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 .
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: attachment elements in claim 1.
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 (e.g. vacuum elements – page 20, lines 15-20), 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
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 1-6, 8-10, and 26-28 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.
Claim 1 recites “one or more displacement bars including a primary displacement bar and a secondary displacement bar” in line 12. The provision of both a primary displacement bar and a secondary displacement bar, i.e. two displacement bars, is at odds with the limitation “one or more”. For examination purposes, the displacement bars will be understood to be at least two in number.
Claim 26 recites a similar limitation as above.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the contour of the leading edge of the wind turbine blade" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claims 1 and 26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 ,10, 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Vacon et al. (FR2933323, with reference to translation).
Claim 1: Le Vacon discloses a guiding device (1) for inspection and/or processing (e.g. page 3 – drilling, ND testing, etc.) of a surface area of a structure (3 – intended use) extending along a longitudinal direction (e.g. X), the guiding device comprising: a plurality of elongated base elements (rails 101a and 101b) including a primary elongated base element (e.g. 101a) adapted to be arranged on an outer surface of a first side of the structure (evident in figures), and a secondary elongated base element (e.g. 101b) adapted to be arranged on an outer surface of a second side of the structure; wherein each of the elongated base elements is provided with one or more attachment elements (suction cups 130 – page 7) for detachably attaching the plurality of elongated base elements to the structure; one or more displacement bars (111a and 111b) including a primary displacement bar (e.g. 111a) and a secondary displacement bar (e.g. 111b), the primary displacement bar being movably attached to the primary elongated base element and the secondary elongated base element (via 102a/b – page 4), wherein the one or more displacement bars are curvilinear bars adapted to follow a curvature of a curved workpiece (each of the X and Y rails, which includes 111a and 111b, can optionally have a curvature to adapt to curvatures of the structure 3 – bottom of page 4); and a support element (120) movably attached to the one or more displacement bars (via 112a/b - page 4) and displaceable along the longitudinal direction (X) and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Y) relative to the primary elongated base element, the support element being adapted to be fitted with a tool (2) for inspecting and/or processing the surface area of the structure (as cited above).
Regarding the above, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the use of the guiding device for inspection and/or processing of a surface area of leading edge of a wind turbine blade, the elongated base elements adapted to being arranged on an outer surface on a first and second side along the leading edge of the wind turbine blade, and the curvilinear bars adapted to follow a curvature of the leading edge of the wind turbine blade, are considered reciting the intended use of the device, as the particular use of the device does not necessarily limit the structure of the device per se. Furthermore, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. The examiner submits that because the specific geometry of the non-positively recited turbine blade (and the leading edge thereof) is not recited beyond an implicit curvature, then the Le Vacon device is presumed capable of serving the intended use, especially in view of the optionally curved bars for conforming to curved workpieces as cited above.
Claim 2: The support element (120) is movable along the one or more displacement bars (along the Y direction via 112a/b) as cited above).
Claim 3: The primary displacement bar (e.g. 111a) extends between the primary elongated base element and the secondary elongated base element (e.g. Fig. 1), and the support element is arranged between the primary elongated base element and the secondary elongated base element (Id.).
Claim 4: The primary elongated base element and/or the secondary elongated base element (101a and/or 101b) are adapted to be arranged parallel to the longitudinal direction (X - Fig. 1) of the leading edge of the wind turbine blade (intended use as discussed above) or the primary elongated base element and/or the secondary elongated base element are adapted to be arranged perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the composite structure (the device could be simply rotated 90 degrees relative to the workpiece from what is shown in Fig. 1).
Claim 5: The one or more elongated base elements includes a tertiary elongated base element (101c) and optionally a quaternary elongated base element (101d), the tertiary elongated base element and optionally the quaternary elongated base element being arranged substantially perpendicular to the primary elongated base element (Fig. 1) and/or wherein the tertiary elongated base element and optionally the quaternary elongated base element extend between the primary elongated base element and the secondary elongated base element (Id.).
Claim 6: The primary displacement bar (e.g. 111a) is arranged substantially perpendicular to the primary elongated base element (Fig. 1) and/or wherein the primary displacement bar is movable along the primary elongated base element (as cited above).
Claim 8: The support element is arranged between the primary displacement bar and the secondary displacement bar (e.g. Fig. 1).
Claim 10: A primary attachment element (any of 130) of the one or more attachment elements are arranged on the primary elongated base element (e.g. Fig. 4a), and/or a tertiary attachment element (another of 130) of the one or more attachment elements are arranged on the tertiary elongated base element (Fig. 4a).
Claim 27: The primary attachment element (one of 130 as noted above) is positioned between (e.g. vertically between) the primary elongated base element and the outer surface of the structure (as generally evident in the figures), where the structure being the leading edge of the wind turbine blade is intended use as discussed above.
Claim 28: The tertiary attachment element (another of 130 as noted above) is positioned between (e.g. vertically between) the tertiary elongated base element and the outer surface of the structure (as generally evident in the figures), where the structure being the leading edge of the wind turbine blade is intended use as discussed above.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Vacon in view of Warren (EP2674244, cited in IDS).
Le Vacon further discloses a device substantially as claimed except for wherein the primary displacement bar comprises a first end movably attached to the primary elongated base element and an opposite second end adapted to contact and being slidable over the outer surface of the structure and wherein the primary displacement bar optionally comprises a wheel arranged at the second end adapted to contact the outer surface of the structure. However, Warren teaches a similar device wherein a primary displacement bar (24) comprises a first end movably attached to a primary elongated base element (via 18) and an opposite second end adapted to contact and being slidable over the outer surface of a structure (via 38) and wherein the primary displacement bar optionally comprises a wheel (38) arranged at the second end adapted to contact the outer surface of the composite structure (paragraph 27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Le Vacon as taught by Warren since the use of one elongate base element avoids the complex setup required to align two X-axis tracks (Warren, paragraph 13).
Claim 10 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Vacon in view of Yuan et al. (CN102847979, cited in IDS, with reference to translation).
Le Vacon further discloses that each of the one or more attachment elements (130) comprises a vacuum element, the vacuum element being adapted to adhere to the outer surface of the structure by application of a negative pressure by the vacuum source (in the form of a rigid suction cup “kept continuously under pressure” - page 7). Le Vacon does not explicitly disclose a fluid outlet adapted to be connected to a vacuum source. However, Yuan et al. discloses similar vacuum elements having a fluid outlet (14) adapted to be connected to a vacuum source (paragraphs 13 and 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the vacuum elements with a fluid outlet adapted to be connected to a vacuum source in order to have provided the requisite suction to attach the device to the workpiece.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Vacon
Claim 26: Le Vacon discloses a guiding device (1) for inspection and/or processing (e.g. page 3 – drilling, ND testing, etc.) of a surface area of a structure (3 – intended use) extending along a longitudinal direction (e.g. X), the guiding device comprising: a plurality of elongated base elements (rails 101a and 101b) including a primary elongated base element (e.g. 101a) adapted to be arranged on an outer surface of a first side of the structure (evident in figures), and a secondary elongated base element (e.g. 101b) adapted to be arranged on an outer surface of a second side of the structure, a tertiary elongated base element (101c) adapted to extend from the first side of the structure to the second side of the structure, and a quaternary elongated base element (101d) adapted to extend from the first side of the structure to the second side of the structure; one or more attachment elements (suction cups 130 – page 7) for detachably attaching the plurality of elongated base elements to the structure; one or more displacement bars (111a and 111b) including a primary displacement bar (e.g. 111a) and a secondary displacement bar (e.g. 111b), the primary displacement bar being movably attached to the primary elongated base element and the secondary elongated base element (via 102a/b – page 4), wherein the one or more displacement bars are curvilinear bars adapted to follow a curvature of a curved workpiece (each of the X and Y rails, which includes 111a and 111b, can optionally have a curvature to adapt to curvatures of the structure 3 – bottom of page 4); and a support element (120) movably attached to the one or more displacement bars (via 112a/b - page 4) and displaceable along the longitudinal direction (X) and perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Y) relative to the primary elongated base element, the support element being adapted to be fitted with a tool (2) for inspecting and/or processing the surface area of the structure (as cited above).
Le Vacon discloses that each of the X and Y rails can optionally have a curvature to adapt to curvatures of the structure 3 (bottom of page 4), though not necessarily the tertiary and quaternary elongated base elements. However, given that the other similar elements, including the Y-direction displacement bars, may be curved to accommodate a curved structure, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have similarly curved the tertiary and quaternary elongated base elements for similar reasons as they would likely need to similarly accommodate the same curvature.
Regarding the above, it is noted that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, the use of the guiding device for inspection and/or processing of a surface area of leading edge of a wind turbine blade, the elongated base elements adapted to being arranged on an outer surface on a first and second side along the leading edge of the wind turbine blade, and the elements adapted to follow a curvature of the leading edge of the wind turbine blade, are considered reciting the intended use of the device, as the particular use of the device does not necessarily limit the structure of the device per se. Furthermore, a claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. The examiner submits that because the specific geometry of the non-positively recited turbine blade (and the leading edge thereof) is not recited beyond an implicit curvature, then the Le Vacon device is presumed capable of serving the intended use, especially in view of the optionally curved bars for conforming to curved workpieces as cited above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered.
The rejection over Warren in view of Albert et al. has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments incorporating subject matter of claim 3 into claim 1, where Warren in view of Albert et al. was not relied upon the reject claim 3. Any arguments with regard to these ejections are moot.
With regard to Le Vacon, Applicant essentially relies on replacing the surface area of the outer surface of a composite structure with the surface area of a leading edge of a wind turbine blade. For example, Applicant argues:
As can be seen in Le Vacon' s Fig. 1 above, the rails 11 la and 111 bare linear in accordance with surface 3 of Le Vacon et al. being the surface of a workpiece. Although Le Vacon et al. does allow for a certain curvature of the rails 11 la and 111 b, this curvature is not adapted to follow a curvature of the leading edge of a wind turbine blade, particularly since Le Vacon et al. is entirely silent with regard to wind turbine blades.
However, this merely narrows what was already interpreted as an intended use limitation as discussed in the previous rejection and further discussed herein. The non-positively recited leading edge of a wind turbine blade does not necessarily impart any structure to the claimed device as the specific geometry thereof (e.g. radius of curvature, relative scale, circumference of coverage, etc.) is not known. The claims merely require the displacement bars be "curvilinear", which Le Vacon discloses as an option. The examiner submits that Le Vacon would be capable of performing the claimed function depending on the precise geometry of the surface and the relative positioning of the device thereon.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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 K. 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.
/Matthew P Travers/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726