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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I is acknowledged. Applicant traverses on the ground that “the claims are not patently distinct and an additional search or examination burden does not exist.” (Reply at 6). This is unpersuasive because in considering unity of invention under the Patent Cooperation Treaty for national stage applications filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371, burden is not an element in the analysis. Examiner also disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that claims 1 and 13 are not patently distinct as claim 13 recites different limitations from those of claim 1 as stated in the 11/21/2025 Requirement for Restriction. Examiner also notes that any corresponding technical feature between claims 1 and 13 cannot be a “special technical feature” (required for unity of invention) in view of the Diaz De Corcuera reference (as well as the rejection of claim 1 below) disclosing all of the elements of claim 1, as set forth in the 11/21/2025 Requirement for Restriction. The Requirement for Restriction is still deemed proper and is therefore made final.
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 10/09/2023 fails to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. No copy exists for the entry #1 of non-patent literature documents (stated to be dated April 8, 2022). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.55.
Specification
The amended statement of incorporation by reference to International Application No. PCT/EP2022/059460 and British Application No. 21167665.5 (10/09/2023 Preliminary Amendment at 2) is ineffective because it was added on the date of entry into the U.S. national phase, which is after the filing date of this application. The filing date of this U.S. national stage application is the filing date of the associated international application, which is 05/08/2022. MPEP § 1893.03(b). Thus, the specification amendment of 10/09/2023 is new matter. MPEP § 608.01(p)(I)(B). To be clear, this objection is with respect to the incorporation-by-reference statement. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
Further, the foreign priority claim appears incorrect as it refers to a “British” application and not an “European” one.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“the structural member” (claim 1, line 3) should be changed to --the structural member, --;
“a base” (claim 1, line 4) should be changed to --a base; --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 3, 5, and 9 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 3 recites the limitation “at least substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis” (line 3). This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear and fails to inform a person of ordinary skill in the art what this means. Specifically, it is unclear what “at least substantially parallel” means in this context, and it is clear what the metes and bounds of this limitation would be, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the scope of this limitation. MPEP § 2173.05(b). For examination purposes, this limitation is interpreted as best understood. Claim 9 recites the same limitation and is rejected on the same basis as claim 3. Claim 5 recites the limitation “at least substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis” and is rejected on a similar basis as claim 3, the only difference being describing perpendicularity instead of parallelism.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102
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.
Worden
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3988014 A/A1/B1 (“Worden”).
Regarding claim 1, Worden discloses a system for handling a structural member of a blade of a wind turbine (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, system 100 is capable of handling a structural member (e.g., element 104) as recited; Examiner notes that the “structural member” is not positively recited nor defined in terms of geometry; Examiner also notes that this limitation includes a recitation of intended use. 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 re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
comprising:
a member support configured for supporting the structural member[,] the member support being configured to be mounted to a base (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, support 106 is capable of being mounted to a base (e.g., a floor));
and a plurality of member turning devices positioned along a longitudinal axis of the member support, the plurality of member turning devices being connected to the member support and configured for turning the structural member (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, turning devices (including elements 228, 230, 216, 218, 200) are connected to and positioned along a longitudinal axis (e.g., an axis parallel to direction 260 of Fig. 1) of the support 106, and are capable of turning the structural member 104.
Regarding claim 2, Worden discloses the system of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein each member turning device of the plurality of member turning devices comprises a gripper configured for gripping the structural member, and a rotation device configured for rotating the gripper (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, turning devices include grippers (including elements 240, 252, 242, 254 and 238, 250, 242, 256) capable of gripping the structural member 104, and rotation devices (including elements 228, 230, 216, 218) capable of rotating the grippers).
Regarding claim 3, Worden discloses the system of claim 2 as applied above and further discloses wherein the rotation device is configured for rotating the gripper about a rotation axis of the rotation device, the rotation axis being at least substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the member support (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, the rotation devices (including elements 228, 230, 216, 218) are capable of rotating the grippers about axis 160, which is parallel to the longitudinal axis of the member support 106).
Regarding claim 6, Worden discloses the system of claim 2 as applied above and further discloses wherein the rotation devices of the plurality of member turning devices are configured for rotating the grippers of the plurality of member turning devices in synchronized motion; and/or wherein the grippers of the plurality of member turning devices are configured to grip the structural member in synchronized motion (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, the rotation devices (including elements 228, 230, 216, 218) rotate the grippers in a synchronized motion).
Regarding claim 9, Worden discloses the system of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein the plurality of member turning devices is configured for transferring the structural member between a support surface of the member support and a member transport device positioned at least substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the member support (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, the turning devices (including elements 228, 230, 216, 218, 200) are capable of transferring the structural member 104 between a support surface (top surface of elements 238/240) and a member transport device 102, which is positioned parallel (axis 260) to the longitudinal axis of the member support 106).
Regarding claim 11, Worden discloses the system of claim 1 as applied above and further discloses wherein an axial distance along the longitudinal axis of the member support between two adjacent member turning devices of the plurality of member turning devices is maximum 20 meters (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, the distance between turning device 228/216 and turning device 230/218 is less than 20 meters based on the size of the structural member 104 (3:27-31, “computer disc drive”) and the size of elements 142, 154, 228, 230 that are operated by a human hand).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
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 C.F.R. § 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.
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.
Worden in view of Garner
Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 3988014 A/A1/B1 (“Worden”) in view of US 20080087128 A1 (“Garner”).
Worden pertains to a system for holding and handling an object (Abstr.; Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4). Garner pertains to a mechanism for a movable workholder (Abstr.; Figs. 1-2). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 4, Worden discloses the system of claim 2 as applied above. Worden does not explicitly disclose wherein each member turning device comprises an actuator connected to the member support, the actuator being configured for translating the rotation device. However, the Worden/Garner combination makes obvious this claim.
Garner discloses wherein each member turning device comprises an actuator connected to the member support, the actuator being configured for translating the rotation device (Figs. 1-2, motorized linear actuator (including elements 48, 50) is connected to member support 40 and for translating the mounted workholder 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Garner with Worden by modifying struts 120, 122 to include motorized linear actuators, which would translate the rotation device of Worden as recited. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it is automating a manual activity, as Worden discloses this translation motion albeit manually (Fig. 1, 2A-B). In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958) (“[I]t is well settled that it is not “invention” to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result”); MPEP § 2144.04(III). Further, the use of motorized actuators would decrease the operator’s burden to manually translate the rotation device (holding the structural member 104), especially in situations where the structural member 104 is very heavy.
Regarding claim 5, the Worden/Garner combination makes obvious the system of claim 4 as applied above. Worden further discloses wherein the actuator is configured for translating the rotation device along a latitudinal axis of the member support, the latitudinal axis being at least substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the member support (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, as modified in the Worden/Garner combination, the actuator is capable of translating the rotation device via struts 120/122 in the latitudinal axis (e.g., an axis perpendicular to direction 260 of Fig. 1) of the support 106).
The obviousness rationale for claim 5 is the same as for claim 4
Regarding claim 7, the Worden/Garner combination makes obvious the system of claim 4 as applied above. Garner further discloses wherein the actuators of the plurality of member turning devices are configured for translating the rotation devices of the plurality of member turning devices in synchronized motion (Figs. 1-2, as modified in the Worden/Garner combination, the actuators are capable of the synchronized translation of the rotational devices; ¶ 0018, “carriages 16, 18 are both moved in the same direction at the same rate of speed”).
The obviousness rationale for claim 7 is the same as for claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, the Worden/Garner combination makes obvious the system of claim 4 as applied above. Worden further discloses wherein turning the structural member comprises gripping the structural member using the grippers of the plurality of member turning devices, rotating the grippers using the rotation devices of the plurality of member turning devices, and translating the rotation devices using the actuators of the plurality of member turning devices (Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4, the Worden/Garner combination is capable of performing the recited operations on the structural member 104; 2:5-28).
The obviousness rationale for claim 8 is the same as for claim 4.
Worden in view of Konkal
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 3988014 A/A1/B1 (“Worden”) in view of US 3888341 A1 (“Konkal”).
Worden pertains to a system for holding and handling an object (Abstr.; Figs. 1, 2A-B, 3-4). Konkal pertains to a device for securing and handling palleted objects (Abstr.; Figs. 1-3). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 10, Worden discloses the system of claim 2 as applied above. Worden does not explicitly disclose wherein the gripper comprises a first gripper arm and a second gripper arm, the gripper being configured to grip the structural member by clamping the structural member between the first gripper arm and the second gripper arm. However, the Worden/Konkal combination makes obvious this claim.
Konkal discloses wherein the gripper comprises a first gripper arm and a second gripper arm, the gripper being configured to grip the structural member by clamping the structural member between the first gripper arm and the second gripper arm (Figs. 1-3, gripper includes first and second gripper arms 52 (as shown in Fig. 1), where the structural member 14 is clamped between the arms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Konkal with Worden by adding first and second gripper arms to the grippers 238 and 240 (e.g., two gripper arms on each of elements 238 and 240). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the gripper arms would clamp onto the structural member 104 and prevent any movement (e.g., minor play movement), which would promote precision when operations are needed to be performed on the structural member 104.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 12-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
US 4629378 A (“Parsons”) discloses a system for manufacturing and rotating a turbine blade (Abstr.; Figs. 1-8);
US 5904347 A (“Lin”) discloses a device for turning long structural members (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6);
US 20130174420 A1 (“Chacon”) discloses a device for manufacturing and rotating a turbine blade (Abstr.; Figs. 1-6);
US 20190009931 A1 (“Knott”) discloses a device for rotating rotor blades (Abstr.; Fig. 8b);
EP 2669508 A1 (“Bitsch”) discloses a system for rotating turbine blades (Abstr.; Figs. 1-4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723