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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 paragraph 2, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to claims 6 and 7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of 02/13/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 last paragraph, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Davis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shinoda (US20100285265A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 last paragraph, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shinoda (US20100285265A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12 paragraph 2, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shinoda (US20100285265A1).
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) 1-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (US20100285265A1) in view of Davis (US20140327178A1 – previously of record).
In reference to claim 1:
Shinoda discloses a method for manufacturing a preform element (para 0008), wherein the preform element comprises one or more components provided with at least one adhesive agent (para 0028), wherein the one or more components are locally attached to each other by using the at least one adhesive agent to form the preform element (para 0028), wherein the one of more components are arranged on a molding surface of a mold (para 0220, Fig. 16 numerals 122, 123), at least one bladder is arranged adjacent to the one or more components, and at least one fluid is supplied to the at least one bladder for heating or cooling of the at least one adhesive agent (para 0223, 0275).
Shinoda does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one bladder is arranged on top of the one or more components and/or underneath the mold. However, the rearrangement of parts where the operation is not modified is prima facie obvious. As applied to the instant application, rotating the assembly of Fig. 16 by 90 degrees would result in the at least one bladder being arranged on top of the one or more components and/or underneath the mold.
Shinoda does not explicitly disclose wherein the preform element is used for manufacturing a rotor blade of a wind turbine. However, selecting the preform element to manufacture a rotor blade of a wind turbine would have been obvious based on its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. For example, it is well known to use composites to manufacture a rotor blade of a wind turbine (See Davis para 0008).
In reference to claim 2:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda further discloses wherein first a heated fluid is filled into the at least one bladder (para 0223, 0275), wherein after a heating period (para 0053, 0068), the at least one bladder is removed from the one or more components (para 0051, 0070, as the one or more components are molded in a separate mold, such as a double-surface mold, the at least one bladder is removed from the one or more components).
In reference to claim 3:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda fails to disclose wherein the at least one bladder comprises at least two connections, 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. However, this would have been obvious in view of Davis. Davis teaches a method of manufacturing a composite component using a heated bladder (abstract). Davis further teaches using a bladder having two connections 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 maintains a generally uniform temperature of the component (para 0035). 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 Shinoda with the continuous flow bladder of Davis in order to obtain a method which maintains a generally uniform temperature of the component.
In reference to claim 4:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda further discloses 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 (Fig. 16c showing the expanded bladders at least sectionally in direct contact with a backside of the mold opposite the molding surface).
In reference to claim 5:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda fails to disclose wherein a liquid is supplied to the at least one bladder, the liquid being water or a liquid hydrocarbon. However, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). As applied to the instant application, Davis teaches a method of manufacturing a composite component using a heated bladder (abstract). Davis further teaches using a bladder filled with a liquid, the liquid being water (para 0037). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heating fluid, such as a gas, of Shinoda with the liquid water heating fluid of Davis because each element is known in the art for filling heated bladders for composite material molding and the combination yields predictable results, e.g. the method uses a fluid known in the art for filling heated bladders.
In reference to claim 6:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda further discloses wherein a temperature of a fluid supplied to the at least one bladder is set by a tempering unit (para 0223, 0277, 0308). Shinoda fails to disclose the temperature of a fluid supplied to the at least one bladder is set in dependence of a measured temperature of the at least one bladder. However, this would have been obvious in view of Davis. Davis teaches a method of manufacturing a composite component using a heated bladder (abstract). Davis further teaches using a bladder filled with a heated fluid and controlling the temperature of a fluid supplied to the bladder in dependence of a measured temperature of the at least one bladder allows for a uniform temperature gradient and more even heating (para 0076). 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 Shinoda with the heating fluid temperature control of Davis in order to obtain a method which allowed for a uniform temperature gradient and more even heating.
In reference to claim 8:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda fails to disclose wherein a plurality of bladders are arranged on top of the one or more components and/or underneath the mold, wherein at least two of the plurality of bladders are filled with a fluid at a different temperature. However, this would have been obvious in view of Davis. Davis teaches a method of manufacturing a composite component using a heated bladder (abstract). Davis further teaches using a plurality of bladders wherein at least two of the plurality of bladders are filled with a fluid at a different temperature allows for a uniform temperature across the length of the component (para 0033-0036). 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 Shinoda with the multiple bladders with independent temperature control in order to obtain a method which allows for a uniform temperature across the length of the component.
In reference to claim 9:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda fails to disclose 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. However, this would have been obvious in view of Davis. Davis teaches a method of manufacturing a composite component using a heated bladder (abstract). Davis further teaches 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 allows for a uniform temperature across the length of the component (para 0030, 0033-0036, 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). 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 Shinoda with the multiple bladders with independent temperature control in order to obtain a method which allows for a uniform temperature across the length of the component.
In reference to claim 10:
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda fails to disclose wherein the one or more components are arranged on the molding surface within a vacuum bag. However, this would have been obvious in view of Davis. Davis teaches a method of manufacturing a composite component using a heated bladder (abstract). Davis further teaches arranging the composite materials in a vacuum bag in order to remove air and excess resin (para 0029). 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 Shinoda with the vacuum bag of Davis in order to obtain a method which produces preforms without air and excess resin.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda and Davis as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Broome (US20240066810A1 – previously of record).
In addition to the discussion of claim 1, above, Shinoda fails to disclose wherein an amount of the fluid supplied to the at least one bladder by a fluid supply during the heating of the at least one adhesive agent is set in dependence of a measured pressure at the one or more components measured by at least one pressure sensor. However, this would have been obvious in view of Broome. Broome teaches a method of manufacturing composite articles for use as a rotor blade of a wind turbine (abstract) using bladders to supply the necessary temperature and pressure to the composite material (para 0074). Broome further teaches wherein an amount of the fluid supplied to the at least one bladder by a fluid supply during the heating of the at least one adhesive agent is set in dependence of a measured pressure at the one or more components measured by at least one pressure sensor in order to maintain the bladder pressure at a target pressure (paras 0074-0075). 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 Shinoda with the pressure control of Broome in order to maintain the bladder pressure at a desired target pressure.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights