DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 26 November 2025, amending claims 1-9, 12, adding claims 13-14, and canceling claims 10-11, are acknowledged.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends on canceled claim 11. 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 2 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.
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 2 recites the broad recitation “lifting the frame structure,… positioning the frame structure above the plug, and lowering the frame structure onto the mould skin section”, and the claim also recites “optionally turning the frame structure“ 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 feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galdeano et al. (US 8,951,457 B2) in view of Fan et al. (US 10,668,648 B2) and Ying et al. (US 12,337,508 B2).
Regarding claim 1 and 14, Galdeano discloses a method of making a mould assembly for a wind turbine blade half shell (title/abstract), the method comprising:
providing an elongate mould plug 10A, 10B at a first location, the mould plug having a profile corresponding to part of a profile of a wind turbine blade half shell (FIG. 2; 4:1+);
forming a mould skin section on the mould plug;
providing a frame structure on top of the mould skin section on the plug and attaching the frame structure to the mould skin section to form a sub-assembly comprising the mould skin section and the frame structure (4:18+);
removing the sub-assembly from the mould plug; and
arranging the sub-assembly end to end with one or more further sub-assemblies at the blade manufacturing facility to form a mould assembly for a wind turbine blade half shell having a first geometry, wherein the frame structure comprises one or more main frame modules releasably connected to an intermediate support structure, and wherein the method comprises connecting the intermediate support structure to the mould skin section (FIG. 1, 4-5; 4:33+);
the method further comprising reconfiguring the mould assembly by replacing a part of the mold that has already been formed with a view to obtaining a geometry differing from the original in one of its parts, thus enabling the production of another family of wind turbine blades. To change the desired end of the mold, the mechanized elements of the joint ribs are first uncoupled, the bed union area is cut and then the new end of the mold is assembled in a similar manner (2:59+).
Galdeano does not appear to expressly disclose transporting the sub-assembly from the first location to a blade manufacturing facility; or
wherein reconfiguring the mould assembly comprises
detaching the intermediate support structure of the sub-assembly from the one or more main frame modules,
removing the mould skin section and the attached intermediate support structure from the mould assembly,
providing a different mould skin section attached to an intermediate support structure, and
connecting the intermediate support structure of the different mould skin section to the one or more main frame modules
However, Fan discloses a similar method of forming modular wind turbine molds (title/abstract) which can be packaged and shipped separately to the wind turbine blade manufacturing location (3:26-40).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Galdeano to include the transportation of Fan, in order to simplify transportation and manufacturing of the wind turbine blades (Fan 1:20+).
Additionally, Ying discloses a mold for a wind turbine blade capable of rapidly replacing the mold shell without changing the support structure (title/abstract) with a process that includes detaching the intermediate support structure of the sub-assembly from the one or more main frame modules, removing the mould skin section and the attached intermediate support structure from the mould assembly, providing a different mould skin section attached to an intermediate support structure, and connecting the intermediate support structure of the different mould skin section to the one or more main frame modules (3:52+, 4:34+, 4:65+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Galdeano to include the mold shell swapping of Ying, in order to form blades with different geometries using the same support frames.
Regarding claim 2-3 and 9, Ying suggests lifting and rotating the mold shells with a crane (3:26+).
Regarding claim 4, Fan suggests root, tip and middle sections (FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Fan suggests the modules can be packaged and shipped separately to the wind turbine blade manufacturing location (3:26-40).
Regarding claim 6 and 8, Fan suggests bolting each frame section together (5:12+; 6:8+).
Regarding claim 7, Galdeano and Fan suggest each intermediate support structure comprises a plurality of chordwise extending ribs 13 that are mutually spaced in a spanwise direction and/or a plurality of pipes, rods or beams that extend longitudinally in the spanwise direction (Galdeano FIG. 1, 4; 4:18+ or Fan FIG. 11).
Regarding claim 12, the skilled artisan would recognize that additional mold shells could also be transported as suggested by Fan and would require release prior to reconfiguring.
Regarding claim 13, Fan suggests adding or removing module to create longer or shorter blade lengths (5:10+).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davis; Olav et al.
US 20190193304 A1
IVERSEN; Morton Dall et al.
US 20240100746 A1
De L. M. Arias; Maria et al.
US 11794379 B2
Davis; Olav et al.
US 9573325 B2
Burchardt; Claus et al.
US 11820046 B2
Hardwicke; Canan Uslu et al.
US 9597821 B2
YING, Xu-dong et al.
CN 218700544 U
NIELSEN, M
CN 121752422 A
CHUECOS ALCIBIADES JOSÉ et al.
WO 2024078671 A1
WU, Rong-ying et al.
CN 204222026 U
ZHUANG, Yue-xing
CN 203141853 U
JENSEN PEDER MOHR
DK 177679 B1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p EST.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights