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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Lifting mechanism (e.g. claim 16) - jack screw associated with pressure/suction-side columns; pneumatic/hydraulic actuator (page 14)
pressure side driving unit (e.g. claim 24) - see above
suction side driving unit (e.g. claim 24) - see above
lift control unit (e.g. claim 24) - no corresponding structure
rotating system (e.g. claims 27, 30) - no corresponding structure
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 should include punctuation such as a semicolon following “ground” in line 3.
Claim 26 recites “(115)” in line 3. While not necessarily problematic, the examiner presumes this was intended but overlooked for omission.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 16-27 and 30 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 16 recites the limitation "the region" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “the supporting surface is configured to conform to the leading edge of the wind turbine blade”. The claim is thus attempting to limit the structure of the supporting surface in view of a non-positively recited and not specifically described element. It is not necessarily clear how the structure of the supporting surface would be limited.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the supporting surface is further configured to conform to a region of a pressure side and a region of a suction side of the wind turbine blade”. Similarly to the above, the claim is thus attempting to limit the structure of the supporting surface in view of a non-positively recited and not specifically described element.
Claim limitations “lift control unit” and “rotating system” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on at least one claim discussed above.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, claim limitations “lift control unit” and “rotating system” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Referring to MPEP 2181 IV., a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
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.
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 16-24 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Üyünük et al. (U.S. PGPub 2021/0086345).
Claim 16: Üyünük et al. discloses a tool (200) for supporting a wind turbine blade in a post-moulding position (implied in paragraph 3), comprising: a base (210) configured to rest on a ground (it would be capable of this); a support structure (250, 300), the support structure comprising a supporting surface configured to receive and support an outer surface of the region of the wind turbine blade with the wind turbine blade oriented such that a leading edge of the wind turbine blade is oriented towards the ground (Figs. 2-4, 6, 8, 11); a lifting mechanism (220, 225 - paragraph 50) configured with the support structure to move the support structure upwards or downwards relative to the base (paragraphs 50-51), the base further comprising: a connecting structure (generally the horizontal framework of the base, see e.g. Fig. 2) configured for placement under the leading edge of the wind turbine blade (Id.); and a pressure side column (left 220) and a suction side column (right 220). Üyünük further discloses that the tool (200) can be comprised of a plurality of discrete units which can be joined together or otherwise connected to receive and support a wind turbine blade, e.g. such that the frame (220) can be a two-piece structure that is releasably joined and locked together with a clamp or pin, joined along the bottom via interconnecting struts that extend underneath the blade (paragraph 41). This strongly implies that the columns (220), as discrete units, would be removably attached to the connecting structure (the interconnecting struts that extend underneath the blade). Otherwise, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made any of the aforementioned parts, such as the columns and connecting structure, relatively removable toward the goal of forming a joinable unit as discussed, for example to aid packaging for transport or assembly.
Claims 17-18: The supporting surface is configured to conform to the leading edge of the wind turbine blade, and further configured to conform to a region of a pressure side and a region of a suction side of the wind turbine blade (e.g. Figs. 2-3; paragraph 40). The interior is also cushioned, which would presumably conform to the airfoil shape.
Claim 19: The supporting surface (300) comprises a pressure side fitting surface (left side in Fig. 3) that engages against the region of the pressure side and a suction side fitting surface (right side) that engages against the region of the suction side.
Claim 20: The supporting surface comprises one or more pads (cushioning material - paragraph 40) or one or more straps (250).
Claim 21: A plurality of the straps (250) are arranged along a lengthwise direction from a root side to a tip side of the support structure (Figs. 2, 6).
Claim 22: The support structure comprises a cradle (300) having an opening to receive the region of the wind turbine blade (paragraph 40; evident in figures), and wherein the supporting surface is arranged at the opening of the cradle (i.e. surrounding/defining the opening).
Claim 23: The pressure side column and the suction side column (220) are configured to guide a lifting and lowering movement of the support structure (paragraphs 50-51).
Claim 24: The lifting mechanism comprises: a pressure side driving unit (left side piston 225) associated with the pressure side column and a suction side driving unit (right side piston 225) associated with the suction side column, the pressure side and suction side driving units configured to drive the lifting and lowering movement of the support structure along the pressure side and suction side columns (as cited above); and a lift control unit configured to control an operation of the pressure side and suction side driving units (e.g. implied at paragraphs 51, 54).
Claim 27: Üyünük discloses a supporting assembly (1000) for supporting a wind turbine blade in a post-moulding position (implied in paragraph 3), the supporting assembly comprising: the tool according to claim 16 (as discussed above); and a rotating system (100) configured to rotate the wind turbine blade about a longitudinal axis of the wind turbine blade (paragraph 56).
Claim 28: Üyünük discloses a method for supporting a wind turbine blade during post-moulding operations (implied in paragraph 3), the method comprising: positioning a leading edge of the wind turbine blade to face a ground (e.g. Figs. 1-2); arranging a connecting structure of a base (210) of a tool (200) on the ground to face the leading edge of the wind turbine blade (e.g. Fig. 2); attaching a removable pressure side column and a removable suction side column (220/225) to the connecting structure of the tool (implied as separate parts - paragraph 41 and as discussed for claim 16 above; the columns must be attached at some point to result in the shown assembly); lifting a support structure (250, 300) of the tool to receive a region of the wind turbine blade (implied paragraphs 49-51); receiving and supporting an outer surface of the region of the wind turbine blade with a supporting surface of the support structure (e.g. Figs 1-2); and lowering the support structure to lower the region of the wind turbine blade (implied paragraphs 49-51 - the lowered/collapsed position being for blade loading and unloading).
Claim 29: Üyünük further discloses arranging the tool (200) at a position between half of a length of the wind turbine blade and a tip end of the wind turbine blade (Fig. 1 - the tool is positioned what appears to be to the right of a half-length of the blade and to the left of the tip at the rightmost end).
Claim 30: The method implicitly comprises removing a rotating system (100) from the wind turbine blade used to rotate the wind turbine blade about its longitudinal axis (removal of the rotating system 100 would be required to place the manufactured blade into service and to reuse the system for a subsequent blade).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Üyünük in view of Andresen (U.S. PGPub 2023/0137516).
Üyünük further discloses that the pistons 225 may be actuated via electrical, pneumatic or hydraulic means (paragraph 50), but not necessarily wherein the lifting mechanism comprises a screw jack associated with the pressure side column and the pressure side driving unit, and a screw jack associated with the suction side column and the suction side driving unit. However, Andresen teaches a similar tool wherein the lifting apparatus may comprise screw jacks (threaded rods powered by an electric motor) as an alternative to hydraulic pistons, for example (paragraph 56). Because both references teach similar piston means, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted one for the other to achieve the predictable result of providing a powered lifting mechanism (MPEP 2143 I. B.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Üyünük is the closest art of record, but lacks a pressure side support leg hingedly attached to the pressure side column and a suction side support leg hingedly attached to the suction side column, the pressure side and suction side support legs movable from a folded position to a deployed position in which a distal end of the pressure side and suction side support legs rest on the ground. The prior art of record fails to cure this deficiency.
U.S. PGPub 2020/0017337 teaches braces 62 extending from a telescoping column for a turbine component support structure, but the braces are welded to a deck surface of a vessel and are not hingedly attached as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NL 2016168 discloses a similar sling-style support for a wind turbine blade with adjustable support columns.
U.S. PGPub 2019/0154006 discloses a sling-style blade support.
U.S. PGPub 2014/0064870 discloses a turbine blade support with telescoping columns and a support surface conforming to the blade.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P TRAVERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3218. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:30PM.
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, Sunil K. 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.
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.
/Matthew P Travers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights