Detailed Action1
America Invents Act 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 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
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 3-4, 7, and 14-15 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites a pulley in line 5 and a hoist cable in line 7. It is unclear if these are referring to the same pulley/hoist cable as those introduced in claim 1, or if second pulleys and hoist/cables are being introduced. In addition, it is unclear if subsequent recitations of the pulley and the hoist cable are referring to the first or second pulley/hoist cable. In addition, it is unclear if the first coupling step is narrowing the first coupling step of claim 1, or is a separate coupling step.
Claim 4 recites a pulley in line 3 and a hoist cable in line 4. It is unclear if these are referring to the same pulley/hoist cable as those introduced in claim 1, or if second pulleys and hoist/cables are being introduced. In addition, it is unclear if subsequent recitations of the pulley and the hoist cable are referring to the first or second pulley/hoist cable.
Claim 7 recites a pulley in line 5 and a hoist cable in line 6. It is unclear if these are referring to the same pulley/hoist cable as those introduced in claim 1, or if second pulleys and hoist/cables are being introduced. In addition, it is unclear if subsequent recitations of the pulley and the hoist cable are referring to the first or second pulley/hoist cable.
Claim 7 also recites an adjacent one of the plurality of blades. It is unclear what the blade has to be adjacent to. The claim up to this point does not require any component to be coupled to a blade.
Claim 14 recites the second cable and/or the third cable. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations.
Claim 15 recites preferably … . It is unclear if the limitation after “preferably” is a required limitation or is optional. For purposes of examination, the limitation after “preferably” will be interpreted as optional.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2021/0270241 (“Svinth”).
Claim 1 recites a method of installing a cable system including a cable assembly on a wind turbine including a tower and a rotor, the rotor having a central hub with a plurality of blades coupled to the central hub, the cable assembly including a first cable. Svinth is directed to removing a wind turbine blade from a wind turbine having a tower 3 and a rotor with a central hub 5 and a plurality of blades 6 via a system that includes installing wires/cables on a blade (figs. 1-11, ¶ [0199] & [0205]-[0213]). Claim 1 recites the method comprising: coupling a pulley to the hub or to one of the plurality of blades. Svinth teaches to install winch 24, auxiliary equipment 23, and equipment 25 in central hub 5 (fig. 2, ¶ [0205]-[0207]). One of skill in the art will reasonably infer that equipment 24 has a pulley thereon since the direction of the hoist cable changes on equipment 23, and, it is common to have pulleys at locations where a hoist cable changes direction. Without a pulley much more effort will be required to move a load and it is more likely the hoist cable and/or equipment 23 will be damaged. Assuming arguendo that one of skill in the art would not infer this, an alternate 103 rejection is made below.
Svinth further teaches operatively coupling a hoist cable to the pulley (fig. 2-3, the hoist cable provided from winch 24 and extending around equipment 23 including the pulleys thereon); attaching the hoist cable to the first cable (17) (fig. 4, ¶ [0208]); pulling the hoist cable to draw the first cable (17) toward the pulley (fig. 4, ¶ [0208]); and coupling the first cable to the hub or to the one of the plurality of blades (fig. 6, ¶ [0210], i.e. coupled to blade).
Claim 5 recites the cable assembly is prepositioned at the central hub, the method further comprising lowering the cable assembly including the first cable from the central hub. As illustrated in fig. 6 of Svinth, prior to lowering the blade, at least the first cable 17 of the cable assembly is prepositioned at the central hub. Subsequently, first cable 17 is lowered from the central hub to lower the blade (figs. 7-11, ¶ [0211]-[0216]).
Claim 11 recites coupling the first cable includes holding the cable assembly in position with the hoist cable while coupling the first cable to the hub or to the one of the plurality of blades. As illustrated in figures 4 & 6, the first cable is supported by the end of the hoist cable when the first cable is attached to the blade. Since the first cable 17 is supported by the pulley-shaped component at the end of the hoist cable in each of figures 4 & 6, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the first cable will remain supported on the pulley-shaped component during attachment to the blade.
Regarding claim 15, Svinth further teaches pulling the hoist cable includes operating a winch to draw the hoist cable onto the winch (fig. 4, ¶ [0206]-[0208], wherein winch 24 pulls the hoist cable).
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 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 1-2, 5, 8-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svinth.
Regarding claim 1, Svinth teaches all the limitations as detailed in the 102 rejection above. Assuming arguendo that one of skill in the art would not infer the equipment 23 comprising pulleys, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art of winches/hoisting equipment for pulleys to be present where a hoist cable changes directions. Pulleys make it easier to move loads and allow the hoist cable to change directions without rubbing on non-moving objects/surfaces which can increase friction and cause damage to the hoist cable and/or surfaces. Thus, in order to decrease friction, prevent damage to the hoisting equipment, and make it easier to move loads, it would be obvious to have pulley at each end of the equipment 23 illustrated in fig. 2 of Svinth (since the hoist cable changes direction at each end of equipment 23).
Regarding claim 2, Svinth further teaches coupling the first cable includes coupling the first cable to the one of the plurality of blades (fig. 6, ¶ [0210]). Claim 2 also recites the cable assembly includes a second cable that is coupled to the hub or to another blade of the plurality of blades. When removing a blade, Svinth teaches to couple cables 19/21 to the blade via element 9 (fig. 6, ¶ [0209]). Thus, when repeating the blade removal process for a another/second blade, second cable 19 will be coupled to the another blade.
While Svinth fails to explicitly teach performing the removal process for another one of the blades, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known to remove multiple blades of a wind turbine (for example during decommissioning or upgrading). Thus, it would be obvious to use the method of Svinth to remove multiple blades of a wind turbine.
Claim 5 recites the cable assembly is prepositioned at the central hub, the method further comprising lowering the cable assembly including the first cable from the central hub. As illustrated in fig. 6 of Svinth, prior to lowering the blade, at least the first cable 17 of the cable assembly is prepositioned at the central hub. Subsequently, first cable 17 is lowered from the central hub to lower the blade (figs. 7-11, ¶ [0211]-[0216]).
Regarding claim 8, Svinth further teaches wherein coupling the first cable includes coupling the first cable to the one of the plurality of blades (fig. 6, ¶ [0210]). Claim 8 also recites the cable assembly includes a second cable and at least the first and second cables of the cable assembly are prepositioned on another of the plurality of blades, the method further comprising: coupling the second cable to the another of the blades. When removing a blade, Svinth teaches to couple cables 19/21 to the blade via element 9 (fig. 6, ¶ [0209]). Thus, when repeating the blade removal process for a another/second blade, first and second cables 17 & 19 will be coupled to the another blade so that they are prepositioned on the another blade prior to removing and lowering the blade.
While Svinth fails to explicitly teach performing the removal process for another one of the blades, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known to remove multiple blades of a wind turbine (for example during decommissioning or upgrading). Thus, it would be obvious to use the method of Svinth to remove multiple blades of a wind turbine.
Regarding claim 9, Svinth further teaches the cable assembly includes a third cable (26) (fig. 8), the method further comprising coupling the third cable to the central hub (fig. 8, ¶ [0212], wherein cable 26 has one end attached to equipment 23 within the hub 5—thus, is coupled to the hub via the equipment).
Claim 10 recites the first cable is temporarily connected to the another of the plurality of blades, the method further comprising disconnecting the first cable from the another of the plurality of blades. Since the cables will be removed from the blade after the removal process is complete, the first cable is temporarily connected to the another blade since it is disconnected from the another blade after the removal process.
Claim 11 recites coupling the first cable includes holding the cable assembly in position with the hoist cable while coupling the first cable to the hub or to the one of the plurality of blades. As illustrated in figures 4 & 6, the first cable is supported by the end of the hoist cable when the first cable is attached to the blade. Since the first cable 17 is supported by the pulley-shaped component at the end of the hoist cable in each of figures 4 & 6, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer that the first cable will remain supported on the pulley-shaped component during attachment to the blade.
Claim 12 recites rotating the rotor; and installing a second cable assembly on the rotor. While Svinth fails to explicitly teach performing the removal process for another one of the blades, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known to remove multiple blades of a wind turbine (for example during decommissioning or upgrading). Thus, it would be obvious to use the method of Svinth to remove multiple blades of a wind turbine.
Given the above modification, it would be obvious to repeat the steps to remove a second blade, including rotating the rotor so the second blade is extending downward as illustrated in figs. 1 & 5 of Svinth. Further, Svinth teaches to couple other cable assemblies 18/19 & 20/21 to the blade via element 9 (fig. 6, ¶ [0209]). Thus, when repeating the blade removal process for another/second blade, second cable assembly 18/19 will be coupled to the another blade which is part of the rotor.
Regarding claim 15, Svinth further teaches pulling the hoist cable includes operating a winch to draw the hoist cable onto the winch (fig. 4, ¶ [0206]-[0208], wherein winch 24 pulls the hoist cable).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are allowed.
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 3-4, 7, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections 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 for claim 16: since Svinth teaches removing parts of an already installed wind turbine, it would not be obvious to use the method of Svinth when installing a wind turbine, including installing a central hub on the tower and installing a plurality of blades on the central hub.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights