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 .
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 42-61 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 42, the recitation of,
“a tubular wind turbine component” in Lines 13-14 is unclear if this is the same one previously recited in Line 1. For the purposes of prior art examination, the recitation is considered to mean the same one. Applicant is suggested to amend the limitation to say, “the [[a]] tubular wind turbine component”.
“in particular” in Line 42, makes the claim unclear as it is not understood if the limitation following the term is required by the claim. For purposes of prior art examination, the recitation following, “in particular” is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 43, the recitation of, “in particular” in Line 33, makes the claim unclear as it is not understood if the limitation following the term is required by the claim. For purposes of prior art examination, the recitation following, “in particular” is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 45, the recitation of, “in particular” in Lines 4 and 7, makes the claim unclear as it is not understood if the limitation following the term is required by the claim. For purposes of prior art examination, the recitation following, “in particular” is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 46, the recitation of, “in particular” in Lines 2, 4, and 5, makes the claim unclear as it is not understood if the limitation following the term is required by the claim. For purposes of prior art examination, the recitation following, “in particular” is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 47, the recitation of, “in particular” in Line 5, makes the claim unclear as it is not understood if the limitation following the term is required by the claim. For purposes of prior art examination, the recitation following, “in particular” is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 56, the recitation of, “in particular” in Lines 2 and 45, makes the claim unclear as it is not understood if the limitation following the term is required by the claim. For purposes of prior art examination, the recitation following, “in particular” is considered optional.
Regarding Claim 57, the recitation of, “in particular” in Line 34, makes the claim unclear as it is not understood if the limitation following the term is required by the claim. For purposes of prior art examination, the recitation following, “in particular” is considered optional.
Claims 33-55 and 57-61 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-61 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
PNG
media_image1.png
327
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
422
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 42, the closest prior art is considered to be DE202021102172U1 discloses a support assembly for transporting a tubular wind turbine component. Comparing figure 2C of the instant application with the comparable support assembly of the prior art illustrated in figure 2, the primary reasons for allowance is that the prior art fails to disclose the specific configuration of the first flexible restraint, specifically, the flexible restraint path extending beyond an outer right vertical tangent of the tubular wind turbine component position to a second contact point on the outer surface where the flexible restraint extends away from the outer surface, and from a second contact point to a second fixing point, wherein the second fixing point is located to the left and below the second contact point (see figure 2C of instant application vs figure 2 of the prior art, also reproduced/annotated above). Therefore, it is not known in, nor obvious from the prior art to construct a support assembly as claimed.
Regarding Claim 56, a similar discussion to that of Claim 42 applies.
Claims 43-55 and 57-61 also contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency.
Internet/E-mail Communication
In order to permit communication regarding the instant application via email, Applicant is invited to file form PTO/SB/439 (Authorization for Internet Communications) or include the following statement in a filed document or remarks of a filed response (see MPEP 502.03 Il): Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file. If such authorization is provided, please include an email address in the remarks of a filed response. The examiner’s e-mail address is sabbir.hasan@uspto.gov.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3054151 A discloses tie-down devices (see figure 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sabbir Hasan whose telephone number is (571)270-7651. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:30 am-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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571- 272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Sabbir Hasan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights