Detailed Action1
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 29, 2025 has been entered.
Rejections under 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-3 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 3,307,871 to Russell in view of U.S. 4,863,205 to Schron, FR 2,691,139 to Doit, and U.S. 2011/0142660 to Bakhuis.
Claim 1 recites a wind turbine blade lifting device. Russell relates to a lifting device capable of lifting lengthy, heavy objects of multiple tons. See Russell col. 1, ll. 10-25. As such, it is capable of lifting a wind turbine blade and may be considered a wind turbine blade lifting device. Russel teaches that the device has a backing member (22) adapted to contact an interior surface of a wind turbine blade; a connector rod (10) having an upper end and a lower end. See Russell figs. 1-3. Russell further shows that the lower end is rotatably connected to the backing member via toggle pin (24). Russell further shows a primary lifting shackle (12) rotatably connected to a base member (the axle bearing) engaged with the connector rod (10).
Claim 1 further recites a securing nut threadably connected to the upper end of the connector rod. Russell does not show such a nut but it would have been obvious to modify Russell to include such a nut in view of Schron. Schron also relates to a lifting device with a shackle (16) connected to a base shaft (17). Thus, Schron is highly analogous art. Schron teaches attaching the pivot or swivel collar (26) to the base using a thread nut (29). See Schron col. 3, Il. 54-68 and Fig. 2. It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). In this case, it would have been obvious to modify Russell to use the swivel collar and shackle system of Schron as it is an equivalent system. The highly similar nature of the two reference and devices also would lead one of ordinary skill to believe such a modification would have predictably worked.
Claim 1 further recites cover plate connected to the connector rod. It would have been obvious to modify Russell to include such a nut in view of Doit. Doit also relates to a lifting device having a rotating backing member. See Doit Fig. 1. Thus, Doit is highly analogous art. Doit teaches having a threaded wing nut (6) that can be used to lock the vertical position of the lifting device in place, and presumably prevent the load from coming off the backing plate and then slamming back down on it during use. See Doit Fig. 1. It would have been obvious to modify Russell to also have such a threaded locking nut to prevent vertical movement of the load during transit. Locking nut is a cover plate as it will cover the top portion of the hole during the lifting operation. The ability of the nut to vertically move makes it adapted to engage [the] exterior surface.
Doit does not explicitly teach having an alignment member extending down, but it does show a bushing-like element extending up from the top of the wing nut. Separately, Bakhuis teaches that when extending long bolts through wind turbine blade (16), bushings (30) are placed around the lifting rods (35). See Bakhuis [0019]-[0021] and Figs. 2-3. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Doit to have an additional bushing element extending down, to prevent lateral movement as taught by Bakhuis. (Particularly, in view of figure 5 of Doit which shows a significant amount of lateral space between a hole and the bolt.) Finally, the use of a threaded cover plate as taught by Doit results in the distance between the backing member and the cover plate [being] adjustable.
Regarding claim 2, bushings are known to have flanged washer-like collars. Thus, there would be a spacer positioned around the connector rod between the cover plate and the blade. Claim 3 recites a holding tool connectable to the upper end of the connector rod. In the instant application, this is taught to be a structure that connects to the backing device to prevent it being lost. Russell teaches a cable (36) connected to the upper end of the connector rod at steel block (40). See Russell col. 4, ll. 3-18 and Figs. 1-3.
Claim 5 recites the connector rod is rotatable relative to a top surface of said backing member. The rotation of the toggle section (22) causes relative rotation between the top surface of the toggle section and the connector rod. See Russell Fig. 3. Claim 5 also recites that the backing member further includes a slot sized to accommodate the connector rod in a perpendicular position thereto. Russell teaches that the connector rod (10) has the slot (20). But Doit teaches it is known to reverse this relationship; specifically, Doit shows a connector having a rotatable backing member (11) with a slot (17) sized to accommodate the main rod (5). See Doit Figs. 1-5. It would have been obvious to modify Russell to use the backing plate of FR’139 because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). Claim 6 recites the backing member has a pentagonal cross-sectional shape. Figure 5 of FR’139 shows the side cross-section of the backing member (11) is pentagonal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29, 2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive. New grounds of rejection have been presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moshe K Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 daily. 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, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”