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 .
Claims 1-12 are currently pending. Claims 1-12 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 03, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1, 10, 11, and 12, the claims contain several usages of “which” that do not appear grammatically appropriate. These include Line 10 of Claim 1, Line 3 of Claim 10 (two instances), Line 5 of Claim 10, Line 3 of Claim 11, Line 2 of Claim 12. They may be corrected by either removal, replacement, or addition of more words as appropriate.
Regarding Claim 11, Lines 3-4 recite “the position for drilling device is determined”. It is believed reciting “a drilling device” would be more grammatically appropriate. Note “a” suggested because of the dependency of Claim 11 not being upon Claim 10.
Claims 2-9 are subsequently objected to for their dependencies upon a previously objected claim.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 10, Line 2, “drilling device” modified by being configured to perform the function of “drilling the hole”. This is interpreted to be a drilling tool comprising a magnetic drill or equivalents thereof as described on Pg. 8, Lines 8-16 of the amended Specification filed November 03, 2025.
Claim 11, Lines 2-3, “detection device” modified by the function of being configured to perform the function of “detecting the position of an embedded mounting insert”. This is interpreted to be an ultrasound or equivalents thereof as described on Pg. 6, Lines 21-26 of the Specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-5 and 7 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.
Regarding Claim 2, Line 2 recites “the opposing second surface”, Lines 4-5 recite “the second surfaces”, Line 7 recites “the opposing root surface”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for these limitations, since they have not been previously recited. The claim does not specify what is considered “opposing” with respect to. It is unclear if these are intended to be the same limitation because of the changing recitations. Particularly, the first recitation requires a single opposing second surface. The second citation requires plural surfaces. The third citation uses a different name for the surface that has not been previously recited.
Regarding Claim 4, Line 3 recites “the bolt is or the bolts are”. It is unclear if there is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation because the scope of Claim 1 only appears to require one bolt for the threaded hole. The claim appears to allow plural bolts screwed in a singular threaded hole.
Regarding Claim 5, Line 2 recites “each reinforcement plate”. This assumes a plural of plates. However, it is unclear if there is sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation, since there are not plural plates in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Line 2 recites “both surfaces”. It is unclear what surfaces the claim refers to, since there does not appear to be sufficient antecedent basis for two surfaces.
Claim 3 is subsequently rejected for its dependency upon a previously rejected 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US 2014/0377072 A1), hereinafter Moore, in view of Garcia De La Pena Razquin (US 2019/0264660 A1), hereinafter Garcia.
Regarding Claim 1, Figure 18 of Moore teaches a method for retrofitting securing means for securing mounting inserts (portion of 44 accommodating 46) embedded in a root of a wind turbine blade (see abstract), which mounting inserts each comprise at least one stud (46) extending axially from the root comprising: at least one hole (either 672) perpendicular to the mounting insert from at least one root surface, until the hole (672) extends into or through the mounting insert; threading the hole (672) at least in the region where the hole (672) extends into or through the mounting insert to adapt it for receiving a threaded bolt (in 672); arranging a reinforcement plate (674 or 676) at the root surface, which reinforcement plate (674 or 676) comprises at least one opening (672) which corresponds with the hole (672); and arranging the threaded bolt (in 672) through the opening (672) and screwing the bolt (note threads on 672) into the threaded hole for fixating the insert (portion of 44) to the plate (674 or 676) [0074-0075]. The embodiment of Figure 3 show a different view with analogous parts, like plates (110, 118).
Moore does not expressly teach drilling at least one hole as claimed. However, drilling would have been obvious in view of Garcia.
Figures 8-9 of Garcia teach a method for a wind turbine blade wherein holes are formed by drilling (see 13, 14 drills) [0047]. Thus, while Moore is silent regarding how the holes are formed, Garcia exemplifies drilling is a known method step that predictably results in holes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Moore by simply substituting the unknown step of hole formation with the step of drilling as exemplified by Garcia, predictably resulting in producing a hole.
Regarding Claim 2, as far as it is definite and understood, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 18 of Moore teaches wherein at least one further hole (672) is made from the opposing second surface until the hole (672) extends into or through the mounting insert (portion of 44) and is at least partly threaded (see threads 672), wherein a further reinforcement plate (674 or 676) is arranged at the second surfaces and is fixated by separate bolts (in 672) inserted through the respective opening and screwed into the further threaded holes (672) [0074-0075]. Note in Figure 18, there are two sets of holes and plates: one to the left of (44) with respect to the figure (672, 674) and one to the right (672, 676). Either set satisfies the interpretation of the hole/plate with the other being the further hole/plate.
The modification in Claim 1 above would result in the further hole being drilled for the same reasons set forth above.
Regarding Claim 3, as far as it is definite and understood, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 2.
Figure 18 of Moore teaches wherein the two holes from both surfaces are flush with each other, as noted by the cross-sectional view showing them being aligned. The modification in Claims 1-2 above result in the holes being drilled, as exemplified by Garcia’s drills (13, 14) [0047].
Regarding Claim 4, as far as it is definite and understood, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
The combination teaches wherein the stud is removed from the insert before drilling the hole and is rearranged in the insert before or after the bolt is or bolts are screwed in the threaded hole; or that the drilling is performed with the stud being arranged in the insert as claimed. Figure 18 of Moore shows the final assembly with stud (46) and bolts (in 672). The scope of the claim encompasses all possible ways in which to form this, i.e. for the stud (46) to be with the bolts (in 672) in the final step, it is necessarily either present or not present in its displayed position.
Regarding Claim 12, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Moore teaches a wind turbine (10) comprising a hub (20) with several turbine blades (22) arranged at the hub (20), which blades (22) are provided with retrofitted securing means according to the method ([0032-0034], and abstract).
Claim 5, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore and Garcia as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Irissappane et al. (US 2020/0232444 A1), hereinafter Irissappane.
Regarding Claim 5, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 18 of Moore teaches wherein each reinforcement plate (674 or 676) is pre-positioned after the at least one hole (672) is provided [0074-0075].
Moore does not expressly teach a depth measurement is performed to evaluate the depth of the arrangement of the opening and the hole as claimed. However, a depth measurement would have been obvious in view of Irissappane.
Figures 2, 4 of Irissappane teach a method for a wind turbine blade wherein a hole (120) is drilled. After drilling, a depth measurement is performed to evaluate the depth of the arrangement. The measurement is to ensure the if required depth has been reached or if further drilling is required [0088]. While not exactly the same as the instant application, the teaching of Irissappane is considered analogous art, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of drilling faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Moore-Garcia such that a depth measurement is performed to evaluate the depth of the arrangement of the opening and the hole as suggested by Irissappane, to provide the benefit of confirming if the desired depth is achieved.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore and Garcia as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Barnes (US 2009/0068020 A1), hereinafter Barnes.
Regarding Claim 6, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Moore does not expressly teach wherein one or more washers are arranged underneath a head of the bolt as claimed. However, a washer would have been obvious in view of Barnes.
The figure of Barnes teaches an arrangement wherein one or more washers (11) are arranged underneath a head of the bolt (9, 12). The washers help distribute the clamping stress of the attachment [0031]. While not exactly the same as the instant application, the teaching of Barnes is considered analogous art, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of bolt usage faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Moore-Garcia such that one or more washers are arranged underneath a head of the bolt as suggested by Barnes, to provide the benefit of better distributing the clamping force of the bolt across the respective surface.
Claim 7, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore and Garcia as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Lovlund Toft (US 2020/0331103 A1), hereinafter Lovlund.
Regarding Claim 7, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Moore does not expressly teach the surface or both surfaces are mechanically and/or chemically prepared before the reinforcement plate is attached as claimed. However, preparing would have been obvious in view of Lovlund.
Figure 9E of Lovlund teaches an attachment between two parts (2, 12). Lovlund considers having the surface or both surfaces (of 2, 12) mechanically prepared before they are attached. The treatment increases the friction, thereby achieving a better fixation [0179]. While not exactly the same as the instant application, the teaching of Lovlund is considered analogous art, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of fixing objects together faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Moore-Garcia the surface or both surfaces are mechanically prepared before the reinforcement plate is attached as suggested by Lovlund, to provide the benefit of increasing friction for better fixation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore and Garcia as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Akhtar et al. (US 2016/0195060 A1), hereinafter Akhtar.
Regarding Claim 8, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Moore does not expressly teach an adhesive is arranged on the surface and/or the reinforcement plate and that the reinforcement plate is bonded onto the surface as claimed. However, the use of adhesive would have been obvious in view of Akhtar.
Figure 3 of Akhtar teaches a method for attaching reinforcing plates (52), wherein both bolts (60) and adhesive (62) is used. The adhesive (62) is arranged on the surface (of 40) and/or the reinforcement plate (52) and that the reinforcement plate (52) is bonded onto the surface (of 40). The adhesive helps take the shear loads acting on the system [0030]. While not exactly the same as the instant application, the teaching of Akhtar is considered analogous art, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of reinforcement plate improvement faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Moore-Garcia such that an adhesive is arranged on the surface and/or the reinforcement plate and that the reinforcement plate is bonded onto the surface as suggested by Akhtar, to provide the benefit of allowing the adhesive to handle the shear loading of the arrangement.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Garcia, and Akhtar as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Barton et al. (US 2019/0360457 A1), hereinafter Barton.
Regarding Claim 9, Moore, Garcia, and Akhtar teach the method as set forth in Claim 8.
Moore does not expressly teach wherein the plate comprises several spacers configured to distance the reinforcement plate from the surface as claimed. However, spacers would have been obvious in view of Barton.
Figures 8-9 of Barton teach a method in which an extension (20) is adhesively bonded with a blade (18). The arrangement comprises several spacers (56) configured to distance the blade and extension (18, 20), which may be provided on the tip extension. The distancing helps ensure a minimum clearance for the adhesive is met so that there is adequate space for the adhesive to be present between the bond regions [0013, 0049]. While not exactly the same as the instant application, the teaching of Barton is considered analogous art, since it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of using adhesives faced by the inventor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to further modify the method taught by Moore-Garcia-Akhtar such that the plate comprises several spacers configured to distance the reinforcement plate from the surface as suggested by Barton, to provide the benefit of having adequate space for the adhesive for the bond region between the plate and surface.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore and Garcia as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Thiebaut (US 2021/0180572 A1), hereinafter Thiebaut.
Regarding Claim 10, interpreting drilling device under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to be a magnetic drill or equivalents, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
The modification in Claim 1 by Garcia results in a drilling device for drilling the hole is used, as exemplified by devices (13, 14) in Figures 8-9 of Garcia [0047].
Moore does not expressly teach which drilling device is arranged on a guiding track, which guiding track is arranged inside or outside of the root and extends around the whole inner or outer circumference of the root, along which guiding track the drilling device is movable from one drilling position to another as claimed. However, a guiding track would have been obvious in view of Thiebaut.
Figure 5 of Thiebaut teaches a method for a wind turbine blade that comprises using a drilling device (58) [0042]. The drilling device (58) is arranged on a guiding track (interpretable as 45, 46, or 54), which guiding track is arranged inside or outside of the root (bottom portion of 20 with respect to the figure) and extends around the whole inner or outer circumference of the root, along which guiding track the drilling device (58) is movable from one drilling position to another. The arrangement allows for the one drilling device (58) to be operated by controller (62) and rotated to different positions as desired [0011, 0039-0042]. Thus, Thiebaut exemplifies another known device usable in a method to form holes along the root of a turbine blade. A simple substitution of one device for the device of Moore-Garcia would predictably result in still being capable of forming holes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Moore-Garcia by simply substituting the device for drilling holes taught by Garcia with that of Thiebaut, resulting wherein the drilling device is arranged on a guiding track, which guiding track is arranged inside or outside of the root and extends around the whole inner or outer circumference of the root, along which guiding track the drilling device is movable from one drilling position to another, predictably resulting in the device still producing holes as desired.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore and Garcia as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2017/0122296 A1), hereinafter Li.
Regarding Claim 11, interpreting detection device under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to be an ultrasound or equivalents thereof, Moore and Garcia teach the method as set forth in Claim 1.
Moore does not expressly teach wherein a detection device for detecting the position of an embedded mounting insert is used, based on which information the position for drilling device is determined. However, a detection device would have been obvious in view of Li.
Figure 8 of Li teaches a method of drilling a hole (82). The method provides a detecting device (ultrasonic testing scan) for detecting the position of a passage (47, see Figure 5 annotation), based on which information the position for drilling device is determined. The purpose is to avoid drilling into the passage (47) [0122]. Thus, Li teaches that when the positioning of the drilling device relative to an embedded object is important, one of ordinary skill would use detection devices to confirm the location of said objects first. Similarly, it would be prudent to check to internals of the blade before drilling with respect to an embedded object. Note also that the claim only requires the method step to include a detection device for detecting be used without specifically detecting the insert. Although, the combination would satisfy such an interpretation as well.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method taught by Moore-Garcia such that a detection device for detecting the position of an embedded mounting insert is used, based on which information the position for drilling device is determined as suggested by Li, to provide the benefit of confirming the location of the drilling with respect to embedded objects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
