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 .
Acknowledgment is made of the amendment filed 2/13/26. Accordingly the application has been amended.
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-11,13-15,18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102011100912 (as submitted by applicant, for reference in the rejection below see translation included) in view of EP3027900 (included in the IDS on 9/25/24).
Claim 1. DE102011100912 discloses a blade access arrangement for a rotor blade of a wind power plant having a tower, the arrangement comprising a platform (2) having blade guide means (at 6) for guiding the platform against the blade and tower guide means (at 5) for guiding the platform against the tower, wherein the platform is adjustable in an open configuration, in which the blade can enter the blade guide means, and in a closed configuration, in which the platform is guided by the blade (as seen in the figures (as seen in the figures and noted throughout the disclosure and at least at paragraph 0027 of the translation),
wherein the platform comprises at least two sub-platforms (3,4 including 22,23,26,27) and a linking system (24) linking the sub-platforms together,
wherein the platform comprises an enclosure (30,31 as noted at paragraph 0031),
wherein the enclosure is connected to the sub-platforms (as noted at paragraph 0031).
DE102011100912 does not expressly disclose that the enclosure includes at least one of a wall segment and a roof segment.
EP3027900 discloses a blade access arrangement including an enclosure where the enclosure includes at least one of a wall segment (19) and a roof (15) segment (paragraphs 0039-0040).
Accordingly it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time the invention was effectively filed to pursue known design options and modify the enclosure of DE102011100912 to include a roof and wall segment as taught by EP3027900 to achieve the predictable result of a work area that prevents water from entering the enclosure to provide a safe environment that resists slipping and damage.
Claim 3. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the sub-platforms are movable with respect to each other (where 26,27 are movable with respect to each other) keeping an angle between the sub-platforms (where 22,23 keep an angle constant) constant (as seen in the figures and noted at least at paragraphs 0028-0031 of the translation).
Claim 4. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the sub-platforms forms a part of the blade guide means (where 26,27 form part of the blade guide means in that the blade guide is attached to and extends from them and they facilitate guiding the blade as seen in the figures and noted throughout the disclosure).
Claim 5. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the sub-platforms is divided in two sub-platform parts (where 3 can be divided into 22,26 and 4 can be divided into 23,27).
Claim 6. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the platform comprises catching fingers (26, 27).
Claim 7. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the tower guide means comprise a bar arrangement (including 40/39) having a variable length (as noted at paragraph 0037 of the translation).
Claim 8. The blade access arrangement according to claim 7, wherein the platform is arranged above the bar arrangement in direction of gravity (as seen in the figure 1).
Claim 9. The blade access arrangement according to claim 7, wherein the bar arrangement is retractable into a platform space (as seen in the figure 1 and noted at least at paragraph 0037 of the translation).
Claim 10. The blade access arrangement according to claim 7, wherein the bar arrangement comprises at least one telescopic bar (where 40 is a telescoping bar as seen in figure 1 and noted at paragraph 0037 of the translation).
Claim 11. The blade access arrangement according to claim 7, wherein the bar arrangement comprises two bars (where 40 includes two bars, one on each side as seen in the figures).
Claim 13. The blade access arrangement according to claim 7, wherein the bar arrangement comprises a single bar (40) having an enlargement (as noted in the annotated figure below) at an end near the tower.
PNG
media_image1.png
887
1028
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 14. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein an angular orientation of the platform with respect to the tower guide means is adjustable (where 26,27 have an adjustable angular orientation with respect to the tower guide means).
Claim 15. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the blade guide means comprise rollers (at 33) the position of which on the platform is adjustable (where 32 can be moved or swiveled as noted at least at paragraph 0032).
Claim 18. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the enclosure is connected to the sub-platform parts (as noted at paragraph 0031).
Claim 19. The blade access arrangement according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the sub platforms forms a part of the blade guide means (where 26,27 form part of the blade guide means in that the blade guide is attached to and extends from them and they facilitate guiding the blade as seen in the figures and noted throughout the disclosure).
Claim 20. The blade access arrangement according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the sub- platforms is divided in two sub-platform parts (where 3 can be divided into 22,26 and 4 can be divided into 23,27).
Claim 21. The blade access arrangement according to claim 1, wherein the enclosure is open when the platform is in the open configuration and is closed when the platform is in the closed configuration (where open and closed are relative terms of position and the enclosure is considered open/closed based on the open/closed configuration of the platform, the enclosure being disposed as part of the platform).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102011100912 (as submitted by applicant, for reference in the rejection below see translation included) in view of EP3027900 and further in view of Lemburg et al (20070007074).
Claim 12. DE102011100912 discloses the blade access arrangement according to claim 11, but does not expressly disclose wherein an angle between the two bars is adjustable.
Lemburg discloses a blade access arrangement having a tower and blade guiding means for guiding the platform against the tower and blade and further discloses that tower guide means comprise a bar arrangement as seen in figure 5 comprising two bars (one on each side) where an angle between the two bars is adjustable (as seen in figure 5 and noted at paragraph 0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to pursue known design options and modify the two bars of DE102011100912 to be adjustable whereby an angle between the two bars is adjustable as taught by Lemburg to achieve the predictable result of an arrangement that can accommodate the varying dimension of the tower to maintain the appropriate gap ensuring stability and safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “there is no disclosure that Fletchers enclosure has a side wall opening that would allow for the lateral insertion of the rotor blade into an enclosure such as Fritz’s; where the side of Fritz’s platform opens to receive the blade, Fletchers enclosure has no such side opening; thus there is no motivation to combine Fletchers enclosure with Fritz’s platform” as noted at page 5, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art upon reviewing EP3027900 would understand it be desirable for an enclosure to have a wall and a roof to fully protect a working area from weather such as rain, snow, hail, sleet and wind to maintain a safe work environment and reduce slipping and damage. Further it is noted that applicant appears to have an overly narrow interpretation of the claimed terms “wall segment” and “roof segment”. The the claim broadly recites a wall segment and a roof segment, which does not impart any specific structural features or distinctness to the claim. The prior clearly discloses that it is desirable to have an enclosure with a wall segment and a roof segment. Accordingly applicants arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA LAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-8228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571.270.3238. 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.
JESSICA L. LAUX
Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JESSICA L LAUX/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635