However, no specific structure is disclosed to perform the function of “fluid supplying”. Instead, the disclosure appears to only have generic boxes as the structure of the means (See Fig. 1 numeral 6).
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 6 and 7 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.
In reference to claims 6 and 7:
Claim limitations “tempering means” and “fluid supplying means” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. As stated above, the disclosure appears to only have generic boxes as the structure of the means. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davis (US20140327178A1).
In reference to claim 1:
Davis discloses a method for manufacturing a preform element used for manufacturing a rotor blade of a wind turbine (paras 0001, 0013), wherein the preform element comprises one or more components (para 0013) provided with at least one adhesive agent (para 0028), wherein the one of more components are arranged on a molding surface of a mold (Fig. 4), at least one bladder is arranged on top of the one or more components (Fig. 4) and at least one fluid is supplied to the at least one bladder for heating of the at least one adhesive agent (para 0013).
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, Davis inherently discloses wherein first a heated fluid is filled into the at least one bladder, wherein after a heating period the at least one bladder is removed from the one or more components (the at least one bladder would inherently need to be removed from the one or more components in order to remove the component from the mold and/or to use the component. See MPEP 2112).
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, Davis further discloses wherein the at least one bladder comprises at least two connections (Fig. 5), wherein the at least one fluid is continuously added and discharged from the at least one bladder through the at least two connections during heating of the at least one adhesive agent (paras 0030, 0035).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Davis further discloses wherein a liquid is supplied to the at least one bladder, the liquid being water (para 0037).
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Davis further discloses wherein a temperature of a fluid supplied to the at least one bladder is set by a tempering means in dependence of a measured temperature of the mold measured by at least one temperature sensor (para 0036).
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Davis further discloses wherein a plurality of bladders are arranged on top of the one or more components wherein at least two of the plurality of bladders are filled with a fluid at a different temperature (paras 0033-0036).
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Davis further discloses wherein a bladder comprising at least one heat insulating surface is used, wherein the bladder is arranged in such manner that the at least one heat insulating surface is arranged opposite to the one or more components and the mold (para 0030, Fig. 3, as the partitions 60 extend away from the work surface to an opposite surface the partitions are interpreted as having a “heat insulating surface arranged opposite to the one or more components and the mold”. See MPEP 2111).
In reference to claim 10:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Davis further discloses wherein the one or more components are arranged on the molding surface within a vacuum bag (para 0029, Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Broome (US20240066810A1).
In reference to claim 1:
Broome discloses a method for manufacturing a preform element used for manufacturing a rotor blade of a wind turbine (abstract), wherein the preform element comprises one or more components (abstract) provided with at least one adhesive agent (abstract), wherein the one of more components are arranged on a molding surface of a mold (Fig. 4 numeral 316 meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “mold”. See MPEP 2111.), at least one bladder is arranged on top of the one or more components (Fig. 4 showing bladder 300 arranged on top of component 126), and at least one fluid is supplied to the at least one bladder for heating of the at least one adhesive agent (para 0076).
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Broome further discloses wherein first a heated fluid is filled into the at least one bladder (para 0076), wherein after a heating period, the heated fluid is removed from the at least one bladder (para 0074).
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Broome further discloses wherein the at least one bladder comprises at least two connections (Fig. 8 numerals 337 and 342), wherein the at least one fluid is continuously added and discharged from the at least one bladder through the at least two connections during heating or cooling of the at least one adhesive agent (paras 0073, 0074, and 0076.
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Broome further discloses wherein a temperature of a fluid supplied to the at least one bladder is set by a tempering means (in dependence of a measured temperature of the one or more components, the at least one adhesive agent, the at least one bladder and/or the mold measured by at least one temperature sensor (paras 0074, 0076).
In reference to claim 7:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Broome further discloses wherein an amount of the fluid supplied to the at least one bladder by a fluid supplying means and/or that an amount of the fluid kept in the at least one bladder during the heating and/or cooling of the at least one adhesive agent is set in dependence of a measured pressure at or in the one or more components measured by at least one pressure sensor (paras 0071-0075).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Graham (US20040113315A1).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Davis does not disclose wherein at least one bladder arranged underneath the mold is used, wherein the bladder is expanded by the fluid in such manner that the bladder is at least sectionally in direct contact with a backside of the mold opposite to the molding surface. However, this is taught by Graham. Graham teaches a method for forming a composite component (abstract). Graham further teaches using a bladder arranged underneath the mold which is expanded by the fluid such that the bladder is at least sectionally in direct contact with a backside of the mold opposite the molding surface (paras 0192, 0196, Fig. 15) allows for relatively uniforms pressure and temperature distribution across the surface of the mold assembly and layup (para 0195). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Davis with the below the mold bladder of Graham in order to obtain a method which allows for relatively uniforms pressure and temperature distribution across the surface of the mold assembly and layup.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW L SWANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1724. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0800-1900 and every other Friday 0800-1600.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/ANDREW L SWANSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745