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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 06/23/2026:
Claims 10-15 are pending.
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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), wherein the sideways displacement (Dx) comprises a procedure in which the mould section is moved laterally, in a horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the mould.
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), wherein the sideways displacement (Dx) comprises a procedure in which the mould section is moved laterally, in a horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the mould (see movement of mould section 1a in the horizontal direction in annotated Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 6 below and [0037] a first step of turning and lifting the first mould part and a second step of horizontally moving the mould part after it has been lifted and turned by said further 90 degree, [0060] The second winch 16 is moved along the gantry 8 to a position above the third attachment point 34 if it was not already moved while turning the first mould part 1a). 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 it’s 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
434
688
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
454
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Davis modified with De Waal Malefijt and Schibsbye teaches the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 the 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant assert that Davis, De Waal Malefijt, and Schibsbye fail to teach the limitation of “wherein the sideways displacement (Dx) comprises a procedure in which the mould section is moved laterally, in a horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the mould” (see pg. 4-5 of Remarks). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection of claim 10 above, Schibsbye teaches the limitation of “wherein the sideways displacement (Dx) comprises a procedure in which the mould section is moved laterally, in a horizontal direction that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the mould” (see movement of mould section 1a in the horizontal direction in annotated Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 6 in the rejection of claim 10 above and [0037] a first step of turning and lifting the first mould part and a second step of horizontally moving the mould part after it has been lifted and turned by said further 90 degree, [0060] The second winch 16 is moved along the gantry 8 to a position above the third attachment point 34 if it was not already moved while turning the first mould part 1a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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