DETAILED ACTION
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 17-28 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.
As to claim 17, lines 22-24 recite “wherein the measurement arrangement is configured to measure displacement of the first shell part flange relative to the first mold flange”, but then (redundantly) recites in lines 24-25 “wherein the first measurement unit is configured to measure displacement of the first shell part relative to the first mold flange at a first measurement position”. The Examiner cannot discern what the difference is between these features, but requests clarification. Other claims are rejected by dependence.
As to claims 24, 25, 27, and 28, “first displacement limit” and “second displacement limit” lack antecedent basis in claim 17. It is likely that these claims should have a different dependency.
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.
Claims 17-23, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kehlenbeck (US 20170266895) in view of and Gaspers (US 20140144010)
As to claim 17, Kehlenbeck teaches a mold system capable of molding first and second blade shell parts of a wind turbine. The Kehlenbeck first mold has a first molding side and surface that defines the outer shape of a first blade shell part (Fig. 5, item 22). The Kehlenbeck second mold has a second molding side and surface that defines the outer shape of a second blade shell part (Fig. 5, item 20). The Kehlenbeck mold system is configured to rotate and position the first mold facing the second mold (as shown in Fig. 5) for joining. The first mold (Fig. 3) comprises a first mold flange (Fig. 3, item 34) along its periphery and a fastening element attachable to the first mold configured to secure a first blade shell part to the first mold during rotation and positioning. The Kehlenbeck fastening element is configured to secure the first blade shell part at a first fastening position on the first mold flange.
Khelenbeck is silent to the measurement unit configured to measure displacement of the first shell part flange relative first mold flange at a first measurement position on the flange, and a processing unit configured to receive data from the one or more measurement units, the data comprising a first displacement value indicative of the first shell part flange relative to the first mold flange at the first measurement position.
Gaspers teaches a measurement unit (Fig. 12) which measures positioning of one fitted component to another ([0057]-[0058]) and a processing unit ([0056], automation system) which receives displacement data ([0056], spot deviation) from the measurement unit indicative of alignment of one part relative to another.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Gaspers measurement unit and processing unit into Khelenbeck motivated by providing proper alignment or correcting alignment of the Khelenbeck material to the mold.
As to claims 18, 26, and 28, Gaspers teaches that the measurement unit is a laser/optical ([0055], CCD) sensor and a processing unit ([0056], automation system) which determines a first displacement value ([0056], calculate a spot deviation) and when the value is above a first/permissible tolerance ([0058]) the processing unit automatically adjusts the position ([0058]-[0065]). In the combination of the Gaspers measurement and processing unit with Khelenbeck, one would have found it obvious to use these features from Gaspers to provide proper (within a permissible assembly tolerance each time) alignment.
As to claims 19-23 and 25, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the Gasper laser alignment device could be placed at any location where it could be pointed at the Khelenbeck mold or clamps for alignment. In light of Khelenbeck’s teaching to provide clamps on a mold flange that extend above the mold, it would have been obvious to attach one or a plurality/duplicate of Gaspers measurement units to the mold, the fastening elements, or at a location of the mold between the fastening elements. When a plurality or duplicate measurement units are provided, each would measure alignment and provide adjustment within a permissible assembly tolerance (meets displacement limit), and the limits would be based on a position of the mold. Correction of the alignment within the scope of Gaspers would require outputting a notification to realign the parts.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24 and 27 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 24 and 27, the Examiner interprets these features to be programming on the processing unit which is interpreted as a structural feature, and the prior art does not show or render obvious these features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights