DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) of 3/11/2026, which enters the claims set filed 2/17/2026, following the Final Rejection of 11/18/2025. Claims 1-4, 8, 10 and 14-15 were amended. Claims 1-22 are currently pending with claims 11-13 and 15-22 withdrawn from consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to claim objections and claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These objections/rejections of 11/18/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 02/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments made to the claims. The disclosure of Petersen (US 2025/0059780) can still anticipate the invention of claim 14 given the alternative required limitations.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, “The wind turbine equipped with” should likely read “[[The]] A wind turbine equipped with”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “mounting means” in claim 1.
The corresponding structure recited in the instant specification is:
“The mounting means is as mentioned a central item of the blade. It is or comprises at least one frame-shaped or plate-shaped support segment surrounding the manhole at least partly. Such a frame- or plate-like support segment provides a sufficiently stable mounting interface for either mounting the ladder or the additional mounting equipment. This is especially true when the mounting means is detachably arranged at the base plate, as such a frame- or plate-like design allows for providing sufficient fixation elements for firmly attaching it to the base plate, with fixation elements in form of clamps or the like which are fixed to the base plate rim extending around the manhole” in pr. 48; “the mounting means may comprise two or more different mounting positions allocated at different positions of the support element. As mentioned, the blade may be positioned in different rotational positions depending on which area of the inner of the blade needs to be maintenance” in pr. 50; “a mounting means 38 comprising a built of a frame-like support segment 20 and optional some additional mounting equipment or elements, which mounting means 38 respectively support segment 20 has, in this example, a polygonal, here a rectangular shape. The mounting means respectively support segment (and maybe some additional fixation equipment or elements) is permanently attached to base plate” in pr. 91; and “A mounting means 38 comprising a support segment 20 is permanently attached to the first plate 41 facing to the open end of the root-like end section 8, to which mounting means 38 a first ladder 30 is attached. The mounting means comprised hooks 32, which may build a fixation means as described in regard of FIG. 9. As an additional, also permanent fixation equipment, a mounting section 35 comprising further hooks 36 is attached to the support segment 20. The mounting segment 35 extends through the manhole, i.e., both manhole openings, so that the hooks 35 are at the inner side of the second plate 42. A second ladder 34 is attached to the hooks 35. While the person can climb up to the manhole 14 via the first ladder 30, he can climb down to the maintenance area via the second ladder 34, and vice versa” in pr. 97 of the instant published application.
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(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR101400201B1, herein referenced as Choi.
PNG
media_image1.png
1051
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Choi
Regarding Claim 14, Choi discloses the Wind turbine (see wind turbine generator 10 in figs. 1-2) equipped with at least one wind turbine blade according to claim 1, and/or at least one ladder support assembly (see connecting rods 412,450,462 which couple/support the ladders 410,430,460 on various portions of the wind turbine assembly in figs. 1-2).
Examiner Note: Given the alternative required limitations for claim 14, a separate rejection for claim 14 is also presented below for if claim 14 were to depend upon claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0056582, herein referenced as Schuring, in view of US 2462626, herein referenced as Forster.
PNG
media_image2.png
498
453
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 of Schuring
Regarding Claim 1, Schuring discloses a wind turbine blade (5 fig. 2), comprising:
a hollow blade body (see hollow blade shell 10 fig. 2) with a blade root (6 fig. 2) and a base plate (see bulkhead unit 16 fig. 2 and bulkhead 17 in fig. 6) arranged at a root-side end section of the blade (shown in fig. 2), the base plate comprises a manhole (see opening(s) 22 in fig. 6) through which an interior of the blade is accessible (“bulkhead 17 comprises a first set of openings 22 configured for mounting a hatch (not shown) which provides access to the interior of the wind turbine blade 5” pr. 117).
However, Schuring fails to anticipate wherein mounting means is attached to the base plate at or close to the manhole such that the mounting means remains attached during a rotation of the wind turbine blade, and is configured to directly or indirectly mount at least one ladder at a side of the base plate facing away from the interior of the blade.
Schuring is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades. Forster is analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant of facilitating personnel access through an opening.
PNG
media_image3.png
569
138
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Forster
Forster teaches wherein mounting means (see plate-like member which is permanently attached to window in figs. 2 and 4; appears to be labeled as 19 in fig. 4) is attached to the base plate (see wall that window/ingress/egress is provided on in figs. 1-2) at or close to the manhole (see window in fig. 1-2) such that the mounting means remains [fixed attached] (“For permanent installations the members 19 are permanently fixed on the window ledges, with the ladder and harness, together with other suitable equipment being stored in an accessible place” col. 3 lines 65-69), and is configured to directly or indirectly mount at least one ladder at a side of the base plate (see collapsible ladder that is mounted along an exterior side of the wall via pins 21 and 22 fitted in recesses 22 of member 19 fig. 4 in figs. 1-2 and 4). Forster further teaches that “my invention permits a person to stop at any floor when descending, or permits climbing to a higher floor, while at all times protecting the person from accidentally falling and against slips” in col. 1 lines 47-51 and that their invention provides “combined hand holds and steps providing efficient gripping means and non-slip steps” in col. 2 lines 18-20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bulkhead 17 and at least one of the openings 22 of Schuring with the ladder assembly disclosed by Forster so as to obtain the benefit of ‘descending/ascending while protecting a person from accidentally falling and against slips with combined hand holds and steps’ as taught by Forster. In the combination of Schuring and Forster, the mounting means remains attached to the baseplate during a rotation of the wind turbine blade since the mounting member 19 of Forster, as used to modify Schuring, is permanently attached to the window/ledge as disclosed in col. 2 lines 41-42 and col. 3 lines 65-69.
However, the combination of Schuring and Forster fails to explicitly teach that the mounting means is configured to directly/indirectly mount at least one ladder at a side of the base plate facing away from the interior of the blade.
In modifying Schuring with the teachings of Forster, there is a limited number of possibilities for sides of the base plate to provide the assembly taught by Forster on; it can be provided on the side facing toward the interior of the blade or on the side facing away from the interior of the blade. Due to the limited number of possibilities, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided/modified the ladder assembly of Forster, as used to modify Schuring, such that it would be on the side facing away from the interior of the blade, in Schuring modified by Forster. This modification would provide the advantage of easing access when entering the blade from the hub. See MPEP 2143 subsection I E “Obvious to try” for further details.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Schuring and Forster above comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the mounting means are configured to directly or indirectly another ladder at a side of the base plate facing to the interior of the blade.
It has been held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”. MPEP 2144.04 §VI: B “Duplication of Parts” citing In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thus, it would have been similarly obvious to have modified combination of Schuring and Forster by a duplication of the recesses 22 or duplication of the entire member 19 in fig. 4 of Forster, as used to modify Schuring, such that mounting means would provide for a ladder on the opposite side of the base plate facing toward the interior of the blade. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this modification of the mounting means would improve ease of entrance/exit through the manhole. The duplication of parts providing would not be considered a new and unexpected result since it would merely be applying what is provided for one side of the wall/plate to the other side as well in the combination of Schuring and Forster as modified above.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Schuring and Forster above comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 1, wherein the mounting means are inextricably arranged at the base plate, or that the mounting means are detachably arranged at the base plate (the plate-like member 19 is shown in figs. 2-4 of Forster to be permanently attached, bolts being shown, and is described as being permanently attached in the disclosure of Forster, as used to modify Schuring above).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Schuring and Forster above comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 1, wherein the mounting means is or comprises at least one frame-shaped or plate-shaped support segment surrounding the manhole at least partly (the ladder attachment member 19 is shown to be plate shaped and surround the bottom perimeter the window/ledge in fig. 4 of Forster, as used to modify Schuring above).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Schuring and Forster above comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 6, wherein a shape of the at least one support segment is U-shaped (see recesses 22 of member 19 which establishes it as U-shaped to accommodate pins 20,21 in fig. 4 of Forster, as used to modify Schuring), a circle, an oval, or polygonal.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Schuring and Forster above comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 6, wherein the mounting means comprises two or more different mounting positions allocated in different positions of the support segment (see the recesses 22 which are provided on opposite sides of the member 19, and thus provide two different mounting positions in different positions of member 19, in fig. 4 of Forster, as used to modify Schuring above).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Schuring and Forster above comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 8, wherein the different mounting positions are allocated in different circumferential positions (the two different mounting positions provided by the recesses 22 on opposite sides of member 19, in fig. 4 of Forster, as used to modify Schuring above, would be at different circumferential positions of the blade in the combination due to the locations of the manholes 22 on bulkhead 17 in fig. 6 of Schuring, as modified by Forster above).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Schuring and Forster comprises the wind turbine blade according claim 1, wherein the base plate is a single plate (see single plate bulkhead 17’ in fig. 3b of Schuring; “the bulkhead 17′ is here manufactured as a single plate shaped element” pr. 108 of Schuring), or that the base plate comprises a first plate having a first manhole opening and a second plate arranged in parallel to the first plate and comprising a second manhole opening, which manhole openings are flush with each other and build the manhole.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Schuring and Forster above comprises a wind turbine (see wind turbine 1 in fig. 1 of Schuring) equipped with at least one wind turbine blade according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above with the combination of Schuring and Forster), and/or least one ladder support assembly.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over, DE102011083152A1, herein referenced as Zeller, in view of Forster.
PNG
media_image4.png
872
996
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Zeller
Regarding Claim 1, Zeller discloses a wind turbine blade (14 fig. 1), comprising:
a hollow blade body (shown in fig. 1) with a blade root and a base plate arranged at a root-side end section of the blade (see end cap 26 arranged at the root 16 of the blade 14 in fig. 4) , the base plate comprising a manhole (see singular passage opening 24 in figs. 3a and 4) through which the interior of the blade is accessible (shown in fig. 4),
However, Zeller fails to anticipate wherein mounting means is attached to the base plate at or close to the manhole such that the mounting means remains attached during a rotation of the wind turbine blade, and is configured to directly or indirectly mount at least one ladder at a side of the base plate facing away from the interior of the blade.
Zeller is analogous art since it relates to the field of endeavor of wind turbine blades. Forster is analogous art since it relates to the problem faced by Applicant of facilitating personnel access through an opening.
Forster teaches wherein mounting means (see plate-like member which is permanently attached to window in figs. 2 and 4; appears to be labeled as 19 in fig. 4) is attached to the base plate (see wall that window/ingress/egress is provided on in figs. 1-2) at or close to the manhole (see window in fig. 1-2) such that the mounting means remains attached during a rotation of the wind turbine blade (“For permanent installations the members 19 are permanently fixed on the window ledges, with the ladder and harness, together with other suitable equipment being stored in an accessible place” col. 3 lines 65-69), and is configured to directly or indirectly mount at least one ladder at a side of the base plate (see collapsible ladder that is mounted along an exterior side of the wall via pins 21 and 22 fitted in recesses 22 of member 19 fig. 4 in figs. 1-2 and 4). Forster further teaches that “my invention permits a person to stop at any floor when descending, or permits climbing to a higher floor, while at all times protecting the person from accidentally falling and against slips” in col. 1 lines 47-51 and that their invention provides “combined hand holds and steps providing efficient gripping means and non-slip steps” in col. 2 lines 18-20.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the bulkhead 17 and one of the opening 24 of Zeller with the ladder assembly disclosed by Forster so as to obtain the benefit of ‘descending/ascending while protecting a person from accidentally falling and against slips with combined hand holds and steps’ as taught by Forster. In the combination of Zeller and Forster, the mounting means would remain attached to the baseplate during a rotation of the wind turbine blade since the mounting member 19 of Forster, as used to modify Zeller, is permanently attached to the window/ledge as disclosed in col. 2 lines 41-42 and col. 3 lines 65-69.
However, the combination of Zeller and Forster fails to explicitly teach that the mounting means is configured to directly/indirectly mount at least one ladder at a side of the base plate facing away from the interior of the blade.
In modifying Zeller with the teachings of Forster, there is a limited number of possibilities for sides of the base plate to provide the assembly taught by Forster on; it can be provided on the side facing toward the interior of the blade or on the side facing away from the interior of the blade. Due to the limited number of possibilities, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided/modified the ladder assembly of Forster, as used to modify Zeller, such that it would be on the side facing away from the interior of the blade, in Zeller modified by Forster. This modification would provide the advantage of easing access when entering the blade from the hub. See MPEP 2143 subsection I E “Obvious to try” for further details.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Zeller and Forster above comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 1, wherein the base plate comprises only one single manhole (see singular opening 24 in figs. 3a and 4 of Zeller).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zeller and Forster above comprises the wind turbine blade according to claim 1, wherein the manhole has a circular (see circular opening 24 in figs. 3a and 4 of Zeller) or oval shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesley Fisher whose telephone number is (469)295-9146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM to 5:30PM, Monday - Friday.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/W.L.F./Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights