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 “coating or cover” of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3 – it appears there is a typographical error and “ in form” should read “in the form”
Claim 3, lines 2, 3-7 – it appears there is a typographical error and each instance of “or that” should read “or”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 the limitation "the center" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-11 are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the side of the inner surface" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the longitudinal axis of the opening" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 is rejected because it depends from claim 2.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the limitations “a center bar as a first leg… a disc and (a second leg; Claim 5)" in lines 2-3 of each claim are indefinite. It is unclear if applicant intends to refer to the same center bar, first leg, disc, and second leg as recited in claim 1, or a different center bar, first leg, disc, and second leg.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the lift" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "The method for lifting the wind turbine component of claim 1" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner assumes applicant intends to refer to claim 9 rather than claim 1 since claim 9 is drawn to a method of lifting a wind turbine component and claim 11 will thus be examined as if it depends from claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cortada Acosta et al., US10343875B2.
Regarding independent claim 1, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses a lifting tool arrangement (110, 150, 160, Fig. 3) for lifting a component (500, Fig. 3), comprising: a first tool (110, Fig. 3) with a first elongated tool part (120, Fig. 3) having an interface configured to be connected to a lifting device (145, Fig. 3; Column 6, lines 4-7), and a second tool part connected to the first elongated tool part and extending transverse to the first elongated tool part (160 connected to 120 and extending transverse, Fig. 3), wherein the first elongated tool part is a center bar as a first leg (120, Fig. 3)and wherein the second tool part is a disc as a second leg (160, Fig. 3, 4) with the center bar being connected to the disc in the center of the disc (120 connected to center of 160, Fig. 3); and a second tool provided at the component (150, Fig. 3), comprising an opening (155, Fig. 1) which is shaped such that, in the lifting position, the first elongated tool part extends through the opening (120 extends through 155, Fig. 3 in lifting position, Fig. 3), while the second tool part is counter-beared towards an inner surface of the second tool (160 counter-beared against 150, Fig. 3), wherein the inner surface is provided with a guiding and/or locking structure (170, Fig. 1) for guiding the disc in a lifting position and/or for locking the disc in the lifting position (Column 5, lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 5, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the first elongated tool part is a center bar as a first leg (20, Fig. 4) and the second tool part is a disc as a second leg (160, Fig. 5), wherein the center bar is connected to the disc in the center of the disc (120 connected to center of disc 160, Fig. 4), and wherein the opening (155, Fig. 1) has a size configured to allow a passage of the center bar when inserted from the side of the inner surface of the second tool (120 able to pass through opening 155 from inside of 150, Fig. 1, 2), and wherein the size of the opening is smaller than the size of the disc (155 is smaller than 160, Fig. 5) such that the disc extends across the opening (160 extends across opening 155, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the guiding and/or locking structure comprises a slanted or arcuated guiding surface or a recess or pocket receiving and locking the cross bar or the disc (170, Fig. 1, Fig. 3; Column 5, lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 7, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the interface of the first elongated tool part is a bore extending cross to the longitudinal axis of the first elongated tool part (145, Fig. 3)and configured to receive a bolt or pin for fixating a connector for connecting the first tool part to the lifting device (Bore 145 configured to receive a bolt or pin, by nature of 145 being a bore; Column 5, lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 9, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a method for lifting a wind turbine component (Column 3, lines 35-36), using a lifting tool arrangement (Column 3, lines 35-50), comprising: passing the first tool coupled to or to be coupled to the lifting device through the opening of the second tool arranged at the component with the first elongated tool part extending through the opening and with the second tool part being arranged adjacent to the inner surface of the second tool (Column 3, lines 40-50); counter-bearing the second tool part against the inner surface of the second tool (Column 3, lines 42-48; Column 5, lines 26-30); and pulling the first tool with the lift for lifting the component (Column 5, lines 26-36).
Regarding claim 10, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a wind turbine component (Column 1, lines 56-59) having the lifting tool arrangement for lifting a component (110, 150, 160, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the method of claim 9 (see interpretation under 112(b) above), and wherein the wind turbine component is a nacelle, or a hub (Column 1, lines 56-59).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortada Acosta et al., US10343875 in view of Van Mastrigt, US4079983.
Regarding claim 2, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the first tool is T-shaped (110, 160, Fig. 3) with the first elongated tool part in form of a center bar as a first leg (120, Fig. 1, 3).
Cortada Acosta et al. does not disclose the second tool part in form of a cross bar with a circular cross section, as a second leg, wherein the opening is slit-like and configured to allow a passage of the cross bar when inserted from an outer surface of the second tool, wherein the cross bar is twisted relative to the opening such that it extends cross to the longitudinal axis of the opening.
Van Mastrigt teaches a tool for lifting a heavy object, the second tool part in form of a cross bar with a circular cross section (27, Fig. 1, 2), as a second leg (27, Fig. 2), wherein the opening is slit-like (46, 47, Fig. 5) and configured to allow a passage of the cross bar when inserted from an outer surface of the second tool (46, 47 allow 27, 28, 29 to pass through, Fig. 2) or of the center bar when inserted from the side of the inner surface of the second tool (45 allows passage of 20 when inserted from inside of 16, Fig. 2), wherein the cross bar is twisted relative to the opening such that it extends cross to the longitudinal axis of the opening (27 twisted to lock into 48 extending across longitudinal axis of opening 46, 47, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lifting tool arrangement of Cortada Acosta et al. to have the crossbar and slit opening of Van Mastrigt to reduce the need for assembly of the first and second tool parts once the first tool is inserted into the second tool. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to more easily attach and secure the first tool to the second tool.
Regarding claim 3, modified Cortada Acosta et al. teaches the limitations of claim 2, and the first tool.
Cortada Acosta et al. does not disclose wherein the first tool is twistably arrangeable at the lifting device.
However, Van Mastrigt teaches a tool for lifting a heavy object, wherein the first tool is twistably arrangeable at the lifting device (Column 4, lines 28-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lifting tool arrangement of Cortada Acosta et al. to have the tool be twistably arrangeable as taught by Van Mastrigt to reduce the need for assembly of the first and second tool parts once the first tool is inserted into the second tool. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to more easily attach and secure the first tool to the second tool.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortada Acosta et al., US10343875 in view of Mc Arthur, US2422693.
Regarding claim 4, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the first elongated tool part is a center bar as a first leg (120, Fig. 3) and the second tool part is a disc as the second leg (160, Fig. 3), wherein the center bar is connected to the disc in the center of the disc (120 is connected to center of 160, Fig. 3).
Cortada Acosta et al. does not disclose wherein the opening comprises a first opening part having a size configured to allow a passage of the disc when inserted from an outer surface of the second tool, and a second opening part being slit-like having a width smaller than the width of the disc such that it extends across the second opening part.
However, Mc Arthur teaches a tool for lifting a component, wherein the opening comprises a first opening part having a size configured to allow a passage of the disc when inserted from an outer surface of the second tool (12 sized to fit 20 when inserted from top of 10, Fig. 5), and a second opening part being slit-like having a width smaller than the width of the disc such that it extends across the second opening part (13 is smaller than 20, Fig. 4, 3, 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lifting tool arrangement of Cortada Acosta et al. to have an opening as taught by Mc Arthur to avoid assembly of the first and second tool parts each time a component is to be lifted. One would have been motivated to make this modification "to provide a removable attaching device that remains in attached position and does not become disengaged upon being subjected to jars, vibrations or impacts" (Column 1, lines 15-19; Mc Arthur).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cortada Acosta et al., US10343875 in view of D’Alessio, Foreign Patent Document, WO2017071719.
Regarding claim 8, Cortada Acosta et al. discloses the limitations of claim 1, and a second tool part.
Cortada Acosta et al. does not disclose the second tool part comprises a coating or a cover made of a material which is softer than the material of the second tool part.
However, D’Alessio teaches a lifting tool arrangement wherein the second tool part (616, 618, Fig. 9) comprises a coating or a cover made of a material which is softer than the material of the second tool part (pressure pads 612, 622; Page 15, lines 20-23; "comprise a resilient, flexible material" Page 16, lines 16-22 softer than plates of rigid steel connectable to an end 616, 618).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the lifting tool arrangement of Cortada Acosta et al. to have the coating or cover as taught by D’Alessio as "to prevent damage to the blade when the apparatus is used" (Page 16, lines 16-22). One would have been motivated to make such a modification to ensure structural integrity of the connection and the component being lifted and reduce any damage from the engagement of metal pieces during the lifting operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00am - 6:00pm 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, Victoria Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/K.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/Victoria P Augustine/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights