Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 8/4/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-15 remain pending.
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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 8/4/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, replace “With” with “with”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4 has the limitation “flow generating means” in line 3. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the term “means” and (B) the terms “means” is modified by the functional language “flow generating” and (C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of flow generation. The Examiner interprets “flow generating means” as a blower (numeral 32 depicted in instant FIG. 9) and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 2-7 and 9-12 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.
Claims 2-7, 9, and 12 recite the phrase “in particular” numerous times. This phrase indicates an exemplary language; “If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim” {see MPEP 2173.05 (d)}. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and rejected.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the re-heated air stream" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and is rejected as well. For the purpose of examination, The Examiner changes the dependency of claim 6 from claim 1 to claim 5, where this limitation is already recited.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "step f1)" in line 4. Claim 9 depends on claim 1 where no step f1) is described. Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and is rejected as well. For the purpose of examination, The Examiner changes the dependency of claim 9 from claim 1 to claim 3, where this limitation is already recited.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the inner chambers" in line 3 and “the inner separation wall” in line 4. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these two limitations in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the recirculated air stream" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICHTER (US-2011/0229336), hereinafter RICHTER, in view of JOHNSON (US-2018/0319046), hereinafter JOHNSON. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 1, RICHTER discloses A method for joining at least two sections (11,12) of a wind turbine blade (1) {[abstract] note first and second segments are the two sections}, comprising the steps:
a) providing a first blade section (11) and a second blade section (12) , each comprising an inner hollow space {[0032]/[0034] note the hollow shape that can be round or elliptical};
b) arranging the first (11) and the second blade section (12) so that they adjoin each other in a joining region (2) {[0037]};
c) sealing the joining region (2) against neighboring regions (21,22) of the first (11) and second blade sections (12) to create a sealed joining region (2) {[0043] note the vacuum bag seals the joining region},
d) evacuating the sealed joining region (2) {[0043] note applying the vacuum};
e) injecting a curable resin into the sealed joining region(2) {[0039] note resin infusion is the injection of a curable resin};
f) curing the curable resin by performing at least one heating step comprising applying heat at least to the joining region (2) {[0044]}, wherein the heating step comprises:
ff) providing an air heater device (3) and, with the air heater device (3) , supplying a stream of heated air into the inner hollow space of the first (11) and/or second blade sections (12) at least in the joining region (2) {[0044] note blower and heater} and/or
fff) placing an external heater (6) on an outer surface of the first (11) and/or second blade sections (12) at least in the joining region (2), wherein the external heater (6) comprises a multitude of heating zones (62-69) {[0044] note external heating mats are plural indicating multiple heating zones}.
The Examiner notes that limitation fff) is an optional limitation. However, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has examined this option.
Regarding the remainder limitations of option fff) of claim 1 reciting “wherein a heating power in the heating zones (62-69) is individually controlled”, RICHTER is silent on this limitation.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to manufacturing wind turbine blade, JOHNSON discloses wherein a heating power in the heating zones (62-69) is individually controlled {[0010] note individual control of heat in each zone, note that individual control of mold zones of JOHNSON can be applied to individual heating mats of RICHTER since they perform the same function}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of JOHNSON in the method of RICHTER and have individually controlled the heating power in each heating mat or heating zone of RICHTER. As disclosed by JOHNSON, the advantage of this individual control is to obtain a uniform curing despite local difference between curing zones that will occur due to different environmental conditions or different structure in different zones {[0006]-[0007]}.
Regarding claim 4, modified RICHTER discloses wherein the air heater device (3) comprises at least one central unit (3) comprising at least one heat source (33) and at least one flow generation means (32) , wherein the central unit (31) comprises at least one heated outlet (391) that is fluidically connected to the joining region (2) by at least one air duct (35,36) , wherein in particular the central unit (31) is arranged externally of the first (11) and/or second blade sections (12) , in particular at a root section (16) of the first (11) and/or second blade section (12) {[0044]/[0064] note the blower is the flow generation means and heater is the heat source that form a central heating unit, note air can enter through the root section and inherently there is a duct to channel this air from the central unit into the blade}.
Regarding claim 12, modified RICHTER discloses wherein the heating step in step f) comprises heating boundary regions (21,22) of the first (11) and/or second blade sections (12) directly adjoining the joining region (2) , in particular in steps ff) and fff) {[0044]/[0064] note that heating by hot air from inside or outside also heats the adjacent or boundary regions of the joint}.
Regarding claim 13, modified RICHTER discloses wherein the external heater (6) comprises at least one contact heater (71-76) and/or wherein the individually controllable heating zones (62-69) are distributed around the joining region (2) in a circumferential (C) and/or longitudinal (L) direction {[0044] note heating mats are contact heaters and since they have to heat the whole joint, they are distributed around the joint circumferentially}.
Claims 2, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of RICHTER and JOHNSON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SCHIBSBYE (US-2022/0381218), hereinafter SCHIBSBYE.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, combination of RICHTER and JOHNSON discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on an inner separation wall and the rest of the limitations of claim 2 and a mandrel and rest of claim 11.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to turbine blade assembling with heating, SCHIBSBYE discloses wherein the first (11) and second blade sections (12) comprise at least one inner separation wall (15), in particular a shear web (15) , in particular extending in a longitudinal direction (L) , wherein the at least one inner separation wall (15) defines at least two inner chambers (131,141) in the inner hollow space of the first (11) and second blade sections (12) , and wherein in step ff) at least two separate streams of heated air are supplied to the at least two inner chambers (131,141) (claim 2) {[abstract], [FIG. 8] note shear web 100 that is longitudinally located both in the root section (first section) and tip section (second section) and thus creates two inner chambers (labelled low and high pressure) on its side with two air streams as indicated by the arrows}.
wherein the method comprises step b2) placing at least one joint mandrel (4) inside of the first (11) and second blade sections (12) at least in the joining region (2) , wherein the joint mandrel (4) comprises at least one aperture (41) that provides a flow-throughlet for the stream of heated air, wherein in particular the joint mandrel (4) comprises at least one further aperture that provides a flow-throughlet for the recirculated air stream {[FIG. 8] note the portion of shear web in the middle that is near the joining section of RICHTER is considered a mandrel that has an aperture}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of SCHIBSBYE in the method of combination of RICHTER and JOHNSON and have included the shear web (or mandrel) of SCHIBSBYE in the two section of blade of RICHTER. As known in this art and also indicated by SCHIBSBYE the use of shear web to longitudinally fortify the wind turbine blade is known {[0006]}. Furthermore, and as disclosed by SCHIBSBYE, this arrangement result in fluid circulation from blade root to the tip and thus more efficient and uniform heating for the purpose of curing {[0022], [0046]}.
Regarding claim 8, combination of RICHTER and JOHNSON discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on a cooling procedure as recited in claim 8.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to turbine blade assembling with heating, SCHIBSBYE discloses , wherein the method comprises step g) after the curable resin has cured to a desired level, performing a cooling cycle, wherein performing the cooling cycle comprises: with the air heater device (3) supplying a stream of non-heated air into the inner hollow spaces of the first (11) and/or second blade sections (12) in the joining region (2) , wherein the stream of non-heated air is in particular an airstream drawn directly from the environment {[0021], [0053], [0057]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of SCHIBSBYE in the method of combination of RICHTER and JOHNSON and have included the cooling method of SCHIBSBYE in the joining method of RICHTER. As known in this art after high temperature curing process, a cooling step is needed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of RICHTER and JOHNSON as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CUOGHI (US-2016/0040654), hereinafter CUOGHI.
Regarding claim 5, combination of RICHTER and JOHNSON discloses all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the limitations of claim 5 describing recirculation.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to heating interior of wind turbine blade, CUOGHI discloses wherein the method comprises step ff1) recirculating an air stream from the inner hollow spaces of the first (11) and/or second blade sections (12) in the joining region (2) back to the air heater device (3) as a recirculated air stream, re-heating the recirculated air stream and re-supplying it as a re-heated air stream to the inner hollow spaces of the first (11) and/or second blade sections (12) in the joining region (2) , wherein in particular the central unit (31) of the air heater device (3) comprises a recirculated inlet (392) that is fluidically connected to the inner hollow space of the joining region (2) and adapted to receive the recirculated air stream, and wherein in particular step ff1) is performed continuously during step ff) {[abstract], [FIG. 2] note 34 is the recirculated inlet that recirculate through outlets 32a and 32b via heater 10, thus it is reheated and recirculated back}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of CUOGHI in the method of combination of RICHTER and JOHNSON and have included the recirculation method of CUOCHI in the receiving duct of RICHTER {[FIG. 8] note the duct labeled cold air suction}. It is known to an artisan that such recirculation saves energy by using the residual heat remaining in the recirculated air stream.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of RICHTER, JOHNSON, and CUOGHI as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of MORRIS (US-2022/0025559), hereinafter MORRIS.
Regarding claims 6-7, combination of RICHTER, JOHNSON, and CUOGHI discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 5, as discussed above. This combination, however, is silent on the limitations of claims 6-7.
In the same filed of endeavor that is related to thermal bonding of composites, MORRIS discloses wherein the stream of heated air supplied by the air heater device (3) in step ff) at least partially comprises a stream of heated ambient air, and wherein in particular the stream of heated air supplied by the air heater device (3) in step ff) additionally comprises the re-heated air stream, wherein in particular a ratio between the stream of heated ambient air and the reheated air stream is adjustable (claim 6), wherein the air heater device (3) comprises at least one recirculation valve that is adapted for an adjustment, in particular a continuous adjustment, of the ratio between the stream of heated ambient air and the re-heated air stream (claim 7) {[0049]/[0053] note operation of the recirculation valve and control of inlet air feed to obtain desired level of binding that indicates the amount or ratio of recirculated air is adjustable}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of MORRIS in the method of combination of RICHTER, JOHNSON, and CUOGHI and have included the recirculation valve and adjustment of MORRIS in the combination method above. As disclosed by MORRIS, this method ensure satisfactory bonding of the composite that is also the objective of RICHTER as described under claim 1 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 3, no prior arts were found and/or it would not have been obvious to have modified the cited arts to have included sealing plugs inside of both sections of the blade so that a fluidically closed internal heating chamber is created. Claims 9-10 are dependent on claim 3 and thus contain the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
