Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/753,134

WIND TURBINE LIFTING RIG

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jun 25, 2024
Examiner
ADAMS, NATHANIEL L
Art Unit
3654
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Brian Auffart
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 1m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
369 granted / 514 resolved
+19.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 1m
Avg Prosecution
46 currently pending
Career history
560
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
30.7%
-9.3% vs TC avg
§112
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 514 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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 3, 13-14 and 18-19 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 3 recites “an actuator,” which has unclear antecedent basis. Does this refer to the “one or more actuators” set forth in claim 1, or to another actuator? Claim 13 recites “the wall,” which lacks antecedent basis. Claim 18 recites “the wall,” which lacks antecedent basis. 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. Claims 1-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H1182285 A (hereinafter “Nakagawa”). Regarding claim 1 Nakagawa discloses a system (A) for lifting and mounting components of a wind turbine assembly to the top of a wind turbine tower (5), the system (A) comprising: an adjustable frame (1) defining an interior space (S, see annotated figure below) sized to receive the tower (5), wherein the adjustable frame (1) comprises one or more actuators (12; i.e. elements 12 on the top ring of 11) configured to reduce or expand (e.g. at 12a) the interior space (S) defined by the adjustable frame (1); PNG media_image1.png 393 599 media_image1.png Greyscale a first boom (4a) attached to the adjustable frame (1), the first boom (4a) rotatable with a first boom actuator (luffing cable); and a second boom (4b) attached to the adjustable frame (1), the second boom (4b) rotatable with a second boom actuator (luffing cable), and wherein the first boom (4a) and the second boom are joined by a telescoping crossmember (C) (i.e. the upper ring of 11 could be considered “telescoping” because it houses elements 12, which telescope). Regarding claim 2 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses wherein the adjustable frame (1) comprises a 4-sided frame body (see figs. 1, 3, and 4). Regarding claim 3 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses an actuator (12) positioned on each side of the 4-sided frame body (see figs. 1, 3, and 4) and operable to extend or retract the length of the side (i.e. contact member 12a moves radially). Regarding claim 4 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses wherein the one or more actuators (12) comprise a hydraulic cylinder (paragraph 18 of translation). Regarding claim 5 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses wherein the first boom (4a) is parallel to the second boom (4b). Regarding claim 6 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses wherein the telescoping cross member (C) provides a suspension point for a hook block (the upper ring of 11, indicated as “C” below, is capable of use with a hook block by virtue of having winches thereupon; i.e. this is a functional limitation). PNG media_image1.png 393 599 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 7 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses a crossmember (C) actuator configured to retract or extend the length of the crossmember (C). Regarding claim 8 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses one or more attachment brackets (i.e. “lock mechanism” at 12a; see paragraph 18) positionable near the top of the tower (5), wherein the attachment brackets (“lock mechanism” at 12a; see paragraph 18) are configured to secure the adjustable frame (1) in position near the top of the tower (5). Regarding claim 9 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses one or more bracing members (BM; i.e. elements 12 on the bottom ring of 11) extending from a bottom side of the adjustable frame (1). PNG media_image2.png 406 599 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 10 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses one or more attachment brackets (i.e. “lock mechanism” at 12a on the lower ring of 11; see paragraph 18) positionable on the tower (5) and configured to attach to the bracing members (BM) to secure the adjustable frame (1) in position near the top of the tower (5). Regarding claim 11 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses comprising a lifting hoist (14) and a lifting hoist cable (14a/14b) configured to lift or lower the adjustable frame (1) on the tower (5). Regarding claim 12 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses wherein the lifting hoist (14) is positionable (capable of being positioned; i.e. this is a functional recitation, and the hoist 14 could perform this function) within the base of the tower (5). Regarding claim 13 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses one or more lifting hoist sheaves (H, see annotated figure below) positionable in [a] wall (i.e. of the sheave block) near the top of the tower (5). PNG media_image3.png 409 625 media_image3.png Greyscale Regarding claim 15 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses comprising a main hoist (14) positionable near the base (fig. 2a; i.e. the entire system is positionable near the base) of the tower (5) and a main hoist cable (14a) extending from the main hoist. Regarding claim 16 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses wherein the main hoist cable (14a) extends over the telescoping crossmember (C) to a hook block (i.e. “block” 5e1). Regarding claim 17 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses wherein the lifting hoist (14) comprises a 4-drum lifting hoist (i.e. there four drums 14, see fig. 1). Regarding claim 18 Nakagawa discloses the above system (A), and further discloses one or more lifting hoist sheaves (H, see annotated figure below) positionable in [a] wall (i.e. of the sheave block) near the top of the tower (5). PNG media_image3.png 409 625 media_image3.png Greyscale 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. Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa. Regarding claims 14 and 19 Nakagawa discloses the above system (as per claim 11 above), including the lifting hoist cable (14a) extending from the lifting hoist (14). While Nakagawa teaches sheaves on the crane, Nakagawa fails to teach the lifting hoist cable extends through a lifting hoist sheave, and is secured to the adjustable frame (i.e. while Nakagawa teaches sheaves, they are on the crane line, not the winch line). This distinction is considered obvious in view of Nakagawa. Nakagawa shows the conventional nature of sheave blocks in figure 1: i.e. two sheave blocks in conjunction with the crane, a cable starting from the crane, threading through the sheave blocks, and then back to the crane. PNG media_image4.png 409 645 media_image4.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the blocks (at 5e) of Nakagawa with sheaves, and to rout the cable back, as per figure 1 of Nakagawa with a reasonable expectation of success. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to provide mechanical advantage to the system. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references show various forms of apparatus which comprise at least one similar feature to the present application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathaniel L Adams whose telephone number is (571)272-4830. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 Pacific Time. 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 P 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. /NATHANIEL L ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 25, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 16, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Mar 16, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 16, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12569899
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR GUIDING METAL STRIPS, COMPRISING GRINDING BODIES WITH SUPPORT ELEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570099
SUBSTRATE ALIGNMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565405
Modular and Collapsible Server Lift Assist for Immersion Cooling System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12552646
WILDERNESS LIFTING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12545557
WIND TURBINE LIFTING ARRANGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+20.3%)
3y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 514 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month