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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, and Group H, claim 12, in the reply filed on 04 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-11 and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected grouping, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 August 2026.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zupancic (EP 2 354 074 A1).
Claim 1:
Zupancic discloses a lifting yoke for lifting a building element (abstract),
wherein the lifting yoke (6) comprises a main body (601) and at least one attachment device (605) (fig. 3, ¶16, 18),
wherein the main body (601) is arrangeable hanging on a hoisting means (5) and wherein the attachment device (605) comprises at least one attachment means (605) attachable to a surface of a building element (1) to be lifted (fig. 3, ¶16),
wherein the attachment device (605) is pivotable with and without attached building element (1) at least between a first position and a second position, wherein the attachment means (605) is pointing downwards in the first position for attachment to a top side surface of a building element (1) and upwards in the second position for attachment to a bottom side surface of a building element (1) (fig. 3, ¶16, 18).
Zupancic further discloses the micromanipulator (6) is rotatably coupled to the end of crane arm (503) by rotation devices (505, 506, 507). Device (505) provides rotation R3 in an up-down direction about the x-axis, device (506) provides rotation R4 in the left-right or up-down direction about the y-axis, and device (507) provides rotation R5 about the z-axis (fig. 3, ¶17). Because correcting vacuum-gripper system (605) is attached to frame (601) of micromanipulator (6), rotation of micromanipulator (6) necessarily rotates attachment device and attachment means (605) with frame (601). The disclosed up-down rotation R3, alone or together with rotations R4 and R5, renders attachment means (605) positionable with its operative vacuum-gripping side facing downward in a first position and facing upward in as second position. The rotation devices are structural components of the apparatus and remain capable of rotating micromanipulator (6) and attachment means (605) whether or not a building element is attached. Therefore, Zupancic’s apparatus possesses the claimed structural capability of pivoting attachment device (605), with and without an attached building element, between the claimed first and second orientations.
The recitations that the attachment means points downward “for attachment to a top side surface” and upward “for attachment to a bottom side surface” state the intended uses of the respective orientations and do not require that Zupancic expressly describe actually performing both attachment operations. When the operative vacuum-gripping side of grippers (605) faces downward, it is structurally capable of engaging an upward-facing top surface of a building element. When rotated to face upward, it is structurally capable of engaging a downward-facing bottom surface. No structural modification of Zupancic’s apparatus is required to obtain these respective uses.
In addition, the combined rotational degrees of freedom R3, R4, and R5 permit micromanipulator (6), and consequently vacuum-gripper system (605) fixed to frame (601), to be oriented in three-dimensional space with the operative gripping side of grippers (605) facing either downward or upward. In particular, R3 provides up-down rotation around the x-axis, while R4 provides additional up-down rotation around the y-axis and R5 permits horizontal orientation around the z-axis (fig. 3, ¶17).
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.
In the alternative, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zupancic (EP 2 354 074 A1).
Claim 1:
Zupancic discloses a lifting yoke for lifting a building element (abstract),
wherein the lifting yoke (6) comprises a main body (601) and at least one attachment device (605) (fig. 3, ¶16, 18),
wherein the main body (601) is arrangeable hanging on a hoisting means (5) and wherein the attachment device (605) comprises at least one attachment means (605) attachable to a surface of a building element (1) to be lifted (fig. 3, ¶16),
wherein the attachment device (605) is pivotable with and without attached building element (1) at least between a first position and a second position (fig. 3, ¶16, 18).
To the extent Zupancic does not expressly disclose orienting vacuum grippers (605) both downward and upward for attachment to respective surfaces of a building element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the expressly disclosed rotations R3 and/or R4 to orient the operative faces of vacuum grippers (605) toward a selected accessible surface of a building element. Zupancic teaches the micromanipulator (6) grips, positions, turns, and places panels and provides multidirectional rotation specifically to permit the micromanipulator to approach and position panels in the required orientation. Orienting the vacuum grippers downward to engage an upward-facing surface or upward to engage a downward-facing surface would have been a predictable use of the disclosed rotational degrees of freedom, permitting the panel to be picked up or supported from whichever surface is accessible. In addition, Zupancic also discusses that building elements may need to be “turned around” before lifting which further provides internal motivation for using the rotational capability to obtain opposite gripping orientations (¶3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zupancic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 213445801 U) as provided by (CN 213445801 U) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 12:
Zupancic discloses or renders obvious the lifting yoke according to claim 1; and Zupancic fails to disclose or fairly suggest wherein the lifting yoke comprises at least one adjustable counterweight element.
Hu discloses that lifting devices for elongated wind-turbine blades must accommodate differences in blade center-of-gravity position (¶¶3, 80). Hu further discloses a movable mass-bearing element comprising first conformal pressing assembly (140) carried by sliding bracket (147). Driving member (146) moves assembly (140) and bracket (147) horizontally relative to pressing arm (110) in the blade chord or X direction (figs. 3-5, ¶51). Hu expressly associates this positional adjustment with accommodating radial deviations caused by the different center-of-gravity positions of different blades (¶¶51-52).
Applicant’s claimed counterweight, when examined in light of the specification, does not limit a “counterweight element” to a conventional crane counterweight or to a dedicated block of ballast. Rather, Applicant describes counterweight element (18) as a mass-bearing element movably coupled to the lifting-yoke structure and adjustable by an actuator to different angular positions and/or distances relative to the main body. By changing the position and resulting moment arm of that mass, the element changes the horizontal mass distribution of the lifting yoke so that its center of gravity can be maintained at a selected horizontal position as the attachment device is pivoted.
Hu’s assembly (140) and sliding bracket (147) have the corresponding relevant structure applicable to the claimed counterweight element: assembly (140) provides a mass-bearing element, bracket (147) movably couples that element to the lifting structure, and driving member (146) changes the element’s horizontal position and moment arm relative to the remainder of the clamp. Movement of assembly (140/147) necessarily changes the horizontal mass distribution and center-of-gravity position of Hu’s lifting clamp (Hu, figs. 3-7, ¶¶51-52). Therefore, when assembly (140/147) is adjusted to oppose a center-of-gravity displacement, it operates as a counterweight element consistent with Applicant’s disclosed use of that term.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the lifting apparatus of Zupancic with an adjustably positioned counterweight element, as taught by Hu’s horizontally movable pressing assembly and its center-of-gravity-responsive adjustment in order to accommodate different center-of-gravity conditions. See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Applying Hu’s counterweight element to Zupancic’s pivotable panel-handling apparatus would have been structurally capable of maintaining the horizontal position of the center of gravity at the same location relative to the suspension point in both orientations, thereby reducing imbalance, swinging, during handling of the elongated building element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 1 requires an attachment device pivotable between two opposite attachment orientations and that Zupancic does not expressly or inherently disclose an attachment device having that capability. Applicant particularly argues that the claimed attachment means must point downward in the first position for attachment to a top-side surface and upward in the second position for attachment to a bottom-side surface. These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Because vacuum-gripper system (605) is carried by frame (601), rotation of micromanipulator (6) necessarily rotates system (605) and its individual vacuum grippers. The rotations R3 and R4 permit the operative vacuum-gripping faces to be inverted between opposite vertical orientations. Therefore, the same attachment device (605) is structurally capable of being positioned with the operative faces of its vacuum grippers pointing downward in a first position and pointing upward in a second position. Applicant’s assertion that Zupancic lacks a pivotable attachment device therefore does not address the actual rotational structure disclosed by Zupancic.
Claim 1 does not require that the attachment device pivot relative to the mapped main body, that a particular joint be located between the main body and the attachment device, or that the attachment device pivot independently of the main body. Claim 1 requires only that the attachment device be pivotable between the recited positions. Rotation of frame (601) through devices (505, 506, 507) necessarily carries and pivots attached vacuum-gripper system (605) between corresponding orientations and therefore satisfies the claimed pivotability.
The phrases “for attachment to a top side surface” and “for attachment to a bottom side surface” describe the intended uses of the respective orientations and do not add a further structural distinction over Zupancic. When the operative faces of Zupancic’s vacuum grippers point downward, the grippers are structurally capable of engaging an upward-facing top surface of a building element. When the same operative faces are rotated to point upward, they are structurally capable of engaging a downward-facing bottom surface of a building element. Applicant has not identified any structural feature required by claim 1 that would prevent Zupancic’s vacuum grippers from engaging a building element surface in either orientation.
Nor does the recitation “with and without attached building element” distinguish Zupancic. Rotational devices (505, 506, 507) are permanent structural components of Zupancic’s apparatus. Their ability to rotate micromanipulator (6) and vacuum-gripper system (605) does not arise only after the building element is attached. The disclosed apparatus therefore remains structurally capable of pivoting system (605) when unloaded as well as when carrying an attached panel.
Applicant also argues that the claimed configuration permits the same attachment device to attach to different sides of a wind-turbine-blade building element. That asserted advantage does not establish a structural difference. Zupancic uses the same vacuum-gripper system (605) in the respective orientations, and the grippers remain capable of engaging a suitable surface facing them after the system is rotated. Claim 1 does not require any additional reconfiguration or structural modification of the attachment means when transitioning between the first and second positions.
Therefore, Zupancic discloses an attachment device structurally capable of pivoting between the claimed opposite orientations, and Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1).
In addition, even if Zupancic were considered not to expressly disclose positioning the vacuum grippers in both claimed orientations, the distinction would have been obvious for the reasons stated in the alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103. Zupancic expressly provides rotations R3, R4 and R5 so that micromanipulator (6) can grip, transport, position, and turn panels. Using rotations R3 and/or R4 to invert vacuum-gripper system (605) so that its operative faces point toward whichever panel surface is accessible would have been a predictable use of Zupancic’s disclosed rotational capabilities. The resulting apparatus would possess the claimed first and second attachment orientations without requiring any modification to the vacuum grippers themselves.
Applicant further argues the application is in condition for allowance because claim 12 further distinguishes over Zupancic. These arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because Zupancic, alone, was not relied upon to anticipate applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Henrichsen et al. (EP 3 907 062 A1) discloses a fixture for manufacturing a wind turbine blade.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights