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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the arrangement wherein the extension beam is hinged to the inner beam about a substantially vertical axis (claim 7), and wheels, rollers or bushings are provided between the inner beams and outer beams (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show how:
“the beam guides 10, 11 allows the beams 4, 5 to be displaced in a crosswise direction in relation to a longitudinal direction of the beams 4, 5. The beam guides 10, 11 are also provided with wheels or rollers 19, 20 to facilitate relative movement between the outer beams 6, 7 and the beam guides 10, 11 in a lengthwise direction in relation to the beams 6, 7 and in relation to the platform 2” as described in the specification page 12, lines 2-7; or
the embodiment wherein “the extension beam is connected via the hinge to the inner beams and the hinge is placed in the outer part or side of the beam having a substantially vertical axis” as described in the specification page 4, lines 1-3. With respect to the arrangement of the extension beam is connected to the inner beam about a substantially vertical axis, it seems that this arrangement would be more than just reorienting the axis, and would require a different beam guide construction than that currently depicted.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
With respect to claim 6, line 2 and claim 7, line 2, it appears the recitation “via the hinge” should read “via their respective hinge” to refer back to the hinge of “each” extension beam set forth in claim 4.
Additionally, claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears claim 6, line 3 and claim 7, line 3, should recite “the hinge is positioned at” rather than “…is placed in”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 4 recites, in part, “wherein the outer beams are capable of being displaced in beam guides in a longitudinal direction of the outer beams”. Examiner does not see where the limitations are clearly explained in the original disclosure. The mere mention that the beam guides are provided with “wheels or rollers” to facilitate movement, does not clearly explain the relationship between the beam guides 10, 11 and the outer beams 6, 7, since the beam guides are primarily discussed in the specification in their relationship to how they work to extend the inner beams with respect to the outer beams, but not how they would allow for displacement of the outer beams.
Applicant’s reply they argue that outer beams 6, 7, for example slide longitudinally within beam guides 10, 11, pointing to figures 1 and 2 for support. However, while figures 1 and 2 may show a small change in placement between the outer (6, 7) and the inner (8, 9) beams, the figures do not depict, or explain how the outer beams are displaced in beam guides 10, 11.
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) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iverson (US 7,934,585) in view of Boo (WO 2017191880).
Iverson discloses:
4. A blade access arrangement (figure 2b) for a rotor blade (5) of a wind power plant comprising a tower (1, figure 2b), the blade access arrangement (6) comprising:
a platform (6);
a tower guide (14, 14b; figure 5) for guiding the platform against the tower (figure 3);
a hoisting arrangement (7a,7b,12,43; figure 3) for hoisting the blade access arrangement up and down (figure 3);
a bar arrangement (8, 23) capable of being displaced in relation to the platform (figures 7a, 7b) and connecting the platform with the tower guide (14; figure 5); the bar arrangement comprises:
one or more extension beams (19a, 19b, 20a, 20b; figure 5), each extension beam connected to the bar arrangement via a hinge (“pivotal connection and arm actuating means 22a, 22b”; figure 5);
a telescopic beam (23) comprising an outer beam (23b, figure 8c) and inner beam (23a, figure 8c),
wherein the outer beams (23b) are capable of being displaced in beam guides (25, figure 8c) in a longitudinal direction of the outer beams (progression seen from figures 8a-8c), wherein the beam guides (25) are fastened to the platform (figure 7b).
While Iverson teaches a telescopic beam, they do not teach a pair of telescopic beams.
However, Boo teaches: a pair of telescopic beams (32; figure 13) comprising outer beams (321, figure 13) and inner beams (322, figure 13).
PNG
media_image1.png
297
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention to construct the bar arrangement of Iverson with a pair of telescopic beams, as taught by Boo, so as to better support, balance and distribute weight on the platform while ascending and descending along the tower.
Re: claim 8, Boo further teaches: wherein wheels, rollers or bushings are provided between the inner beams and outer beams (of the gears within 322 and 321 of the gear and chain that slides 322 in and out of 321). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention to provide the telescopic beams of Iverson with wheels, rollers or bushings provided between the inner beams and outer beams, as taught by Boo, so as to assist in smooth extension and retraction of the telescoping components.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the drawing objections, the applicant argues that it is not necessary to depict the embodiment wherein “the extension beam is connected via the hinge to the inner beams and the hinge is placed in the outer part or side of the beam having a substantially vertical axis” as claimed in claim 7, because it would not be necessary for the understanding by one of ordinary skill in the art. Examiner maintains that the arrangement and connection of the extension beam with respect to the inner bam about a substantially vertical axis, would be more than just reorienting the axis, and would require a different beam guide construction than that currently depicted.
With respect to the remarks directed to the drawing objections in relation to the outer beams and the beam guides, examiner refers to the drawing objections and 112(a) rejections above.
With respect to the previous 112(b) rejection directed to limitation in claim 4 “and in relation to the platform”, the examiner notes that removal of this limitation from the claims has corrected the previous issue. However, in removing this limitation, the claim is now also rejected by prior art, as advanced above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE whose telephone number is (571)272-6289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
COLLEEN M. CHAVCHAVADZE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3634
/COLLEEN M CHAVCHAVADZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights