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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 53-55 and 59-69 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12 May 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1-A, claims 51-52 and 56-58 in the reply filed on 12 May 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 51 has been amended to require a maintenance device configured to move separately from the at least one rope holding device. This is not found persuasive because Applicant’s claims as amended do not make a contribution over the prior art of record as set forth below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 use the word “means,” and are 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 limitations are: communicating means and controlling means in claim 58.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed recites communicating means to be an antenna and equivalents thereof. Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed recites controlling means to be one or more processors and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jensen et al. (US 2011/0318496 A1).
Claim 51:
Jensen discloses a system for performing maintenance on at least a part of an object (abstract), the system comprising:
at least one rope holding device (235, 254) configured to move to the at least a part of the object (202) and hold at least one rope (250a) at the at least a part of the object (202) (fig.4, ¶54-55); and,
a maintenance device (210) configured to perform maintenance on the at least a part of the object (202), the maintenance device (210) being configured to move, separately from the at least one rope holding device (235, 254), to the at least a part of the object (202) on the at least one rope held by the at least one rope holding device (235, 254) and to move on the at least a part of the object (202) (fig.4, ¶54-55).
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.
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.
Claims 51-52 and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamura et al. (US 2020/017552 A1) in view of Jensen et al. (US 2011/0318496 A1).
Claim 51:
Hamamura discloses a system for performing maintenance on at least a part of an object (abstract), the system comprising:
at least one rope holding device (121) configured to move to the at least a part of the object (11, 12, 13) and hold at least one rope (20, 21) at the at least a part of the object (11, 12, 13) (figs.10-12, ¶155, 156, 157); and,
a maintenance device (110) configured to perform maintenance on the at least a part of the object (11, 12, 13), the maintenance device (110) being configured to move to the at least a part of the object (11, 12, 13) on the at least one rope (20, 21) held by the at least one rope holding device (121) and to move on the at least a part of the object (11, 12, 13) (figs.10-12, ¶89, 153, 154).
Hamamura fails to disclose the maintenance device being configured to move, separately from the at least one rope holding device (121). Instead, Hamamura discloses an integrated holding device and maintenance device. Jensen discloses a maintenance system in which a maintenance device (210) is separate from a holding device (winch, 254), such that the maintenance device moves separately from the holding device (winch, 254) (fig.4, ¶54-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hamamura by separating the holding device from the maintenance device in the manner taught by Jensen. Such modification merely involves making separable components that are integrated in Hamamura, which is recognized as an obvious matter of design choice and engineering convenience. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C). The modification would have predictably allowed the holding device to be positioned remotely while the maintenance device traverses the object, thereby providing installation flexibility and accommodating different worksite configurations without changing the fundamental operation of the maintenance system.
Claim 52:
Hamamura in view of Jensen renders obvious the system of claim 51, wherein the at least one rope (Hamamura, 20 or 21) is at least two ropes, the at least two ropes comprising a first rope group comprising at least one rope (Hamamura, 20 or 21) and a second rope group comprising at least one rope (Hamamura, 20 or 21), the at least one rope holding device (Hamamura, 121 in view of Jensen (254)) configured to move to the at least a part of the object on at least one of the first rope group (Hamamura, 20 or 21), and the second rope group (Hamamura, 20 or 21) (Hamamura, figs.10-12, ¶155-159);
wherein the at least one rope holding device (Hamamura, 121 in view of Jensen (254)) holds the first rope group (Hamamura, 20 or 21) on a first side of the at least a part of the object and holds the second rope group (Hamamura, 20 or 21) on a second side of the at least a part of the object, so that the first rope group (Hamamura, 20 or 21) extends on the first side to the maintenance device (Hamamura, 210) and the second rope group (Hamamura, 20 or 21) extends on the second side to the maintenance device, the maintenance device configured to move to the at least a part of the object on the first rope group (Hamamura, 20 or 21) and the second rope group (Hamamura, 20 or 21) and to move on the at least a part of the object (Hamamura, figs.10-12, ¶155-159).
Claim 56:
Hamamura in view of Jensen renders obvious the system of claim 52, wherein the at least one rope holding device is one rope holding device (Hamamura, 121 in view of Jensen (254)) (Hamamura figs.10-12, ¶155, 156, 157 and Jensen, fig.4, ¶54-55),
wherein the rope holding device is configured to engage with the first rope group (Hamamura, 21) (Hamamura figs.10-12, ¶80), and,
wherein the rope holding device has an aperture through which the second rope group (Hamamura, 20) passes (Hamamura figs.6, 10-12, ¶107).
Claim 57:
Hamamura in view of Jensen renders obvious the system of claim 56, wherein the aperture is formed of a member configured to be able to transition between a first state where the second rope group is restrained in the aperture and a second state where the second rope group is released from the aperture (Hamamura figs.6, 10-12, ¶107). Examiner note: When a rope extend through an opening of the rope holding device, the opening/member restrains the rope relative to the rope holding device. When the rope is removed from the opening, the rope is no longer restrained and is therefore released. Therefore, the opening/member is capable of transitioning between a first state in which the rope is restrained and a second state in which the rope is released as required of claim 57.
Claim 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamamura in view of Jensen as applied to claim 57 above, and further in view of Dawson et al. (US 2010/025483 A1).
Claim 58:
Hamamura in view of Jensen renders obvious the system of claim 57; and Hamamura in view of Jensen fails to disclose the rope holding device further comprises a communicating means and a controlling means.
Dawson discloses a system for servicing blades of a wind turbine (abstract) further comprising a communicating means (radio signal) and a controlling means (remote-controlled bleed valve (113) and associated actuation arrangement that responds to the received signal) (figs. 11A-11C, ¶107), and,
wherein the controlling means(remote-controlled bleed valve (113) and associated actuation arrangement that responds to the received signal) is configured to transition the member from the first state to the second state in response to an instruction received by the communicating means (figs. 11A-11C, ¶107 – see also claim 28).
Hamamura in view of Jensen discloses the rope holding device including a member capable of transitioning between a restrained state and a released state. Dawson teaches a remote-release attachment device including a communication system and control system wherein a radio signal is received and causes a valve-controlled release mechanism to transition from a secured state to a released state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the rope holding device of Hamamura/Jensen with communication means, control means, and functionality as taught by Dawson in order to permit remote actuation of the release mechanism and improve operator safety during wind turbine maintenance operations. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lohan et al. (US 2014/0360015 A1) discloses a method of lowering a wind turbine blade using a cable and winch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights