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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “12” has been used to designate both the first mandrel and fiber lay-up in FIG. 2 (see annotated version provided below indicating the duplicated reference character). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
PNG
media_image1.png
521
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “a transmission frequency of the one or more sensors is in the range of” in line 4 recites “the” to reference subject matter which is not previously recited/introduced. While this recitation is not ambiguous, the Examiner recommends introducing new limitation with “a” or “an” to ensure consistent language throughout the claims is being used. Therefore, the recitation above should read “a transmission frequency of the one or more sensors is in a range of” to overcome this objection. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 is 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.
Regarding claim 11: a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a connectivity range of the one or more sensors is up to 0.1 km or more”, and the claim also recites “up to 0.3 km or more, up to 0.5 km or more, up to 0.7 km or more and/or up to 1 km or more” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Moreover, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a transmission frequency of the one or more sensors is in the range of 100 MHz to 1 GHz”, and the claim also recites “300 MHz to 1 GHz, 400 MHz to 950 MHz, 800 MHz to 950 MHz and/or 868 MHz to 915 MHz” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the features introduced by such narrower language are (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of prior art rejections, any reference that discloses wireless sensors is being interpreted to read on the claimed indefinite connectivity ranges and/or transmission frequency ranges.
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.
[AltContent: rect]4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamke et al. (US 2015/0231844; herein referred to as Kamke) in view of Lyons et al. (US 2015/0137424; herein referred to as Lyons).
As to claim 1: Kamke discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a wind turbine blade (Kamke at [0002], [0100], FIGs. 1-9), comprising the steps of:
arranging a first and a second mandrel (i.e., hollow body 13b and hollow body 13c) and an
upper mold on a lower mold (i.e., first mold portion 1 and second mold portion 23) (Kamke at [0091]-[0100], FIGs. 1-9),
wherein a fiber lay-up is arranged in the lower mold, the upper mold and between the first and second mandrels for molding a lower shell, an upper shell and a shear web of the blade, respectively (Kamke at [0091]-[0100], FIGs. 1-9), and
applying a vacuum to a space between the upper and lower molds and the mandrels
(Kamke at [0075], [0089], [0102]); and
infusing the fiber lay-up with resin and curing the resin (Kamke at [0102]).
Kamke discloses detecting a pressure value in a fluid line in fluid communication with the space between mold portions and mold core, by means of at least one pressure sensor; though, Kamke fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the first and/or second mandrels comprise one or more sensors arranged at an outer surface thereof and adjacent the fiber lay-up provided for molding the shear web; and d) monitoring the infusion and/or curing of the resin by the one or more sensors.
However, Lyons teaches a method for manufacturing monolithic structures using expanding internal tools (Lyons at Title, [0009]). Lyons further teaches the method including providing an outer mold line (OML) tool having an OML tool surface, and loading an inner mold line (IML) tool within the OML tool, the IML tool may having an IML tool surface; and positioning a composite assembly between the OML tool surface and the IML tool surface, and applying an internal compaction pressure on the composite assembly against the OML tool surface in response to the expansion of the expandable material within the IML tool (Lyons at [0009]). Moreover, Lyons teaches, although it is not shown, a network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples being mounted to the IML tools 250 to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof (i.e., wherein the first and/or second mandrels comprise one or more sensors arranged at an outer surface thereof and adjacent the fiber lay-up provided for molding the shear web; and d) monitoring the infusion and/or curing of the resin by the one or more sensors) (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the network of thermal sensors mounted to the internal molding tool to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof as such is known in the art of manufacturing composite blades/wings given the discussion of Lyons above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so enabling a temperature-time history being recorded and used for subsequent curing operations to add repeatability to the manufacturing process for a given composite article configuration (as recognized by Lyons at [0066]).
As to claim 2: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Kamke further discloses the claimed wherein the outer surface is a molding surface configured for molding the shear web and/or a connection region between the shear web and a spar cap of the blade (Kamke at FIGs. 1-9).
As to claim 3: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Kamke further discloses the claimed wherein the first and second mandrels comprise mating outer surfaces defining a gap for accommodating the fiber lay-up for molding the shear web (Kamke at FIGs. 1-9).
Kamke, modified by Lyons, discloses the use of a network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples being mounted to the IML tools 250 to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8); though, modified Kamke fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is arranged at one of the mating surfaces.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples mounted to the IML tools such that they are arranged at one of the mating surfaces, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of an element without modification of the operation of the device/method involves only routine skill in the art.
One would have been motivated to rearrange the network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples mounted to the IML tools such that they are arranged at one of the mating surfaces for the purpose of tracking the temperature at different locations of the IML tools and composite assembly to form and record a temperature-time history to be used for subsequent curing operations to add repeatability to the manufacturing process for a given composite article.
As to claim 4: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Kamke, modified by Lyons, discloses the use of a network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples being mounted to the IML tools 250 to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8); though, modified Kamke fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is arranged, with respect to a vertical direction of the molds pointing from the lower to the upper mold, in a middle portion of the first and second mandrels.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples mounted to the IML tools such that they are arranged, with respect to a vertical direction of the molds pointing from the lower to the upper mold, in a middle portion of the first and second mandrels, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of an element without modification of the operation of the device/method involves only routine skill in the art.
One would have been motivated to rearrange the network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples mounted to the IML tools such that they are arranged, with respect to a vertical direction of the molds pointing from the lower to the upper mold, in a middle portion of the first and second mandrels for the purpose of tracking the temperature at different locations of the IML tools and composite assembly to form and record a temperature-time history to be used for subsequent curing operations to add repeatability to the manufacturing process for a given composite article.
As to claim 5: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Lyons further reads on the claimed wherein the first and mandrels comprise several of the sensors, and the several sensors are arranged spaced apart from each other in a vertical direction of the molds pointing from the lower to the upper mold, and/or the several sensors are arranged spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 6: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Kamke, modified by Lyons, discloses the use of a network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples being mounted to the IML tools 250 to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8); though, modified Kamke fails to explicitly disclose the claimed method further comprising the steps of creating one or more recesses in the outer surface of the first and/or second mandrels and arranging each of the one or more sensors in one of the recesses.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples mounted to the IML tools such that they are arranged in recesses formed within the outer surface of the first and/or second mandrels, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of an element without modification of the operation of the device/method involves only routine skill in the art.
One would have been motivated to rearrange the network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples mounted to the IML tools such that they are arranged in recesses formed within the outer surface of the first and/or second mandrels for the purpose of tracking the temperature at different locations of the IML tools and composite assembly to form and record a temperature-time history to be used for subsequent curing operations to add repeatability to the manufacturing process for a given composite article.
As to claim 7: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Kamke, modified by Lyons, further discloses the claimed method further comprising the step of covering each of the first and second mandrels including the one or more sensors with a vacuum bag (Kamke at [0093], [0100]).
As to claim 8: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Lyons further reads on the claimed wherein in step d) a temperature at the position of the one or more sensors, an arrival of the resin at the position of the one or more sensors, and/or a curing state of the resin is monitored (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 9: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Lyons further reads on the claimed wherein the one or more sensors comprise a temperature sensor and/or a capacitive sensor (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 13: Kamke discloses the claimed mold arrangement for manufacturing a wind turbine blade (Kamke at [0091]-[0100], FIGs. 1-9), comprising:
a lower mold (i.e., first mold portion 1) (Kamke at [0091]-[0100], FIGs. 1-9),
an upper mold configured for arrangement on the lower mold such that an inner cavity is formed in a closed state of the molds (i.e., second mold portion 23) (Kamke at [0091]-[0100], FIGs. 1-9), and
a first and a second mandrel configured for arrangement in the inner cavity such that a gap is formed between the first and second mandrels (i.e., first and second hollow bodies 13b and 13c; wherein no legs at all are used between the first and second hollow bodies 13b and 13c) (Kamke at [0091]-[0100], FIGs. 1-9),
the gap extending in a vertical direction of the molds pointing, in the closed state, from the lower to the upper mold (i.e., no legs at all are used between the first and second hollow bodies 13b and 13c, and therefore open free space, or a gap is present, particularly evident in FIG. 5) (Kamke at [0092], FIGs. 1-9), and
the gap being configured for accommodating a fiber lay-up for molding a shear web of the blade (i.e., no legs at all are used between the first and second mold portion, and therefore open free space, or a gap is present) (Kamke at [0092], FIGs. 1-9).
Kamke discloses detecting a pressure value in a fluid line in fluid communication with the space between mold portions and mold core, by means of at least one pressure sensor; though, Kamke fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the first and second mandrels comprise one or more sensors arranged at an outer surface thereof and adjacent the gap.
However, Lyons teaches a method for manufacturing monolithic structures using expanding internal tools (Lyons at Title, [0009]). Lyons further teaches the method including providing an outer mold line (OML) tool having an OML tool surface, and loading an inner mold line (IML) tool within the OML tool, the IML tool may having an IML tool surface; and positioning a composite assembly between the OML tool surface and the IML tool surface, and applying an internal compaction pressure on the composite assembly against the OML tool surface in response to the expansion of the expandable material within the IML tool (Lyons at [0009]). Moreover, Lyons teaches, although it is not shown, a network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples being mounted to the IML tools 250 to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof (i.e., wherein the first and second mandrels comprise one or more sensors arranged at an outer surface thereof) (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the network of thermal sensors mounted to an outer surface of the internal molding tool to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof as such is known in the art of manufacturing composite blades/wings given the discussion of Lyons above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results, with the added benefit of doing so enabling a temperature-time history being recorded and used for subsequent curing operations to add repeatability to the manufacturing process for a given composite article configuration (as recognized by Lyons at [0066]).
Kamke, modified by Lyons, discloses the use of a network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples being mounted to the IML tools 250 to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8); though, modified Kamke fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein at least one of the one or more sensors is arranged adjacent the gap of the first and second mandrels.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to rearrange the network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples mounted to the IML tools such that they are arranged adjacent the gap of the first and second mandrels, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of an element without modification of the operation of the device/method involves only routine skill in the art.
One would have been motivated to rearrange the network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples mounted to the IML tools such that they are arranged adjacent the gap of the first and second mandrels for the purpose of tracking the temperature at different locations of the IML tools and composite assembly to form and record a temperature-time history to be used for subsequent curing operations to add repeatability to the manufacturing process for a given composite article.
[AltContent: rect]Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamke and Lyons as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nelson et al. (US 2009/0243128; herein referred to as Nelson).
As to claim 10: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Kamke, modified by Lyons, discloses the use of a network of thermal sensors such as thermocouples being mounted to the IML tools 250 to track and/or monitor the temperature thereof (Lyons at [0048], [0066], FIG. 8); though, modified Kamke fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the one or more sensors are wireless sensors.
However, Nelson teaches a process of resin infusion of dry fibrous materials withing a mold and vacuum bag wherein the pressure at multiple locations over the vacuum bag are sensed by sensors incorporating wireless transmitters (Nelson at [0011], [0034]-[0036]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a wireless sensor as such is known in the art of composite molding given the discussion of Nelson above presenting a reasonable expectation of success; and doing so is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 11: Kamke, Lyons and Nelson disclose the method of claim 1. Nelson further reads on the claimed a connectivity range of the one or more sensors is up to 0.1 km or more, up to 0.3 km or more, up to 0.5 km or more, up to 0.7 km or more and/or up to 1km or more, and/or a transmission frequency of the one or more sensors is in the range of 100 MHz to 1 GHz, 300 MHz to 1 GHz, 400 MHz to 950 MHz, 800 MHz to 950 MHz and/or 868 MHz to 915 MHz (Nelson at [0011], [0034]-[0036]).
As to claim 12: Kamke and Lyons disclose the method of claim 1. Kamke, modified by Lyons, fails to explicitly disclose the claimed wherein the one or more sensors each comprise a switch unit for switching between an active state in which the respective sensor obtains sensor data and an inactive state in which the respective sensor does not obtain sensor data.
However, Nelson remains as introduced and applied above in the rejection of claim 10. Nelson further reads on the claimed wherein the one or more sensors each comprise a switch unit for switching between an active state in which the respective sensor obtains sensor data and an inactive state in which the respective sensor does not obtain sensor data (Nelson at [0011], [0034]-[0036]), for similar motivation discussed in the rejection of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAILEIGH K. DARNELL whose telephone number is (469)295-9287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm, MST.
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 H. 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.
/BAILEIGH KATE DARNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1743