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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 29 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 29 May 2026.
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 vacuum subsystem of claim 9 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 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 9, the comma should be removed after the phrase “the drilling subsystem”.
In claim 2, line 1, the comma should be removed after the word “wherein”. 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 2-3 and 5-8 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 2 recites the limitation "a drill" in line 3. However, there is already antecedent basis for this limitation in parent claim 1, making it unclear whether this refers to the same drill or a different drill. For the purposes of examination, it has been assumed that this limitation refers to the same drill.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bulkhead removal robot" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 5-7 depend from rejected claim 2.
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 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu et al. (CN 110280801 A).
Regarding claim 1, Xu et al. discloses a turbine blade element removal system comprising: a turbine blade removal device (see figure 1) comprising: a drilling subsystem 1/2/5 comprising a drill 2/5 for drilling at least one element 22 within a wind turbine blade; an extension subsystem 3/4/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14, physically connected to the drilling subsystem and releasably securable to the wind turbine blade (using bolt element 13 and vacuum element 14), for moving the drilling subsystem toward a tip end of the wind turbine blade and moving the drilling subsystem away from the tip end of the wind turbine blade; and a control subsystem (numerical control module, also labeled “1”) for controlling movement of the drilling subsystem and operation of the drill.
Regarding the intended use limitation “bulkhead removal system” in the preamble of the claim, it is noted that the prior art used in the rejection is capable of being used for this function. During examination, statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim. See, e.g., In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See also MPEP § 2112 - § 2112.02.
Regarding the intended use limitations “bulkhead removal device” and “for drilling at least one bulkhead”, it is noted that the prior art used in the rejection is capable of being used for this function. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al.
Regarding claim 4, Xu et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Xu et al. does not distinctly disclose further comprising a connection subsystem to receive power cables from the drilling subsystem and the extension subsystem and connect the drilling subsystem and the extension subsystem to a power source, and to receive control cables from the drilling subsystem and the extension subsystem and connect the drilling subsystem and extension subsystem to the control subsystem. However, as the control module is used to control both the movement and rotation of the drill and the movement of the lifting mechanism, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art of machine tools to use a connection subsystem with power cables and control cables for the purpose of controlling the power and movement of power tools and connection systems.
Regarding claim 9, Xu et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except Xu et al. does not disclose further comprising a vacuum subsystem for removing drilled pieces of bulkhead. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art of machine tools to use a vacuum subsystem for the purpose of removing chips and dust from a drilled workpiece.
Regarding claim 10, Xu et al. discloses wherein the connection subsystem includes at least one connection box 1 connected to the drilling subsystem 1/2/5 and the extension subsystem 3/4/6/7/8/9/10/11/12/13/14 and connected to the control subsystem 1. Xu et al. does not distinctly disclose using a first plurality of cables and a second plurality of cables wherein the first plurality of cables is greater in number than the second plurality of cables and the cables in the second plurality of cables are stronger than the cables in the first plurality of cables. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the amount of first cables to be greater in number that the second plurality of cables and for the cables in the second plurality of cables to be stronger than the cables in the first plurality of cables for the purpose of meeting the operational requirements of the subsystems, because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, involves only routine skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 ERIC ANDREW GATES whose telephone number is (571)272-5498. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 9-6, Alt Fr 9-5.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/ERIC A. GATES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722 30 June 2026
Prosecution Insights