DETAILED ACTION1
ELECTION/RESTRICTION
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 9, 2025.
The traversal between groups I and II is on the ground(s) that the amended claim creates unity of invention between the groups. This argument lacks merit because claim 1 is still anticipated by the prior art. The restriction requirement between Group I and II is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claims 1-13 and 20 are objected to because of a grammatical issue in independent claim 1. Claim 1 recites a device that comprises several elements separated by semi-colons (a base, a support, and a rotor blade manipulator). But the device also includes an assembling structure that is not separated from the base by a semi-colon. As such, it is grammatically improper. Claim 1 should be amended to recite ‘a base…; an assembling structure…comprises:…a support attangement…; and a rotor blade manipulator.’ Claims 2-13 and 20 are objected to based on their dependence. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 20 are 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 tower passages for passing an upright wind turbine tower and nacelle into and out from said space, and a nacelle passage for passing a nacelle into said space. It is unclear if the tower passages must be capable of passing an assembled combination of an upright wind turbine tower and nacelle together, or merely each individually. The claim recites that the nacelle passage need only be capable of passing a nacelle into said space (emphasis added). Thus, it is unclear how (or why) the tower passage would be used to pass a nacelle or a tower nacelle combination into the space. The claim could be reciting that the tower passages must be sized to allow both an upright tower to be passed into the space as well as sized to allow an assembled upright wind turbine tower and nacelle to be passed out from the space. If this is the intended interpretation, the claim should be amended to clarify that intent. As is, it is unclear how big the tower passages must be. For purposes of examination, the tower passages are interpreted as needing to be sized to allow upright towers to be passed into and out of the space.
Claim 2 recites a wind turbine tower. This term was previously introduced in claim 1 and therefore constitutes improper antecedent basis. Claim 3 likewise recites a wind turbine tower and is likewise indefinite.
Claims 4-13 and 20 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.
Claims 1-2 & 10-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2010/0293781 to Foo.
Claim 1 recites a device for facilitating assembling of a wind turbine. Foo relates to such a device. See Foo [0001] and Fig. 3B. Figure 3B of the Foo shows the device (300) has a base in the form of the platform deck and an assembling structure extending upward. The assembling structure is defined to be the combination of both mast (210) and the support pillars below crane (320) and crane (330). Claim 1 recites that the assembling structure has a space for assembling a tower and a nacelle of a wind turbine, the space being defined by side portions of the assembling structure. There are two potential interpretations of the space, both will be defined in reference to figure 3A of Foo, which shows an overhead view of the entire device.
Interpretation 1
The space in Foo is defined to be the area from the edge of the tower (210) to the foundation (17) (including the foundation) which is a space for assembling the tower and nacelle and is in alignment with the side of tower (210) and is therefore defined by that side portion. See Foo Fig. 3A. Next claim 1 recites tower passages for passing an upright wind turbine tower. The diagonal spaces connecting the space and the storage location of tower segments above the crane in figure 3A are such tower passages. The claim further recites a nacelle passage for passing a nacelle into said space, which is defined to be the space between the tower (210) and the foundation, as figures 3C-3E of Foo show that this space is used to assemble and then move the nacelle onto the tower.
Claim 1 further recites a hoisting device configured for handling the wind turbine tower and for hoisting the nacelle onto a top of the wind turbine tower while being positioned within said space. The term configured requires that a structure be capable of an intended use without modification. Foo teaches lifting structure (216) that is deemed to be a hoisting device that is designed to lift either a tower or a nacelle. See Foo [0030] and Figs. 2B-C. The lifting structure is movable connected to a hoisting device support structure (240, 242) that is arranged on a top portion of the assembling structure because the winches move the structure up and down. Id. The lifting occurs while the nacelles or towers are in the space between the tower and the foundation. Claim 1 also recites that the hoisting device support structure (210) [has]…protrusions for allowing the hoisting device to operate through said tower passages. Figures 2B show that the winches (242) exist in an overhanging region of the tower top, that extends forward beyond the main structure. This constitutes a protrusion that allows the hoisting device to operate in various spaces including the tower passage, which overlaps with a portion of the space in front of the tower. Figure 2D of Foo also shows the tower (210) has a support arrangement (224) for supporting a portion of the wind turbine at least when being within said space.
Interpretation 2
The space is instead defined to be where the upright tower segments sit waiting for installation. This is the region above the crane (32) and to the left of the tower (210). If one extends the area off the left side of the tower and the area up from the crane, the intersection defines the region in which four of the tower segments sit. As such, this space is defined by side portions of the assembling structure, namely the intersection of those sides’ extensions. The tower segments in this space sit on support blocks that are support arrangement[s] for supporting a portion of the wind turbine at least when being within said space. The tower passage is defined as the diagonal spaces connecting the space and the foundation, and the hoisting device is crane (320). Crane (320) sites at the top portion of a pillar which was defined to be a portion of the assembling structure. The crane is configured to move the its load bearing hook through the diagonal tower passages and the boom is a protrusion that allows this.
Under either interpretation, figures 7B-C shows a rotor blade manipulator (330) that is operatively connected to a portion of the assembling structure (the pillar below it) and is configured for bringing a root of a rotor blade in contact with a hub of the nacelle.
Claim 2 recites the support arrangement comprises a carriage movable along a track and configured for guiding and supporting a lower end portion of a wind turbine tower. Claim 2 is only rejected under interpretation 1. The support arrangement (224) is part of the tower (210) which is movable along a track as shown in figures 6B-C for the intended purpose of guiding and supporting a lower end portion of a wind turbine tower. Alternately, Foo teaches the tower has a dolly (218) moveable along a vertical track for guiding the lifting device. See Foo Fig. 2C & [0032].
Regarding claim 10, Foo teaches having two hoisting devices configured for being operated independently of each other namely the crane (320) and the lift (212). Claim 11 recites the tower passages comprise a first passage in a first side portion of the assembling structure for passing a wind turbine tower into the space, and a second passage in a second side portion of the assembling structure for passing an assembly of the wind turbine tower and a nacelle to a rotor blade assembly position at an outside of the assembling structure. Under interpretation 2, the diagonal tower passage is the first passage while the opposing side of the tower is shown in figure 7B allowing movement of rotor blades to the nacelle. Claim 12 recites a passage in a fourth side portion of the assembling structure, the passage configured for passage of an upright wind turbine tower that has been passed through the first passage, to a temporary storage area. This all constitutes intended use. The region on the back side of the tower (210) is capable of allowing vertical tower segments to be theoretically moved and stored. Regarding claim 13, Foo shows the base is a deck on top of a hull of a floating vessel. See Foo Fig. 6B.
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2010/0293781 to Foo.
Claim 3 recites that the support arrangement further comprising gripping means. The term gripping means is being interpreted in view of 112f as a means-plus-function limitation. The MPEP lays out a three-part test for determining if 112(f) should be invoked. See MPEP 2181. (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. While the 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. In this case, the term gripping means is equivalent to ‘means for gripping’ and is not modified by any further structures, only further intended uses (i.e. to engag[e] a portion of a wind turbine tower). The recitation that the gripping means [is] operatively connected to the assembling structure is not a structural limitation of the gripping means, but merely a recitation that the entire means (whatever it is) is then attached to the assembling structure. The specification indicates that the gripping means are gripping arms.
Foo does not explicitly teach gripping arms designed for the intended use of engaging a portion of a wind turbine tower. Rather, Foo teaches a static C frame (224) for supporting a tower and also dynamic gripping arms for gripping a nacelle, as shown in figure 3C. But 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). In this case, since Foo already teaches dynamic gripping elements can be attached to the tower structure (210), it follows that the (224) could be modified into a dynamic gripping element to better grip the tower segment.
Regarding claim 4, Foo teaches the C-frame is movably connected to the assembling structure via a power dolly (222) that moves along a guideway. See Foo [0033].
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 5-9 & 20 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
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.”