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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/576803 filed January 5, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 5, 2026.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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 limitation is: the “securing element” in claims 6-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification indicates that the corresponding structure is claw-like grippers, suction cup-like elements or similar (par. 59).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/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 limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 is said to depend from a previous claim, but does not list the claim number. Based on earlier filings of the claims it is clearly intended to depend from claim 1, and this is simply a typo. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahni et al. (US 2020/0362827) in view of Haag et al. (US 2016/0046088).
Regarding claim 1: Sahni et al. discloses a robotic turbine maintenance rover (30) for treating a wind turbine (10) airfoil (20) blade, the robot (30) having a main housing (32) which is a chassis configured to be mounted along a longitudinal length of the airfoil (20), including wheels (42) drivable by a motorized drive system such that it moves along the length of the airfoil (20), a multi-function tool (180) having a spray gun (182) which is an applicator head, the tool (180) being coupled to an end of the housing (32) and configured to apply a coating such as filler or paint to fix/cover any damage to the airfoil (20) (pars. 5, 29-31, 37, 44, figures 2 and 7). Sahni et al. discloses a cover as part of the housing (32) (pars. 19-22) which can be considered an environmental control module coupled with the housing (32) at the first end near the spray gun (182), and further teaches that a curing step can take place within the cover zone after the coating or paint is applied (par. 37) but fails to explicitly disclose that the cover can be a tent configured to be deployed to an area behind where the head operates.
However, Haag et al. discloses a similar turbine blade (10) treatment system which includes a curing region (82) where a curable material has been applied, and uses a shield member (80) formed as a tent having a number of supporting brackets (78) with a lightweight plastic/polymer cover (80) supported between the brackets (78) to form a temporary V-shaped tent structure which covers the curing material as it is attached to and cured by a nearby device (84) (par. 106-112, figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cover tent system like that of Haag et al. as cover for the curing region of Sahni et al. because Haag et al. teaches that this helps prevent debris and other environmental conditions from disturbing the uncured coating (par. 28).
Regarding claim 2: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield can be provided as a sliding curtain-type member where it moves between a retracted position and a deployed position (Haag et al. par. 117), the deployed position inherently defining its maximum longitudinal length (Haag et al. figure 5).
Regarding claim 3: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield member is configured as a flexible shield (80) sheet supported by brackets (78) which constitute an external support framework that ensure the shield (80) retains a consistent cross-sectional shape (Haag et al. par. 113-115, figures 5-6) and where Haag et al. teaches that the shield (80) can be made of plastic or polymers prevent humidity and/or debris from disturbing the curing material, meaning that it is resistant to wind or water flows (pars. 28, 109).
Regarding claim 5: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield defines an elongated, rounded V-shaped structure (in the same way as in the instant Application’s figures) that is aligned with and covers the leading edge (18) of the turbine blade (10) as well as parts of opposing blade sidewalls extending from the leading edge (18) of the blade (10) (Haag et al. figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 6: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the first longitudinal end of the shield (80) is adjacent to the treatment device (84) which, in the combination with Sahni et al. would correspond to the robot (30) such that the first end of the shield (80) faces the robot (30) housing (32) and spray gun (182), and the second longitudinal end of the shield (80) defines a “free” end of the shield (80), where Haag et al. discloses a number of attachment means (84) which are securing elements located at the second free end which fix the shield (80) into position on the turbine blade (10) (Haag et al. par. 113-114, figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 7: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield (80) is fixed to the brackets (78) in such a way that the shield (80) is spaced apart from the blade (10) surface except at locations where the attachment means (84) attach the shield (80) to the blade (10) (pars. 113-114, figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 8: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield (80) after being engaged via the attachment means (84) can be moved between a retracted and deployed position (par. 117). While Sahni et al. and Haag et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the first end of the shield (80) is moved by way of the drive of the chassis, Haag et al. does show that the first end of the shield (80) is attached to the treatment device (84) (fig. 5c), and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the drive system of Sahni et al. to perform the retraction/deployment of the shield (80) of Haag et al. by moving the robot (30) of Sahni et al. while attached to the shield (80) of Haag et al. because using a known element to perform a known function is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the longitudinal length of the shield (80) is greater than that of the section to be repaired (72) (Haag et al. par. 109, figure 5).
Regarding claim 10: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield member is configured to extend away from the treatment device (84) as a flexible shield (80) sheet supported by brackets (78) such that it retains its rigidity while it extends parallel to the turbine blade (10) along the shield (80) length, such that it is spaced apart from and above the leading edge (18) surface of the blade (10) along its entire length (Haag et al. par. 113-115, figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 11: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield (80) can be moved between a retracted and deployed position (par. 117). While Sahni et al. and Haag et al. fail to explicitly disclose that the shield (80) is moved by way of the drive of the chassis, Haag et al. does show that the first end of the shield (80) is attached to the treatment device (84) (fig. 5c), and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using the drive system of Sahni et al. to perform the retraction/deployment of the shield (80) of Haag et al. by moving the robot (30) of Sahni et al. while attached to the shield (80) of Haag et al., thus moving the shield (80) along with the robot (30) because using a known element to perform a known function is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield (80) has a particular length over the section to be repaired (72) (Haag et al. figure 5). Sahni et al. and Haag et al. fail to explicitly disclose that this length is selected based on the length of a curing zone that will allow for curing of the coating material based on a movement speed of the drive and main chassis along the wind turbine blade as well as a curing time period necessary for the coating material.
However, it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP § 2113.
In the instant case, while Sahni et al. and Haag et al. are silent as to why the shield (80) has the length it does, these specific limitations detailing why a particular length is selected are defined as product-by-process limitations and do not determine the patentability of the device itself, and since the prior art meets all of the structural language of the claim it still reads on the claim.
Regarding claim 13: Sahni et al. discloses a robotic turbine maintenance rover (30) for treating a wind turbine (10) airfoil (20) blade (pars. 29-31, 37, 44, figures 2 and 7). Sahni et al. discloses a cover as part of the housing (32) (pars. 19-22) which can be considered an environmental control module coupled with the housing (32) at the first end near the spray gun (182), and further teaches that a curing step can take place within the cover zone after the coating or paint is applied (par. 37) but fails to explicitly disclose that the cover can be a selectively extendible and retractable tent.
However, Haag et al. discloses a similar turbine blade (10) treatment system which includes a curing region (82) where a curable material has been applied, and uses a shield member (80) formed as a tent having a number of supporting brackets (78) with a lightweight plastic/polymer cover (80) supported between the brackets (78) to form a temporary V-shaped tent structure having a tent length which covers the curing material as it is attached to and cured by a nearby device (84), where the shield (80) can be moved between a retracted and deployed position such that it is selectively extendible and retractable between the two positions (par. 106-112, 117, figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a cover tent system like that of Haag et al. as cover for the curing region of Sahni et al. because Haag et al. teaches that this helps prevent debris and other environmental conditions from disturbing the uncured coating (par. 28).
Regarding claim 14: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. disclose the above combination in which the shield defines an elongated, rounded V-shaped structure (in the same way as in the instant Application’s figures) that is aligned with and covers the leading edge (18) of the turbine blade (10) as well as parts of opposing blade sidewalls extending from the leading edge (18) of the blade (10) (Haag et al. figs. 5-6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sahni et al. and Haag et al. as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-14 above and further in view of Teichert (US 2009/0020361).
Regarding claim 4: Sahni et al. and Haag et al. fail to explicitly disclose a pneumatic system using pressurized air for actuating the extension and/or retraction of the shield (80). However, Teichert discloses a similar turbine treatment apparatus which uses one of a wide number of different power sources for actuating movement, including electric motors, hydraulic means or pneumatic means and teaches that these means include the known and obvious requirements for their actuation, which would be a source of compressed air for pneumatics (pars. 91, 149, 172, 177). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pneumatic actuator including a source of compressed air as taught by Teichert to actuate the extension and retraction of the shield (80) of Sahni et al. and Haag et al. because Teichert teaches that these are all well-known and obvious functional equivalents for actuating movement for a device in this field (par. 177) and simple substitution of functional equivalents (generic movement mechanism vs pneumatic) is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2143, 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
4/15/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights