DETAILED ACTION
In Reply filed on 04/16/2025, claims 1-11 and 21-29 are pending. Claims 1-8 are currently amended. Claims 12-20 are canceled. Claims 21-29 are newly added. Claims 1-11 and 21-29 are considered in this Office 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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 7, 23, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should be corrected to “adjusting [[a]] the placement of the composite structure” (lines 2-3).
Claim 7 should be corrected to “a plurality of optical markers” (line 2).
Claim 23 should be corrected to “[[the]] a wind turbine blade surface” (line 2), “[[the]] a location” (line 11).
Claim 28 should be corrected to “the location(s) of the at least one optical marker” (line 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an aligned placement of the composite structure within the mold” in lines 8-9. Of note, claim 1 is further amended on 04/16/2025. Here, the underlined limitation “the mold” literally means the same as “a mold configured for forming the composite structure” (claim 1 line 2). However, such case is not consistent with and not supported by Instant Specification. The former mold means “a mold 100 configured for forming the composite structure 200 including the optical marker 20 disposed at the at least one surface feature of the mold” (claim 1 lines 2-4; Instant Spec: [0048-0051]; figs. 2-4). However, the composite structure 200 (e.g. shear web 200) is not aligned within the same mold 100 (i.e., as recited) but within skin mold 150 (e.g., a skin or a half blade) for fabrication of a wind blade (Instant Spec: figs. 2-4). Thus, Instant Specification does not support that the underlined mold is the same as the forming mold of the composite structure.
Claims 2-11 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the composite structure is a wind turbine blade” in line 1. Of note, claim 9, as being dependent from claim 1, would not be considered as an originally filed claim (i.e., filed on 08/15/2024) as claim 1 is further amended later on 04/16/2025. Here, “the composite structure” requires including “the optical marker disposed at the at least one surface feature of the mold” (claim 1 line 4-5), and it means that the optical maker is integrated into the composite structure as an insert during forming the composite structure on the mold as the optical marker was disposed at the at least one surface feature of the mold. Instant Specification does not support a wind turbine blade is formed to include an optical maker disposed on the mold (see fig. 5). Rather, an optical marker is attached into the wind turbine blade after being molded (see figs. 5B and 5C). On the other hand, Instant Specification only supports a composite structure including “the optical marker disposed at the at least one surface feature of the mold” is a shear web (see [0048-0051]; fig. 3). Thus, the composite structure should not be a wind turbine blade.
Appropriate clarification or correction is required.
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 28 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “at least one optical marker” in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) at least one optical marker among “the at least one optical marker” (claim 1 line 3, line 5, lines 7-8), or (2) another new optical marker. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a shear web body” in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “the composite structure” (claim 1 line 2, lines 4-5), or (2) another structure of a shear web body. See above, the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim 1. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “location of the at least one optical marker on the wind turbine blade surface” in line 2. Here, the former underlined limitation “the at least one optical marker” is from “a wind turbine blade component” (claim 23 line 4), and the latter underlined limitation “the wind turbine blade surface” is the surface formed from a mold (i.e., a surface wherein a mold and a molding material contact with each other; claim 23 line 2). It is unclear as the at least one optical maker from a wind turbine blade component cannot be on the surface where the wind turbine blade surface is formed/contacted by a mold. For the purpose of examination, the limitation would be interpreted as “the location of the at least one optical marker
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9-11, 21-23, 25-26, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Techer (US 20170312998 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Techer teaches a method for fabrication of a composite structure (abstract: a method for manufacturing a turbine engine blade from a preform 10 of composite material) comprising:
providing a mold configured for forming the composite structure ([0073]: the mold 18 including lower part 16, upper part 22, and insert 34; figs. 3-4), the mold including at least one surface feature for receipt of an optical marker ([0075]: the insert 34 (i.e., surface feature) comprises at least one second opposite end 42 forming reference mark 30 (i.e., optical marker); [0061, 0068]: the reference mark 30 is visually or optically detected in combination of a marker 28; thus, here, the reference mark 30 satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretations of “optical marker”; figs. 3-4; here, the upper part 22 also comprises a least one surface feature for receipt of an optical marker (a portion to contact with the reference mark 30 and the marker 28, respectively; alternatively, this limitation would be interpreted in such a way - an optical marker is the marker 28, and the mold (insert 34 and/or upper part 22) comprises at least one surface feature (reference mark 30) for receipt of the marker 28 as shown in fig. 4);
forming the composite structure within the mold ([0019-0020]: a method for manufacturing a turbine engine blade from a composite material comprising: a first step of producing a preform having a general longitudinal orientation by weaving a single piece, said weave being a three-dimensional yam weave, said reform comprising a blade root part and a blade vane pan; [0050]: the preform 10 inside said mould 18; figs. 2-4), the composite structure including an optical marker disposed at the at least one surface feature of the mold ([0061]: inserting a position marker 28 into the preform 10, then, during the second step, at least one sub-step of fitting an insert 34 into the mould 18 forming a reference mark 30 relative to the mould 18, at least one sub-step of checking the position of the marker 28 relative to said reference mark 30; [0067-00068]: marker 28 is a glass fiber or Kevlar yarn, and the position of the marker 28 is optically checked; figs. 3-4);
providing predetermined optical marker location(s) associated with the composite structure, the predetermined optical marker location(s) corresponding to location(s) of the at least one optical marker within the composite structure, and an aligned placement of the composite structure within the mold ([0061], [0070]: inserting a position marker 28 into the preform 10, then, during the second step, at least one sub-step of fitting an insert 34 into the mould 18 forming a reference mark 30 relative to the mould 18 (i.e., predetermined optical marker location), at least one sub-step of compacting the preform 10 inside said mould 18 using said insert 34, and at least one sub-step of checking the position of the marker 28 relative to said reference mark 30, wherein the position of the insert 34 is clearly defined relative to the lower part 16 of the mould 18 in order to form a reference mark 30, the position of which relative to the mould 18 is known; figs. 3-4);
projecting at least one optical beam directed towards the at least one optical marker ([0080-0082]: it is possible for the exact positioning of the marker 28 to be checked using a monochromatic or laser light beam emitted in the direction “R” or in a transverse plane containing the direction “R”, the reflection of the beam on the marker 28 and the capturing of the reflected beam corresponding to the correct positioning of the marker 28 and thus to the correct positioning of the preform 10, whereas conversely, the absorption of the beam by the carbon fibers of the preform 10 corresponds to incorrect positioning of the preform 10);
receiving at least one reflective beam from the at least one optical marker to identify the location of the at least one optical marker disposed on the composite structure (id.);
comparing the predetermined optical marker location(s) to the identified optical marker location (id.; [0075]: comparing the position of the marker 28 of the preform 10 with the reference mark 30 makes it possible to check the correct positioning of the preform 10 following the compacting of the blade root part 12 thereof by the insert 34).
Regarding claim 2, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, when the comparison of the predetermined optical marker location(s) and the identified optical marker location do not match, adjusting placement of the composite structure ([0075]: comparing the position of the marker 28 of the preform 10 with the reference mark 30 makes it possible to check the correct positioning of the preform 10; [0080]: the operator is then responsible for measuring the distance between the marker 28 and the wall 30 and for determining whether this position, in the general longitudinal direction of the preform of the blade, is within the range of values corresponding to correct positioning of the preform (i.e., adjusting the placement of the composite structure)).
Regarding claim 9, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the composite structure is a wind turbine blade (abstract, claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the surface feature is formed as an aperture ([0079]: the transverse wall 30 of the insert 34 can be replaced by a vertical well or a hole, then the correct position of the marker 28 corresponds to the alignment of this well or hole with the marker 28).
Regarding claim 11, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the surface feature is formed as a recess ([0079]: the transverse wall 30 of the insert 34 can be replaced by a vertical well or a hole, then the correct position of the marker 28 corresponds to the alignment of this well or hole with the marker 28).
Regarding claim 21, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical marker is configured as a mirror ([0068. 0082]: reflection of light rays on the surface of the marker 28; here, it is implied the marker 28 has a reflective surface (i.e., mirror)).
Regarding claim 22, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one optical marker is integrally formed with the composite structure (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 23, Techer teaches a method for fabrication of a wind turbine blade (abstract: a method for manufacturing a turbine engine blade from a preform 10 of composite material), the method comprising:
providing a mold configured for forming the wind turbine blade surface ([0073]: the mold 18 including lower part 16, upper part 22, and insert 34; figs. 3-4);
forming the wind turbine blade surface within the mold ([0019-0020]: a method for manufacturing a turbine engine blade from a composite material; figs. 2-4);
providing a wind turbine blade component, the wind turbine blade component including at least one optical marker ([0061]: inserting a position marker 28 into the preform 10; [0064]: the composite structure can comprise a plurality of position markers 28; here, a portion where the position marker satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a wind turbine blade component”);
providing predetermined optical marker location(s) associated with the wind turbine blade component ([0061], [0070]: inserting a position marker 28 into the preform 10, then, during the second step, at least one sub-step of fitting an insert 34 into the mould 18 forming a reference mark 30 relative to the mould 18 (i.e., predetermined optical marker location), at least one sub-step of compacting the preform 10 inside said mould 18 using said insert 34, and at least one sub-step of checking the position of the marker 28 relative to said reference mark 30, wherein the position of the insert 34 is clearly defined relative to the lower part 16 of the mould 18 in order to form a reference mark 30, the position of which relative to the mould 18 is known; figs. 3-4);
positioning the wind turbine blade component within the wind turbine blade surface (figs. 2-4);
projecting at least one optical beam directed towards the at least one optical marker ([0080-0082]: it is possible for the exact positioning of the marker 28 to be checked using a monochromatic or laser light beam emitted in the direction “R” or in a transverse plane containing the direction “R”, the reflection of the beam on the marker 28 and the capturing of the reflected beam corresponding to the correct positioning of the marker 28 and thus to the correct positioning of the preform 10, whereas conversely, the absorption of the beam by the carbon fibers of the preform 10 corresponds to incorrect positioning of the preform 10);
receiving at least one reflective beam from the at least one optical marker to identify the location of the at least one optical marker (id.); and
comparing the predetermined optical marker location(s) to the identified optical marker location (id.; [0075]: comparing the position of the marker 28 of the preform 10 with the reference mark 30 makes it possible to check the correct positioning of the preform 10 following the compacting of the blade root part 12 thereof by the insert 34).
Regarding claim 25, Techer teaches the method of claim 23, wherein the at least one optical marker is embedded within the wind turbine blade component ([0061, 0064], fig. 4; here, a portion where the position marker satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a wind turbine blade component”).
Regarding claim 26, Techer teaches the method of claim 23, wherein the least one optical marker is affixed to the wind turbine blade component ([0061, 0064], fig. 4; here, a portion where the position marker satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a wind turbine blade component”).
Regarding claim 28, Techer teaches the method of claim 23, wherein the predetermined optical marker location(s) correspond to location(s) of the at least one optical marker on the wind turbine blade surface, wherein the location(s) correspond to an aligned placement of the wind turbine blade component on the wind turbine blade surface ([0061], [0070]: inserting a position marker 28 into the preform 10, then, during the second step, at least one sub-step of fitting an insert 34 into the mould 18 forming a reference mark 30 relative to the mould 18 (i.e., predetermined optical marker location), at least one sub-step of compacting the preform 10 inside said mould 18 using said insert 34, and at least one sub-step of checking the position of the marker 28 relative to said reference mark 30, wherein the position of the insert 34 is clearly defined relative to the lower part 16 of the mould 18 in order to form a reference mark 30, the position of which relative to the mould 18 is known; figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 29, Techer teaches the method of claim 23, when the comparison of the predetermined optical marker location(s) and the identified optical marker location do not match, adjusting a placement of the wind turbine blade component ([0075]: comparing the position of the marker 28 of the preform 10 with the reference mark 30 makes it possible to check the correct positioning of the preform 10; [0080]: the operator is then responsible for measuring the distance between the marker 28 and the wall 30 and for determining whether this position, in the general longitudinal direction of the preform of the blade, is within the range of values corresponding to correct positioning of the preform (i.e., adjusting the placement of the composite structure)).
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.
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.
Claims 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Techer (US 20170312998 A1) in view of Salimi (US 20190001589 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the projecting is performed by a plurality of lasers.
Salimi teaches a method for fabricating a composite structure by projecting at least one marking into a mold having a plurality of reflective targets included therein (abstract, claims 1 and 12). Salimi also teaches that projecting is performed by a plurality of lasers ([0037]: in an exemplary embodiment of an optical projection system, a series of lasers 10 are positioned above the wind turbine mold and project patterns downward onto the mold during the manufacturing process, and the number of laser projectors depends on the length of the blade as well as the height of the projectors with respect to the mold surface).
Both Techer and Salimi are in the field of fabricating turbine blades (Techer: abstract; Salimi: abstract), and Techer discloses that a laser light beam is emitted to an optical marker 28 and the composite structure can comprise a plurality of position markers 28 (Techer: [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to modify the method (i.e., using a laser beam) of Techer to include a series of lasers and a method of using the plural lasers as taught by Salimi in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of providing simultaneous detection of the positions of a plurality of optical sensors by mapping a whole structure regardless a length of a turbine blade so as to improve the fabrication of a structure of the turbine blade (Salimi: [0023, 0037, 0064]).
Regarding claims 4-5, modified Techer teaches the method of claim 3, wherein each of the lasers are configured for relative movement with respect to the mold (claim 4), wherein each of the lasers are configured for relative movement with respect to each other (claim 5) (Salimi: [0037]: a series of lasers 10 are positioned above the wind turbine blade and project patterns downward onto the mold during the manufacturing process … While the lasers shown are independently mounted in a fixed position, alternative configurations are contemplated in which all or a subset of laser projectors are capable of relative movement with respect to each other. For example, a laser projector can adjust its vertical position with respect to the blade mold; claim 6-7: lasers configured for relative movement with respect to mold and each other, respectively; [0011]).
Regarding claim 7, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, wherein he at least one optical marker includes a plurality of markers (Techer: [0064]: the composite structure can comprise a plurality of position markers 28), but does not specifically teach that the at least one optical beam includes a plurality of optical beams and, and the plurality of optical beams are projected simultaneously towards the plurality of optical markers, each beam of the plurality of optical beams projected at a single optical marker, respectively.
Salimi teaches that the at least one optical beam includes a plurality of optical beams ([0011, 0037]: a plurality of lasers; claim 5; it is implied that there are at least the same numbers of the laser beams as the plurality of lasers ), and the plurality of optical beams are projected simultaneously towards the plurality of optical markers ([0011]; claims 9, 15), each beam of the plurality of optical beams projected at a single optical marker, respectively (claims 9, 15; here, it is implied that each of the plurality of optical beams from a single laser or a plurality of lasers is projected at a single optical marker, respectively, as the laser beam is inherently concentrates its energy into one spot due to its coherence and directionality, allowing it to be focused tightly1).
Thus, modified Techer teaches all the claimed limitations, and the motivation to combine applied to claim 3 equally applies here.
Regarding claim 8, Techer teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the at least one optical beam includes a plurality of optical beams, with select beams of the plurality of optical beams projected in a serial fashion.
Salimi teaches that the at least one optical beam includes a plurality of optical beams ([0011, 0037]: a plurality of lasers; claim 5; it is implied that there are at least the same numbers of the laser beams as the plurality of lasers ), with select beams are projected in a serial fashion ([0011]; claim 10).
Thus, modified Techer teaches all the claimed limitations, and the motivation to combine applied to claim 3 equally applies here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 27 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Frydendal (US 20120213638 A1) teaches a method for fabrication of a wind turbine blade (abstract).
Keohan (US 20200332763 A1) teaches a wind turbine blade having a spar cap and a shear web system (abstract).
Mathon (US 20150013160 A1) teaches a method for producing a propeller blade from a composite material (abstract).
Salimi 708 (US 20200384708 A1) teaches a method of fabricating a wind turbine blade (abstract), and a male “plug” is first formed to serve as the structure which imparts the specified geometry into the mold ([0038]; fig. 2). Although Salimi 708’s disclosure could be relevant to the recited claim and the earliest effective filing date is before the instant application, the Examiner acknowledges that Salimi 708 is not qualified as prior art as the exceptions under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) and 102(b)(2) are applied. However, this reference is listed for future reference.
Zhuravlov (US 20230249421 A1) teaches a method of manufacturing a shell 36/38 of a wind turbine blade 10 by providing a mold 9 having a marker 11 at a pre-determined locations and marking a reference portion 19 on the shell by detecting a location of the marker on the mold 9, for facilitating accurate positioning of component such as shear webs 7, and the operator may also position other critical components such as sensors on the shell half structure 36 and 38 using these reference portions 19 as reference points (abstract, [0044], FIGURES 6-8). This reference is not qualified as a prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) but is listed for future reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at (571)270-5343. 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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
1 As evidenced by - Jelinkova, H., and J. Šulc. "Laser characteristics." Lasers for Medical Applications. Woodhead Publishing, 2013. 17-46: see pages 32-33: section 2.3.1 – properties of laser radiation.