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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 01/23/2026. Claims 16-28 are currently pending with claims 26-28 withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-15 and 29-30 are canceled. Claims 16 and 22 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to arguments to the amended claim 16 and the prior art Seruntine, examiner disagrees that the prior art “does not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 16 calling for covering the first surface region with a protective film such that the protective film is applied onto and creates an interface with the first surface region, or that an edge region of the protective film is pressed and inserted into the groove such that the protective film is pressed against the first surface region and extends in the chord direction from the second end of the groove beyond the first end of the groove and onto the first surface region.”
Examiner contends that a portion of the groove of Seruntine is the first region and the joggle is part of the protective film. Thus, as joined, there is covering of the first surface region (of 68) with a protective film (64) such that the protective film is applied onto and creates an interface with the first surface region (at least the portion of 64 with joggle 66 as interfaced with 68, a part of the first region), and the edge region of the protective film is pressed and inserted into the groove (66 into 68 for instance) such that the protective film is pressed against the first surface region (66 as pressed into 68 for instance) and extends in the chord direction from the second end of the groove beyond the first end of the groove (the extension of 64 for instance) and onto the first surface region (at least portion of 68 which is a first region).
The claims do not clearly define over the prior art, for instance, in that in covering the first surface region with a protective film such that the protective film is applied onto and creates an interface with the first surface region, the interface extends from a pressure side of the blade to a suction side of the blade or the interface extends over an entirety of the blade edge.
In response to arguments to claim 17, examiner contends that the prior art Tangager makes it obvious that protective films applied to wind turbine blades may be oversized and trimmed to size (see ¶ [0085] of Tangager. It appears applicant is arguing that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case as noted above, the prior art Tangager makes obvious the limitations of the claim.
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)(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) 16, 20, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2022/0235736 Seruntine et al. (Seruntine).
In Reference to Claim 16
Seruntine discloses a method of applying a protective film (Fig. 11, 64 for instance, see also 24 for figure 2) on a portion of a wind turbine blade (abstract, Fig. 2, leading edge portion 18 for instance), the method comprising:
defining the portion of the wind turbine blade into a first surface region (see annotated figure 11) and a second surface region (see annotated figure 11);
forming a groove (68, see also ¶ [0086]) in the first surface region, the groove having a width (see annotated figure 11) between a first end and a second end (right and left annotated width line for instance) in a chord direction of the wind turbine blade (direction left to right for instance) and a maximum depth (see annotated figure 11) in a thickness direction of the wind turbine blade (direction bottom to top for instance) at the second end that delimits the first surface region from the second surface region (see left annotated width line for instance);
the groove (68) having a tapered depth from the maximum depth at the second end to the first end (tapering of 68 from left annotated width line to right annotated width line for instance);
covering the first surface region (see figure 11) with a protective film (64 for instance) such that the protective film (64) is applied onto and creates an interface with the first surface region (64, and with 66, into 68 for instance); and
pressing and inserting (see ¶ [0061], the insertion of 24, and analogous to 64, for instance) an edge region of the protective film (66 for instance) into the groove (68) such that the protective film is pressed against the first surface region (against first surface region at 68 for instance) and extends in the chord direction from the second end of the groove beyond the first end of the groove (the extension of 64 for instance) and onto the first surface region (onto 68 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 20
Seruntine discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the groove (68) extends along a blade span direction of the portion of the wind turbine blade (figure 2, along blade into page for instance).
In Reference to Claim 24
Seruntine discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising a polymeric material in an interface between the protective film and the groove (an adhesive for instance, see ¶ [0071]-[0072], [0077]).
In Reference to Claim 25
Seruntine discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the polymeric material is at least one of a sealant, a glue, or a filler, and further comprising removing excess of the polymeric material (an adhesive for instance which excess is removed, see ¶ [0072] and [0066]).
PNG
media_image1.png
788
1144
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0235736 Seruntine et al. (Seruntine) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0062784 to Tangager (Tangager).
In Reference to Claim 17
Seruntine discloses the method of claim 16, except, “... wherein the method further includes: covering the second surface region with the protective film, wherein a first portion of the protective film is positioned on the first surface region and a second portion of the protective film is positioned on the second surface region; and trimming the second portion of the protective film before pressing and inserting the edge region of the protective film into the groove ....”
Tangager is related to a method of applying a protective film to a wind turbine blade (abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the method further includes trimming the protective film to a final size (¶ [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Seruntine wherein the method further includes covering the second surface region with the protective film (of Seruntine and such as using and oversized protective film as taught by Tangager), wherein a first portion of the protective film is positioned on the first surface region and a second portion of the protective film is positioned on the second surface region (such as using and oversized protective film before final size is determined as taught by Tangager); and trimming the second portion of the protective film (trimming of the protective film to a final size as taught by Tangager) before pressing (as taught by Tangager, ¶ [0058], [0085]) and inserting the edge region of the protective film into the groove (of Seruntine), so as to use an art known technique (of processing of a protective film including trimming to a final size as taught by Tangager) into the system of Seruntine and predictably and suitably fit the protective film to the wind turbine baled.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2022/0235736 Seruntine et al. (Seruntine) in view of US Patent 3,356,153 to Schramm et al. (Schramm).
In Reference to Claim 18
Seruntine discloses the method of claim 16, except, “... wherein the maximum depth of the groove is 0.1 to 4.0 mm in the thickness direction of the wind turbine blade ....”
Schramm is related to a protective element for a blade (figure 1), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a maximum depth (Fig. 5, G) of a groove (25) is based on the type of bade and formed to host the protective element (col 3, ll 54-65, a NACA airfoil of a certain type for instance) in a thickness direction of the blade (direction up to down for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Seruntine wherein the maximum depth of the groove is formed based on the blade shape (as taught by Schramm) and in the thickness direction of the wind turbine blade (of Seruntine), so to use an art known technique (of forming grooves for hosting a protective element of a certain depth as taught by Schramm) into the system of Seruntine and predictably provide suitable securing for the protective element. The combination of the prior art does not teach “is 0.1 to 4.0 mm.”
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the groove at this specific dimension solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the groove secures the protective film and it appears that the groove of Seruntine would perform equally well with having the dimension as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the groove of Seruntine by utilizing the dimension as claimed for the purpose of securing the protective film.
In Reference to Claim 19
Seruntine discloses the method of claim 16, except, “... wherein the width of the groove is at least 20 mm in the chord direction of the portion of the wind turbine blade ....”
Schramm is related to a protective element for a blade (figure 1), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a width (Fig. 5, E) of a groove (25) is based on the type of bade and formed to host the protective element (col 3, ll 54-65, a NACA airfoil of a certain type for instance) in a chord direction of a portion of the blade (left to right for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Seruntine wherein the width of the groove is formed based on the blade shape (as taught by Schramm) and in the chord direction of the portion of the wind turbine blade (of Seruntine), so to use an art known technique (of forming grooves for hosting a protective element of a certain width as taught by Schramm) into the system of Seruntine and predictably provide suitable securing for the protective element. The combination of the prior art does not teach “is at least 20 mm.”
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the groove at this specific dimension solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that the groove secures the protective film and it appears that the groove of Seruntine would perform equally well with having the dimension as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the groove of Seruntine by utilizing the dimension as claimed for the purpose of securing the protective film.
In Reference to Claim 21
Seruntine discloses the method of claim 16, except, ... wherein forming the groove includes one of: grinding or milling the first surface region; providing a polymeric paste on the first surface region and molding the polymeric paste; or melting and molding the first surface region ....”
Schramm is related to a protective element for a blade (figure 1), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein forming a groove includes grinding or milling a surface region (col 3, ll 70-74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Seruntine wherein forming the groove includes one of: grinding or milling (as taught by Schramm) the first surface region (of Seruntine); providing a polymeric paste on the first surface region and molding the polymeric paste (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative); or melting and molding the first surface region (this limitation satisfied as being in the alternative), so to use an art known technique (of forming grooves for hosting a protective element as taught by Schramm) into the system of Seruntine and predictably form the groove for suitably securing the protective element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are deemed to be directed to an nonobvious improvement over the prior art. The claims comprise the method wherein forming the groove includes removing a portion of a protective coating layer from the first surface region and measuring a thickness of the protective coating layer (claim 22).
Claim 23 would be allowable based on its dependency on claim 22.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show protective elements for wind turbine blades and attaching layers to wind turbine blades.
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights