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 Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of claim 12, there appears to be a typographical error where “2=” is written. Please amend this claim accordingly.
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 10 and 11 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 10 recites the limitation "terminal blade parts" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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: clamping means in claim 11.
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. The corresponding structure for the clamping means is being interpreted as the clamping groove as mentioned in para. [0030] of the specification.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Olsen (US 5,297,373).
Regarding claim 1, Olsen discloses a louver (10, 10’) configured to be fixated to a nacelle of a wind turbine (intended use that the louver of Olsen is capable of meeting), comprising a rectangular frame (Figs. 1-5) having a bottom frame part (12, 12’), a top frame part (14, 14’) and two side frame parts (16, 16’), and a number of louver blades (18, 18’) extending between the side frame parts, characterized in that each louver blade consists of at least two blade parts connected via respective connection interfaces provided at the blade parts (as shown in Fig. 5, see the connection at 183’, 185; Col. 6, lines 17-24), wherein at least one gutter (185a; Fig. 3) for catching a fluid is provided at one of the blade parts.
Regarding claim 2, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 1, wherein each louver blade comprises fixation interfaces (the interface at the ends of 185 and/or 183 that attach to the frames) for fixating the louver blade to the frame.
Regarding claim 3, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 2, wherein each louver blade has a first (the side at 185) and a second (the side at 183) blade side, wherein the first blade side is flat (as shown in Fig. 3) and wherein the connection interfaces, the gutter and the fixation interfaces extend to the second side (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 1, wherein the gutter is provided in the area of a connection interface. (Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 6, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 1, wherein the connecting interfaces build a clamping connection (183’ and 185 comprise a clamping connection).
Regarding claim 7, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 6, wherein the connection interfaces are tongue-and-groove-joints. (Figs. 1-5)
Regarding claim 8, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 5, wherein each connection interface comprises a tongue and a groove (see the tongue and groove at the connection at 183’ and 185 as shown in Fig. 5), wherein the tongue of one connection interface engages into the groove of the other connection interface. (Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 9, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 8, wherein each connection interface comprises a receiving groove (the groove portion of 183’ that receives 185 as shown in Fig. 5), wherein the receiving grooves complement each other for a closed receiving space, into which a rod-like clamping element is inserted (note that this is a functional limitation that the louver of Olsen is capable of meeting).
Regarding claim 10, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 1, wherein the fixation interfaces are arranged at the ends of the terminal blade parts. (Fig. 5)
Regarding claim 11, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 10, wherein each fixation interface comprises a clamping means (186f and 186r) configured to build a clamping connection for fixating the louver blade to the frame.
Regarding claim 12, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 11, wherein the clamping means is a clamping groove, into which a clamping element attached to the frame 2= is inserted. (Col. 5, lines 15-25)
Regarding claim 13, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 1, wherein the blade parts are made of metal, especially aluminum. (Col. 4, lines 3-21)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olsen.
Regarding claim 4, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the connection interfaces, the gutter and the fixation interfaces extend from the second side for a maximum of 20 mm, or a maximum of 15 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the gutter and fixation interfaces of Olsen to extend from the second side for a maximum of 20 mm, or a maximum of 15 mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Olsen would not operate differently with the claim dimensions.
Regarding claim 14, Olsen further discloses the louver according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the louver blades are arranged in the frame with an angle of 150-60°, or between 20°-40° to the plane of the frame opening and/or that the louver blades have a length between 120-300 mm, or 150-250 mm, and/or the distance between two louver blades is between 50-100 mm, or between 60-80 mm.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the louver of Olsen such that the louver blades are arranged in the frame with an angle of 150-60°, or between 20°-40° to the plane of the frame opening and/or that the louver blades have a length between 120-300 mm, or 150-250 mm, and/or the distance between two louver blades is between 50-100 mm, or between 60-80 mm since applicant has not disclosed that having the louver blades are arranged in the frame with an angle of 150-60°, or between 20°-40° to the plane of the frame opening and/or that the louver blades have a length between 120-300 mm, or 150-250 mm, and/or the distance between two louver blades is between 50-100 mm, or between 60-80 mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs.
Furthermore, absent a teaching as to criticality that the louver blades are arranged in the frame with an angle of 150-60°, or between 20°-40° to the plane of the frame opening and/or that the louver blades have a length between 120-300 mm, or 150-250 mm, and/or the distance between two louver blades is between 50-100 mm, or between 60-80 mm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In this case, Applicant fails to establish criticality in the specification for each of the claimed angles and dimensions.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodriguez et al. (US 2022/0057102, hereafter “Rodriguez”) in view of Olsen.
Regarding claim 15, Rodriguez discloses a wind turbine, comprising a generator and a nacelle, wherein one or more louvers are arranged at the nacelle for guiding air provided from the generator to the surrounding of the nacelle (Figs. 1-7; para. [0001] – [0011]), but fails to disclose one or more louvers according to claim 1.
Olsen teaches one or more louvers according to claim 1.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the one or more louvers of Rodriguez to include the details of the one or more louvers as taught by Olsen for the purpose of utilizing the louvers of Olsen in an alternative device such as a wind turbine of Rodriguez in which louvers are known and desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571 272-4881. 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights