DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species A in the reply filed on November 18, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of Species A and B are sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one group would necessarily encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining groups, and there is thus no serious burden placed on the examiner to examine the entire set of claims. This is not found persuasive because a primary form of evidence of a burden on the examiner is a showing of divergent subject matter. Such is the case there. The elected claims are directed to the embodiment depicted in Figure 1, while the non-elected claims are directed to a separate embodiment depicted in Figures 2 – 4. A search of the elected invention would not require a search of the non-elected inventions. Having to perform two separate, non-overlapping searches in a single application would indeed be a burden on the examiner
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11 – 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention and/or Species (Invention II and/or Species B), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 18, 2025.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters (“L,” “L1,” and “L2”) which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
The limitation “cutting means,” as set forth in claim 1, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses the term “means.”
(B) The term “means” is modified by functional language (“for cutting through the wind turbine blade ...”).
(C) The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “cutting means” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a diamond wire saw,’ as taught by the Specification (page 3, line 5), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “lowering means,” as set forth in claim 1, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses the term “means.”
(B) The term “means” is modified by functional language (“for lowering the distal part of the wind turbine blade relative to the proximal part”).
(C) The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “lowering means” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of winches, wherein each of the plurality of winches are connected to a winch cable,’ as taught by the Specification (page 3, line 5 and page 6, lines 14 - 18), or a functional equivalent thereof. Examiner notes that the ‘lowering means’ of the Specification requires at least two winches, so as to perform the claimed function of lowering the distal part relative to the proximal part (figure 1, elements 111 and 113 and figures 2 and 3, elements 211 and 213; page 6, lines 14 – 18).
The limitation “support means,” as set forth in claim 1, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses the term “means.”
(B) The term “means” is modified by functional language (“for supporting the cutting means and the lowering means”).
(C) The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “support means” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a first elongated beam part and a second elongated beam part,’ as taught by the Specification (page 5, lines 28 - 32), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “clamping means,” as set forth in claim 1, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses the term “means.”
(B) The term “means” is modified by functional language (“for clamping the support means to wind turbine blade”).
(C) The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “clamping means” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a plurality of suction clamps,’ as taught by the Specification (page 3, lines 4 - 5), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “first clamping means,” as set forth in claim 2, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses the term “means.”
(B) The term “means” is modified by functional language (“for clamping the support means to the proximal part”).
(C) The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “first clamping means” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a first suction clamp,’ as taught by the Specification (page 3, lines 4 – 5), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “second clamping means,” as set forth in claim 2, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses the term “means.”
(B) The term “means” is modified by functional language (“for clamping the support means to the distal part”).
(C) The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “second clamping means” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a second suction clamp,’ as taught by the Specification (page 3, lines 4 – 5), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “first support element,” as set forth in claim 2, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“for supporting the first clamping means”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “first support element” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a first beam part,’ as taught by the Specification (page 5, lines 28 - 32), or a functional equivalent thereof.
The limitation “second support element,” as set forth in claim 2, invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because:
(A) The limitation uses a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function (“element”).
(B) The generic placeholder is modified by functional language (“for supporting the second clamping means”).
(C) The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Due to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the limitation “second support element” will be interpreted so as to comprise ‘a second beam part,’ as taught by the Specification (page 5, lines 28 - 32), or a functional equivalent thereof.
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 1 – 10 and 14 – 20 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 1 recites the limitation “wind turbine blade” in the last paragraph. It is unclear as to whether Applicant intends the limitation to refer to the ‘wind turbine blade’ previously set forth in the claim, or whether Applicant intends to set forth a second ‘wind turbine blade’ which is separate and independent from the ‘wind turbine blade’ previously set forth. For the purposes of this Office Action, Examiner will interpret the limitation as “the wind turbine blade.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Denson (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0340445).
As to claim 1, Denson teaches a blade decommissioning tool for decommissioning an installed wind turbine blade (abstract), comprising: cutting means for cutting through the wind turbine blade in a transversal direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the wind turbine blade to form a proximal and distal part of the wind turbine blade (figure 5, element 504 being the ‘cutting means’; paragraph 26). Examiner notes that Denson teaches the cutting means comprising an undercut saw (figure 5, element 504; paragraph 26), which is a functional equivalent to ‘a diamond wire saw.’ Denson further teaches a lowering means for lowering the distal part of the wind turbine blade relative to the proximal part (figure 5, element 509 being the ‘lowering means’; paragraph 57). Examiner notes that Denson teaches the lowering means comprising a loader (figure 5, element 509; paragraph 57), which is a functional equivalent to ‘a plurality of winches, wherein each of the plurality of winches are connected to a winch cable.’ This can be found because Denson expressly teaches the loader being used to raise and lower the distal part of the wind turbine blade relative to the proximal part of the wind turbine blade (figure 5, elements 509; paragraph 27). Denson further teaches a support means for supporting the cutting means and the lowering means (figure 5, element 505 being the ‘support means’; paragraphs 26 and 27). Examiner notes that Denson teaches the support means comprising a single elongated beam part (figure 5, element 505; paragraph 26), which is a functional equivalent to a first and second elongated beam part. Examiner further notes that the support means of Denson acts to ‘support’ the lowering means because “support” is commonly defined by Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary as “to assist or help” and Denson expressly teaches that the support means is connected to the lowering means and acts to ‘assist or help’ the lowering means raise and lower the turbine blade (figure 5, elements 505 and 509; paragraph 27). Denson further teaches clamping means for clamping the support means to the wind turbine blade (figure 5, elements 503 being the ‘clamping means’; paragraph 27). Examiner notes that Denson teaches the clamping means comprising a plurality of spar stabilizing plates (figure 5, elements 503; paragraph 27), which is a functional equivalent to a plurality of suction clamps. This is because Denson expressly teaches that the spar stabilizing plates act to clamp the support means to the wind turbine blade (figure 5, elements 503 and 505; paragraph 29).
As to claim 8, Denson teaches the support means are formed by an elongated beam extending in the longitudinal direction (figure 5, element 505; paragraph 27).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grishauge (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0130078).
As to claim 9, Denson teaches the clamping means comprising spar stabilizing plates (figure 5, elements 503; paragraph 27), rather than suction clamps. Grishauge teaches a clamping means for clamping a support means to a wind turbine blade (figure 4, elements 20 being the ‘suction clamps’; paragraph 37). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the stabilizing plates of Denson for the suction clamps of Grishauge, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that either stabilizing plates or suction clamps would provide the same benefit of clamping the support means of Denson to a wind turbine blade, as desired by Denson (paragraph 27).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clark (U.S. Patent Number 9,919,370).
As to claim 10, Denson teaches the cutting means comprising an undercut saw (figure 5, element 504; paragraph 26), rather than a diamond wire saw. Clark teaches a cutting means for cutting through a wind turbine blade in a transversal direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the wind turbine blade to form a proximal and distal part of the wind turbine blade (figure 1, element 10 being the ‘cutting means’; column 6, lines 46 - 64), wherein the cutting means comprising a diamond wire saw (column 11, lines 14 – 18). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute the undersaw saw of Denson for the diamond wire saw of Clark, because one skilled in the art would have appreciated that either an undercut saw or a diamond wire saw would provide the same benefit of cutting through a wind turbine blade, as desired by Denson (paragraph 26).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 7 and 14 – 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.
Regarding claim 2, Denson further teaches that the clamping means comprise a first clamping means for clamping the support means to the proximal part (figure 5, a first element 503 being the ‘first clamping means’; paragraph 27) and a second clamping means for clamping the support means to the distal part (figure 5, a second element 503 being the ‘second clamping means’; paragraph 27).
However, Denson does not teach, either expressly or implicitly, the support means comprising two releasably connected support elements consisting of a first support element, of a ‘first beam part,’ for supporting the first clamping means and a second support element, of a second beam part, for supporting the second clamping means, and wherein the lowering means are provided on the first support element, releasably connected to the second support element, and configured to lower the second support element relative to the first support element, as recited by claim 2. This is because Denson teaches the support means comprising a single support element of a single beam part (figure 5, element 505).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BESLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:30 am - 7:30 pm (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.
/CHRISTOPHER J. BESLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726