DETAILED ACTION1
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, 16-18, 21, 28, 31, 35, 43, 46, & 65-66 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the blade is guided along the tower by at least one carriage removable secured at or proximate the blade root and to a portion of the blade intermediate the blade and the tower and in contact with an outer surface…of the tower as the blade is hoisted. This feature is indefinite. The claim begins by reciting the carriage is secured at or proximate the blade root. This much is clear. The claim then recite and to a portion of the blade. Thus, the carriage is now secured at two locations: the root and to some portion of the blade. The claim continues by reciting intermediate the blade and the tower. While applicant appears to have intended this feature to continue to mean that the carriage is on the blade on the tower-side of the blade, such that the carriage is between the blade and the tower, the phrasing used leads to the alternate interpretation that the portion is intermediate the blade. In other words, the portion is at some middle region of the blade. It does not help that the claim uses the word and three times within the feature without clarification of what is being modified.
A second issue with the above claim feature is that a single carriage cannot be removably secured at two locations. It is unclear therefore if the claim is affirmatively reciting two carriages (as shown the figures) or if it intended to only refer to a single carriage connected at the root.
If applicant intends to recite two carriages connected at two locations, examiner suggests amending claim 1 along the following lines.
…a. hoisting the blade up the tower…wherein the blade is guided along the tower by a first carriage and a second carriage that are both in contact with an outer surface of the tower as the blade is hoisted, the first carriage being removably secured at or adjacent the blade root, the second carriage being removably secured to a mid-region of the blade, and both the first and second carriages being located intermediate the blade and the tower.
Since it is possible claim 1 intended to recite a single carriage removably secured proximate the blade root, examiner has rejected this interpretation in the interest of compact prosecution. The alternate interpretation of two carriages appears to overcome the art of record.
Claim 2 recites an upper carriage releasable secured…at or proximate the root. In view of the amendments to claim 1, it is now unclear what new feature claim 2 is reciting.
Claim 46 contains the same issues as claim 1.
All remaining clams are rejected based on their dependence.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-12, 16-18, 21, 28, 35, 46, & 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2019/0257292 to Melen.
Claim 1 recites a method for installing a wind turbine blade on a rotor head of a nacelle located on top of a tower of a wind power generator. Melen relates to such a method. See Melen [0006]. Melen teaches hoisting the blade (25) up the tower (10) in a substantially vertical orientation presenting a blade root (26) of the blade uppermost. See Melen [0006]-[0009] and Fig. 1. Figures 1-2 and 3B of Melen further shows that the blade is guided along the tower by at least one carriage (30, 40) removably secured …intermediate the blade and the tower and in contact with an outer surface (12)…of the tower as the blade is hoisted. See Melen [0007]. Claim 1 further recites the carriage is connected at or proximate the blade root. The term proximate can be interpreted three ways. One is that the carriage is very near the root. But this would render proximate to be an indefinite relative term, as it would be unclear how close to the root the carriage must be to infringe on the claim. The two broader interpretations would be that the carriage is located between either the midpoint of the blade and the root or between the center of gravity of the blade and the root. Either interpretation is within the broadest reasonable interpretation. Also the term blade root of a turbine blade can be used to both refer to the terminal end of the blade or the region of the blade from the hub-side terminal end to around 1/3 of the distance along the blade. Thus, examiner interprets the term to refer to the root side between the center of gravity and the terminal end. Figure 1 of Melen shows the blade connected to the carriage within this region at its upper portion. As such, this is viewed to be proximate the blade root.
Claim 1 then recites that the carriage [has] a three-axis translation mechanism configured to displace the blade radially, tangentially and longitudinally relative to the tower. Melen teaches that the carriage can be pulled up and down the tower, via cable (33), which teaches longitudinal[l] movement. Melen further teaches the cart (30) of the mechanism also has telescopic members (63) that can radially move the plate (62) which in turn moves the blade radially. See Melen [0059] and Fig. 3B. Finally, tangential movement may be defined as rotation of the carriage relative to the blade. Melen teaches the blade support member (40) can rotated relative to the cart (30). See Melen [0036]. This is deemed to be tangential movement relative to the tower and provides the third axis of translation.
Melen further teaches positioning the blade root of the blade in alignment with a blade mounting flange of the rotor head by adjusting the position of the blade relative to the tower using the multi-axis translation mechanism of the at least one carriage. See Melen [0062]-[0071]. Finally, Melen teaches securing the blade to the rotor head. See Melen [0009].
Claim 2 recites that the carriage comprises an upper carriage releasably secured to the blade during hoisting at or proximate the blade root. The term upper carriage is not interpreted as requiring a second lower carriage, but merely as defining up upper section of the carriage that is the region proximate the blade root when used. Figure 1 of Melen shows the carriage has both an upper and lower frame region, one above the center of gravity, the other below. This upper portion is the region prozimate the blade root because it lies in the region between the center of gravity and the terminal end of the blade. Regarding claim 3, Melen shows the hoisting is by a support cable (33) releasably attached to the…carriage (30). Regarding claim 6, figures 4A-C show that prior to…hoisting…the blade[is] in a substantially horizontal orientation supported adjacent the tower by a ground surface, a support vehicle or support rack (70, 71) and attaching a support cable to a hoist anchor of the blade and/or of the at least one carriage releasably secured to the blade. Regarding claim 7, figures 4A-C further show that the blade is transitioned from the substantially horizontal orientation to the substantially vertical orientation by the support cable and by a supplementary crane (72) secured to a lifting anchor of the blade. Regarding claim 11, figure 4A shows that the lifting anchor for the crane is closer to a tip of the blade than the hoisting anchor.
Claim 12 recites a second carriage releasably secured to the blade closer to a tip of the blade than the upper carriage. It is initially unclear if this second carriage must have its own multi-axis translation mechanism. Based on the language of claims 21 and 28, it appears it does not need to have one, as the presence of the mechanism on the upper carriage meets the language of claim 1. This in turn, lead to the question of whether the second carriage needs to be in contact with an outer surface…of the tower as the blade is hoisted. Since the presence of the mechanism on the upper carriage alone fulfils this language, likewise as long as the upper carriage contact[s] the tower, this feature is also deemed anticipated. Figure 4A of Melen shows the crane connected to the blade at a location closer to a tip of the blade than the upper carriage. One of ordinary skill would infer the presence of a connection structure, like a blade sock or clamp, at this location since a wind turbine itself cannot be hooked onto by the crane. This structure would be removable secured to the blade and therefore may be deemed to be the second carriage.
Regarding claim 16, figures 4A-C also show that the crane and the support cable act in concert to suspend and move the blade from the substantially horizontal orientation to the substantially vertical orientation. Claim 17 recites that the process of suspending and moving…include[es] bringing the at least one carriage into contact with an outer surface or surfaces of the tower. This is not interpreted as requiring that the carriage was not in contact prior to the process beginning. Figures 4A-C show the carriage in contact through the who procedure. Regarding claim 18, figure 4C shows disconnecting the crane from the blade once the blade is in the substantially vertical orientation. Claim 21 recites a lower carriage releasably secured to the blade proximate a tip of the blade, wherein the lower carriage is releasably secured to the blade independently from the upper carriage. This claim feature is interpreted in the same manner as claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 28, the upper carriage comprises the multi-axis translation mechanism. Regarding claim 35, figure 1 of Melen shows that the support cable…extends from the…carriage upwardly to a hoist point (56) located proximate and underneath the nacelle. Claim 65 (addressed out of order as it depends from claim 35) recites the hoist point is located to gravitationally bias the blade and…carriage towards the outer surface…during hoisting. Figure 1 of Melen shows the hoist point (56) is laterally offset from the blade so as to exert a force on the cable and cart towards the tower surface. This force is partially caused by the gravitational pull on the blade which want to hang directly down from pulley (56). Thus, figure 1 anticipates this feature.
Claim 46 recites substantially the same features as claim 1, but merely recites removing rather than installing the blade. Melen teaches that its systems are designed for both installing an uninstalling wind turbine blades. See Melen [0001]. Thus, claim 46 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 obvious2 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0257292 to Melen in view of U.S. 2016/0040649 to Smith.
Claim 31 recites moving the blade to insert root bolts of the blade root into bolt apertures of the rotor head by the multi-axis translation mechanism. Melen teaches using the multi-axis translation mechanism to align the blade root with the hub. See Melen [0062]-[0070]. Melen does not explicitly teach doing so in order to insert root bolts of the blade root into bolt apertures of the rotor head. Rather, Melen is silent as to how the blade and hub connect. Yet one of ordinary skill would look to the relevant prior art and apply a known connection method. Smith shows such a known method, in which bolts (147) from the blade root slot into corresponding apertures in the hub. See Smith Fig. 3A. It would have been obvious to modify Melen to use this connection system because it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known product or method, ready for improvement, to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D).
Claims 43 & 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0257292 to Melen.
Claim 43 recites removing the at least one carriage from the blade and lowering the at least one carriage to the ground by the support cable after securing the blade. Melen does not explicitly teach this step, yet it would have been obvious as a matter of common sense that the carriage would need to be removed prior to operation of the wind turbine. It further would have been obvious as a matter of common sense to use the existing support cable already attached to lower blade support (40) and cart (30).
Claim 66 recites that the support cable extends from a hoist winch into the interior of the tower, upwards therethrough and to the top of the tower where said support cable escapes outwardly from the tower to the hoist point proximate and underneath the nacelle. Melen shows a cable that extends from a winch (57) at the base of the tower, to the top of the tower at pulley (56) at a point proximate and underneath the nacelle. Melen does not teach the cable goes into the interior of the tower, however. Yet it would have been obvious to modify Melen to place the winch into the tower as a mere design choice because applicant has not disclosed that having the winch and cable within the tower (as distinct from adjacent the tower) solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either design. Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality of the cable being interior to the tower, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
Applicant first argues that the carriage in Melen is not connected at or proximate the blade root. This feature was addressed in original claim 2. The rejections interpret the broadest reasonable interpretation of proximate the blade root to include the first third of the blade’s length along the root side from the center of gravity to the terminal end. Figure 1 of Melen shows the blade connected to the carriage within this first third of the blade’s length. Applicant’s remarks failed to rebut this claim interpretation.
Applicant also argues that Melen does not teach a three-axis translation mechanism. Yet applicant failed to address or rebut the third axis of rotation discussed in the original rejection of claim 29 (now incorporated into claim 1) and why it was flawed.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”