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 of Group II (Claims 10-15) in the reply filed on 03/25/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Such claim limitation to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is “handling means” in claim 10, wherein the disclosure provides the following corresponding structure on pg. 4: “The upper mould sections can be moved using any suitable handling means. In a particularly preferred embodiment of the invention, the mould section handling means comprises a suitable number of cranes, for example any suitable combination of a mobile bridge crane, a ceiling-mounted bridge crane, a gantry crane, a jib crane, etc.”.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner respectfully suggests amending “A wind turbine…” in line 1 of claims 11-15” to “the wind turbine…” to clarify that the wind turbine is in reference to the wind turbine recited in claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US20190193304), and further in view of De Waal Malefijt et al. (US20170274563) and Schibsbye (US20120251654).
Regarding claim 10, Davis teaches a wind turbine rotor blade mould (moulding apparatus 40 in Figure 3 and [0029] In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the invention and as illustrated in FIG. 3, a moulding apparatus 40 for forming rotor blades, such as blades 20 described above), comprising
a lower mould (first mould half 42 ; Figure 3) shaped to mould one side of a rotor blade ([0029] first mould half 42 is configured to be used to at least partially form the first shell half 30 of the blade 20); and
a segmented upper mould (second mould half 44 in Figure 3 and [0032] the second mould shell half 54 includes a root mould shell section 80 and a tip mould shell section 82 which mate at a second mould shell interface 84) shaped to mould the other side of the rotor blade ([0029] the second mould half 44 includes a second contoured mould surface 48 generally corresponding to a negative of the contoured surface of the second shell half 32), the segmented upper mould comprising a root end mould section (root mould shell section 80; Figure 3).
While Davis teaches forming an airfoil (see Figure 2A and [0028] The outer shell 22 may be optimally shaped to give the blade 20 the desired aerodynamic properties to generate lift), fails to explicitly teach the segmented upper mould comprises a number of airfoil mould sections. However, Davis does teach the segmented mould may have more than two sections ([0051] it should be recognized that while the mould halves 42, 44 were described as having only two sections, each mould half 42, 44 may have more than two sections), prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art for various segmented mould configurations.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a wind turbine rotor blade mould, De Waal Malefijt teaches wherein a segmented upper mould comprises a number of airfoil mould sections (see Figure 13 and Figure 15). The segmented upper mould comprising a number of root end mould sections and airfoil mould sections allows for the manufacturing process to be easily adapted for differences in geometry with minor adjustment to supply chain dynamics. Therefore, wind turbine rotor blades with a variety of geometries can be manufactured at a low cost and high speed ([0012]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the segmented upper mould of Davis comprise a number of root end mould sections and airfoil mould sections, as taught by De Waal Malefijt, for the benefit of manufacturing wind turbine rotor blades with a variety of geometries at a low cost and high speed.
Further, Davis teaches each section of the upper mould is configured for handling by a handling means (turner assembly 90; Figure 3) that effects a sideways displacement of an upper mould section during a mould assembly stage and/or a mould disassembly stage ([0035] The moulding apparatus 40 may include a turner assembly 90 to effectuate movement of the second mould half 44 relative to the first mould half 42. The turner assembly 90 may be positioned between the first and second mould halves 42, 44 when in the opened position and includes a hinge or pivot device such that the second mould half 44 is configured to rotate about a pivot axis when moved toward the closed position). However, Davis fails to teach the handling means comprises cranes (see 35 USC 112(f) above).
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a wind turbine rotor blade mould, Schibsbye teaches a handling means adapted to effect a sideways displacement of an upper mould section during a mould assembly stage and/or a mould disassembly stage that comprises cranes ([0025] This in turn allows the full handling of the mould part as a first mould part of the inventive mould assembly including lifting, rotating and positioning by use of two winch systems on a crane gantry; see Figure 3). A crane allows for mould parts to be realized as fully separated mould parts which increases flexibility in using the mould parts and accessibility of the mould parts between scaffolds, walkways, etc… ([0025] Specialized hinge systems connecting the first mould part to a second mould part are then not necessary and the mould parts can be realized as fully separated independent parts. This allows for increasing the distance between the mould parts which in turn increases accessibility of the mould parts for laying fibre stacks into the mould opening. Due to the increased distance and the missing hinge mechanism it becomes possible to provide for scaffolds, walkways, etc. between the mould parts of a mould assembly. This increases the flexibility in using the mould parts and its also cost-effective).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modify the handling means of Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt with the crane of Schibsbye, for the benefit of realizing fully separated mould parts with increased flexibility in their use and accessibility of the mould parts between scaffolds, walkways, etc.
Examiner notes that the structural limitations directed to the wind turbine rotor blade mould of claim 10 have been either taught or suggested by Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye, and that “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114.II.). Therefore, the limitation regarding the use of the wind turbine rotor blade mould of claim 10 in the method according to claim 1 does not differentiate the claim apparatus from a prior art apparatus.
Regarding claim 11, Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye teaches a wind turbine rotor blade mould according to the claim 10. Further, Davis teaches wherein the rotor blade mould comprises a support structure adapted to receive the upper mould ([0032] root support structure 76 for supporting the root mould shell section 70 and a tip support structure 78 for supporting the tip mould shell section 72).
Regarding claim 12, Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye teaches a wind turbine rotor blade mould according to claim 10.
While Davis teaches forming an airfoil (see Figure 2A and [0028] The outer shell 22 may be optimally shaped to give the blade 20 the desired aerodynamic properties to generate lift), fails to explicitly teach the segmented upper mould comprises two or more airfoil mould sections. However, Davis does teach the segmented mould may have more than two sections ([0051] it should be recognized that while the mould halves 42, 44 were described as having only two sections, each mould half 42, 44 may have more than two sections), prompting one of ordinary skill to look to related art for various segmented mould configurations.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a wind turbine rotor blade mould, De Waal Malefijt teaches the upper segmented mould comprises two or more airfoil mould sections (see Figure 13 and Figure 15). The segmented upper mould comprising a number of root end mould sections and airfoil mould sections allows for the manufacturing process to be easily adapted for differences in geometry with minor adjustment to supply chain dynamics. Therefore, wind turbine rotor blades with a variety of geometries can be manufactured at a low cost and high speed ([0012]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the segmented upper mould of Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye comprise two or more airfoil mould sections, as taught by De Waal Malefijt, for the benefit of manufacturing wind turbine rotor blades with a variety of geometries at a low cost and high speed.
Regarding claim 14, Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye teaches a wind turbine rotor blade mould according to claim 10. Further, Davis teaches wherein adjacent upper mould sections comprise connection interfaces adapted to be joined during the mould assembly step and released during the mould disassembly step ([0038] It should be realized, however, that the description may also apply to the adjustment devices for the second mould half 44, [0039], and Figure 4).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US20190193304), De Waal Malefijt et al. (US20170274563) and Schibsbye (US 20120251654), and further in view of Borsting et al. (US20220118726).
Regarding claim 13, Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye teaches a wind turbine rotor blade mould according to claim 10.
However, Davis fails to teach the mould comprising a root end plate for connection to the root end mould section of the upper mould.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to a wind turbine rotor blade mould, Borsting teaches a wind turbine rotor blade mould comprising a root end plate (mounting plate 70 in Figure 17- Figure 19). The root end plate allows for bushings to be arranged correctly on fiber layers on the mould ([0033] fastening devices or bushings may be arranged on the mounting plate, and all the bushings may then be arranged correctly on the fibre layers on the mould. This also speeds up the manufacturing process, since all the fastening members may be arranged on the fibre material in one step, and since fibre layup in the mould and the preparation of root end assembly may be prepared in parallel) and ensures the root end of the blade does not deform during storage ([0035] the rigid mounting plate ensures that the root end of the blade does not deform during storage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the wind turbine rotor blade mould of Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye comprise a root end plate, as taught by Borsting for connection to the root end mould section of the upper mould of Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye, for the benefit of correctly arranging bushings on fiber layers on the mould and to ensure the root end of the blade does not deform during storage.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (US20190193304), De Waal Malefijt et al. (US20170274563) and Schibsbye (US 20120251654), and as evidenced by Merriam Webster’s definition of “jib” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jib- accessed 04/14/2026, see attached).
Regarding claim 15, Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye teaches a wind turbine rotor blade mould according to claim 10. While Schibsbye does not explicitly call its crane a jib crane, Schibsbye shows two hoist systems comprising first arm 22 and second arm 28 projecting from the gantry crane 8 (also see [0050]-[0051]). Further, Merriam Webster defines “jib” as the projecting arm of a crane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the crane of Schibsbye to be a jib crane, since a jib is defined as the projecting arm of a crane and Schibsbye teaches a crane with two projecting arms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights