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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group 1, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 3 July 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of claims 1-9 would necessarily encompass a search of independent claims 10 and 19. This is not found persuasive because claims 1-9 do not recite a wind turbine blade (as does claim 10 of group II) and do not recite a kit (as does claim 19 of group III). Thus, a search of claims 1-9, directed to a method of repairing fatigue cracks in a multi-layer composite body, would not necessarily encompass a search of wind turbine blades or a kit. Thus, the inventions are independent and distinct from each other because groups I and II are related process of making and product made (see further explanation at section 3(A) of the Requirement for Restriction/Election dated 15 May 2025, hereinafter “Requirement”), groups I and III are related as product and process of use (see further explanation at section 3(B) of the Requirement), and groups II and II are related products (see further explanation at section 3(C).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the application papers filed on 12 July 2024 and 3 July 2025.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 10-19 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 20 January 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has/have been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-9 is/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.
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 2:
Claim(s) 2 recite(s): “an outer surface” at line 4, “an outer surface” at line 6, and “an outer surface” at line 11. Thus, claim(s) 2 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the outer surface of lines 4, 6 and 11 are the same as, or different from, each other. The most relevant portion(s) of the Figures, found by the Office at Fig. 10A, discloses flush, weep and fill holes drilled from the same outer surface, though there are at least two, opposing, outer surfaces shown, and most relevant portion(s) of the specification, at paragraphs 0029, 0030 and 0033, use the same language as the claim. Thus, the claim lacks clarity as to whether the initially recited outer surface forms antecedent basis for the later terms or not. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting the holes from the same outer surface or different outer surfaces to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(B) Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 2.
(C) Regarding Claim(s) 3:
(i) Claim(s) 3 recite(s): “an outer surface” at line 4, “an outer surface” at line 6, and “an outer surface” at line 11. Thus, claim(s) 3 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the outer surface of lines 4, 6 and 11 are the same as, or different from, each other, and also, the same as or different from the outer surface recitations of claim 2 at lines 4, 6 and 11, respectively. The most relevant portion(s) of the Figures, found by the Office at Fig. 10A, discloses flush, weep and fill holes drilled from the same outer surface, though there are at least two, opposing, outer surfaces shown, and most relevant portion(s) of the specification, at paragraphs 0029, 0030 and 0033, use the same language as the claim. Thus, the claim lacks clarity as to whether the initially recited outer surface forms antecedent basis for the later terms or not. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting the holes from the same outer surface or different outer surfaces to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(ii) Claim(s) 3 recite(s): a high-pressure flushing fluid. Thus, claim(s) 3 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the flushing fluid of claim 3 is the same as, or different from, the flushing fluid of claim 2 (see line(s) 8-9). The most relevant portion of the specification, found by the Office, at paragraphs 0059 and 0061 discloses multiple fluids (i.e. “cleaning fluids”) and a single flushing fluid (i.e. “a high pressure flushing fluid”). Thus, the claim lacks clarity as to whether the initially recited high pressure flushing fluid forms antecedent basis for the later terms or not. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting a single fluid or multiple, separate fluids, to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(D) Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 3.
(E) Regarding Claim(s) 7:
Claim(s) 7 recite(s): “an outer surface” at line 4, “an outer surface” at line 6, and “an outer surface” at line 11. Thus, claim(s) 7 is/are rendered indefinite because the meaning and/or scope of the claim is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the outer surface of lines 4, 6 and 11 are the same as, or different from, each other. The most relevant portion(s) of the Figures, found by the Office at Fig. 10A, discloses flush, weep and fill holes drilled from the same outer surface, though there are at least two, opposing, outer surfaces shown, and most relevant portion(s) of the specification, at paragraphs 0029, 0030 and 0033, use the same language as the claim. Thus, the claim lacks clarity as to whether the initially recited outer surface forms antecedent basis for the later terms or not. Therefore, the language of the claim is such that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims, when construed in light of the specification, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, the Office will consider a prior art reference disclosing, teaching or suggesting the holes from the same outer surface or different outer surfaces to be pertinent to the relevant claim limitation(s).
(F) Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected due to inheriting the deficiency(ies) raised with regard to claim 7.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20110209347 to Deak (hereinafter “DEAK”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
DEAK discloses:
A method of repairing fatigue cracks in a multi-layer composite body, the method comprising:
repairing fatigue cracks (38, Fig. 3) a first interface between a first layer of the multi-layer composite body and a second layer of the multi-layer composite body (para. 0026: the defect 38 may be in the layers 42);
repairing fatigue cracks (38, Fig. 6) at a second interface between the second layer of the multi-layer composite body and a third layer of the multi-layer composite body (para. 0026: the defect 38 may be in the shell member that extends into the bond paste 36); and
anchoring the second interface with the third layer of the multi-layer composite body to prevent failure from fatigue cracks (para. 0031: the repair zone is reinforced with any number and configuration of mechanical fasteners 52 that generate a clamping load force on the laminate material in and around the repair zone as the bonding material 48 cures and para. 0033: the fasteners may be removed after curing of the bonding material 48, or retained as a permanent component of the repair).
(B) Regarding Claim 6:
DEAK further discloses:
repairing fatigue cracks at a third interface between the third layer of the multi-layer composite body and a fourth layer of the multi-layer composite body; and anchoring the third interface with the fourth layer of the multi-layer composite body to prevent failure from fatigue cracks (para. 0025-0026: the defect 38 may be in the layers 42, i.e. there can be multiple defects at different layers in the shell laminate, though only one location is shown in Fig. 3).
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.
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) 2-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEAK, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8454775 to Stadtlander (hereinafter “STADTLANDER”) and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6955502 to Warren (hereinafter “WARREN”).
(A) Regarding Claim 2:
DEAK teaches:
the repairing fatigue cracks at a first interface between a first layer of the multi-layer composite body and a second layer of the multi-layer composite body (para. 0026: the defect 38 may be in the layers 42) comprises:
drilling a first series of fill holes (44, Figs. 2-3) extending from an outer surface of the composite body to the first interface;
drilling a first series of weep holes (46) extending from an outer surface of the composite body to the first interface;
installing fluid injection ports in the first series of fill holes (para. 0030: the flowable bonding material 48 is injected through the fill hole 44 until the material flows from the vent hole 46);
injecting a crack-repair fluid through the injection ports and filling the first series of fill holes (para. 0030: the holes may be filled with the bonding material 48);
and thermally curing the crack-repair fluid deposited in the first series of fill holes (para. 0030: when cured, the material 48 forms a flush surface with the surrounding laminate material with little or no finishing).
However, the difference between DEAK and the claimed invention is that DEAK does not explicitly teach flushing a first series of flush holes and the first series of weep holes with a high-pressure flushing fluid.
STADTLANDER teaches:
A method of repairing cracks in a multi-layer composite body (Fig. 2B) comprising: flushing a first series of flush holes (18) and the first series of weep holes (18) with a high-pressure flushing fluid (col. 3, ll. 23-27: after holes 18 are drilled a cleaning solvent can be flushed through holes 18, wherein “flushed through” suggests a pressure higher than standard pressure so that the solvent is forced to exit the holes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of DEAK by including a series of flush holes that are in cooperation with the first series of vent, or weep holes, as taught by STADTLANDER, in order to flush through a cleaning solvent and thereby achieve the predictable result of cleaning the damaged area prior to filing with the repair fluid (STADTLANDER col. 3, ll. 23-32).
However, the difference between modified DEAK and the claimed invention is that modified DEAK does not explicitly teach drying the first series of flush holes and the first series of weep holes with an air jet.
WARREN teaches:
Before application of a curable repair material, an area is cleaned by flushing with high pressure fluid (col. 4, ll. 59-65: cleaning step and col. 5, ll. 1-2: highly pressurized water) and drying the flushed area with an air jet (col. 5, ll. 24-26: highly pressurized air can be injected to clear any remaining water).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of DEAK by introducing a source of highly pressurized air into the flushed area, as taught by WARREN, in order to clear any remaining cleaning solvent and thereby achieve the predictable result of drying the damaged area before application of the curable repair material (WARREN col. 4, ll. 59-65: cleaning step and col. 5, ll. 24-26: clearing the cleaned area with highly pressurized air).
(B) Regarding Claim 3:
Modified DEAK further teaches:
the repairing fatigue cracks at a second interface between the second layer of the multi-layer composite body and a third layer of the multi-layer composite body (para. 0026: the defect 38 may be in the shell member that extends into the bond paste 36) comprises:
drilling a second series of flush holes extending from the outer surface of the composite body to the second interface (col. 3, ll. 23-27: after holes 18 are drilled a cleaning solvent can be flushed through holes 18, wherein “flushed through” suggests a pressure higher than standard pressure so that the solvent is forced to exit the holes);
drilling a second series of weep holes (DEAK Fig. 6, 46) extending from an outer surface of the composite body to the second interface;
flushing the second series of flush holes and the second series of weep holes with a high- pressure flushing fluid (STADTLANDER col. 3, ll. 23-27: after holes 18 are drilled a cleaning solvent can be flushed through holes 18, wherein “flushed through” suggests a pressure higher than standard pressure so that the solvent is forced to exit the holes);
drying the second series of flush holes and the second series of weep holes with an air jet (WARREN col. 5, ll. 24-26: highly pressurized air can be injected to clear any remaining water);
drilling a second series of fill holes (DEAK Fig. 6, 44) extending from an outer surface of the composite body to the second interface;
installing fluid injection ports in the second series of fill holes (DEAK para. 0030: the flowable bonding material 48 is injected through the fill hole 44 until the material flows from the vent hole 46);
injecting a crack-repair fluid through the injection ports and filling the first series of fill holes (DEAK para. 0030: the holes may be filled with the bonding material 48);
and thermally curing the crack-repair fluid deposited in the first series of fill holes (DEAK para. 0030: when cured, the material 48 forms a flush surface with the surrounding laminate material with little or no finishing).
(C) Regarding Claim 4:
Modified DEAK teaches:
First and second series of fill holes (e.g. see Fig. 6, has a first series of fill holes 44 for the damaged area 38 at the top and a second series of fill holes for the damaged area 38 at the bottom).
However, the difference between modified DEAK and the claimed invention is that modified DEAK does not explicitly teach arranging and spacing the second series of fill holes relative to the first series of fill holes in a predetermined force transfer pattern.
STADTLANDER further teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
402
899
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Arranging and spacing a second series of fill holes relative to the first series of fill holes in a predetermined force transfer pattern (see annotated Fig. 2B below, wherein as shown in Fig. 2A, the holes 18 that extend through to the different layer interfaces are arranged and spaced adjacent to one another according to a pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the arrangement and spacing of the first and second fill holes in a predetermined force transfer pattern, as taught by STADTLANDER, in order to have the combined tensile and shear strength of the repaired area exceed the combined tensile and shear strength values required for the composite and thereby achieve the predictable result of improving the static and fatigue capability of the composite after repair (col. 2, ll. 49-65).
(D) Regarding Claim 7:
DEAK teaches:
the repairing fatigue cracks at the third interface between the third layer of the multi-layer composite body and a the fourth layer of the multi-layer composite body (para. 0026: the defect 38 may be in the layers 42) comprises:
drilling a third series of fill holes (44, Figs. 2-3) extending from an outer surface of the composite body to the first interface;
drilling a third series of weep holes (46) extending from an outer surface of the composite body to the first interface;
installing fluid injection ports in the third series of fill holes (para. 0030: the flowable bonding material 48 is injected through the fill hole 44 until the material flows from the vent hole 46);
injecting a crack-repair fluid through the injection ports and filling the third series of fill holes (para. 0030: the holes may be filled with the bonding material 48);
and thermally curing the crack-repair fluid deposited in the third series of fill holes (para. 0030: when cured, the material 48 forms a flush surface with the surrounding laminate material with little or no finishing).
However, the difference between DEAK and the claimed invention is that DEAK does not explicitly teach flushing a third series of flush holes and the third series of weep holes with a high-pressure flushing fluid.
STADTLANDER teaches:
A method of repairing cracks in a multi-layer composite body (Fig. 2B) comprising: flushing a first series of flush holes (18) and the first series of weep holes (18) with a high-pressure flushing fluid (col. 3, ll. 23-27: after holes 18 are drilled a cleaning solvent can be flushed through holes 18, wherein “flushed through” suggests a pressure higher than standard pressure so that the solvent is forced to exit the holes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of DEAK by including a series of flush holes that are in cooperation with the third series of vent, or weep holes, as taught by STADTLANDER, in order to flush through a cleaning solvent and thereby achieve the predictable result of cleaning the damaged area prior to filing with the repair fluid (STADTLANDER col. 3, ll. 23-32).
However, the difference between modified DEAK and the claimed invention is that modified DEAK does not explicitly teach drying the third series of flush holes and the third series of weep holes with an air jet.
WARREN teaches:
Before application of a curable repair material, an area is cleaned by flushing with high pressure fluid (col. 4, ll. 59-65: cleaning step and col. 5, ll. 1-2: highly pressurized water) and drying the flushed area with an air jet (col. 5, ll. 24-26: highly pressurized air can be injected to clear any remaining water).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of DEAK by introducing a source of highly pressurized air into the flushed area, as taught by WARREN, in order to clear any remaining cleaning solvent and thereby achieve the predictable result of drying the damaged area before application of the curable repair material (WARREN col. 4, ll. 59-65: cleaning step and col. 5, ll. 24-26: clearing the cleaned area with highly pressurized air).
(E) Regarding Claim 8:
Modified DEAK teaches:
second and third series of fill holes (e.g. see Fig. 6, has a second series of fill holes for the damaged area 38 at the bottom, and para. 0026: the defect 38 may be in the layers 42, though not shown in the figures, a third series of fill holes for a third defect).
However, the difference between modified DEAK and the claimed invention is that modified DEAK does not explicitly teach arranging and spacing the third series of fill holes relative to the second series of fill holes in a predetermined force transfer pattern.
STADTLANDER further teaches:
Arranging and spacing a third series of fill holes relative to the second series of fill holes in a predetermined force transfer pattern (see annotated Fig. 2B further above regarding claim 4, wherein as shown in Fig. 2A, the holes 18 that extend through to the different layer interfaces are arranged and spaced adjacent to one another according to a pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the arrangement and spacing of the second and third fill holes in a predetermined force transfer pattern, as taught by STADTLANDER, in order to have the combined tensile and shear strength of the repaired area exceed the combined tensile and shear strength values required for the composite and thereby achieve the predictable result of improving the static and fatigue capability of the composite after repair (col. 2, ll. 49-65).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6385836 to Coltrin, US 7368073 to Krogager et al., US 9993983 to Nishimura, and US 11292217 to Roberts et al. teach a method of repairing a composite material having an internal void.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5 and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
(A) Regarding Claim(s) 5 and 9:
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are deemed novel and nonobvious over the cited art due to the inclusion of the limitation “extending the inclined at least one of the second series of fill holes from the third layer through the second layer to the first layer” and “extending the inclined at least one of the third series of fill holes from the fourth layer through the third layer to the second layer,” respectively, which, in combination with the other requirements of the claim(s), is neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art as a whole, either alone or in combination. Specifically, the cited art discloses the fill holes are parallel to one another (e.g. see DEAK and STADTLANDER). Though, the cited art discloses fill holes that are inclined with respect to additional fill holes (e.g. see US 11292217 to Roberts et al.), it would not have been obvious to modify the methods of DEAK or STADTLANDER to incline the second series of holes because Roberts et al. teaches the holes go to a single damaged interface rather than one hole extending to a first damaged interface and a second hole extending from a first damaged interface through to the first damaged interface layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLA M MCCAFFREY whose telephone number is (571)272-3438. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (excluding Wednesday) 10AM - 2 PM EST.
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 Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached on 571-272-8648. 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.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745