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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes figure element numbers. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0026 includes the “top side of beam 40” and “bottom side of beam 40” as elements 45 and 47, respectively. These are previously listed as 40T and 40B, respectively, in the specification as well as the drawings.
Paragraph 0028 includes the “second portion” as element 51. This was previously listed as element 50B in the specification as well as the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites 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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the vacuum tank" which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which vacuum tank is being referred to.
Claim 1, on which claim 5 is dependent, recites the limitation “each first and second vacuum system including a vacuum tank”. That recitation is interpreted to mean that there are two vacuum tanks, one for the first vacuum system and one for the second. Claim 5 does not sufficiently specify which of the two tanks is being referenced. This confusion should be rectified in the claim. For examination purposes, claim 5 is being interpreted as “one or more of the vacuum tanks” to account for all possible combinations.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secibovic (US 2022/0033199 A1) in view of Mogensen (US 2026/0145914).
Regarding claim 1, Secibovic teaches
A vacuum material handler adapted (Paragraph 0001, the vacuum gripper system of Secibovic is interpreted to be capable of lifting a wind turbine rotor blade, what a vacuum system lifts is intended use) to lift a wind turbine rotor blade, the vacuum material handing including:
a longitudinally extending main beam (Figure 2, support part 5; Paragraph 0064);
a first vacuum system (Figure 2, first vacuum generator 8; Paragraphs 0009, 0068) and a second vacuum system (Figure 2, second vacuum generator 10; Paragraphs 0009, 0068) connected to the longitudinally extending main beam (Figure 1, see 5, 8, and 10),
each first and second vacuum system including a vacuum tank (Figure 2, vacuum tank 18; Paragraph 0012, separate vacuum tank),
each first and second vacuum system including a plurality of valves (Paragraphs 0010, valve or similar vacuum switches, 0023, valves and/or switches) in fluid communication with the vacuum tank,
and a plurality of vacuum lifting pads (Figure 2, suction elements 4; Paragraph 0009, 0067, plurality of suction elements);
each vacuum lifting pad being in fluid communication with a corresponding one of the valves (Figure 2, suction elements 4; Paragraphs 0010, 0023, each have a valve)
and arranged to pivot in a upward and a downward direction fore and aft and side to side (Paragraph 0077, pivotably attached);
and adjacent vacuum lifting pads of the plurality of vacuum lifting pads being in fluid communication with a different vacuum system than one another (Figure 3a, first vacuum circuit 9 and second vacuum circuit 11; Paragraph 0009, switching of the first vacuum circuit to the second vacuum circuit).
Secibovic fails to fully teach a first and second vacuum tank. While it does teach the second vacuum circuit having a vacuum tank separate from the first vacuum circuit (Figure 2 vacuum tank 18; Paragraph 0012, separate vacuum tank), there is no direct mention of a vacuum tank attached to the first vacuum circuit. It is understood in the art that such a vacuum system can commonly have a tank attached to it and in turn it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add it to the system taught by Secibovic as a means of redundancy. However, since it does not explicitly teach both the first and second vacuum system having an associated tank it does not fully anticipate the claim.
However, Mogensen teaches a plurality of vacuum tanks (Figure 2B, local vacuum reservoirs 40; Paragraph 0059, local vacuum reservoirs) attached locally to each vacuum system and/or vacuum lifting pads (Paragraph 0110, A vacuum at the vacuum gripper may be provided by a vacuum pump (not shown) connected to the vacuum gripper for providing suction. The vacuum pump may be connected to a local vacuum reservoir).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Secibovic to incorporate the teachings of Mogensen by adding an additional tank to the first vacuum system, creating a vacuum gripper which has a first and second vacuum system with a tank and a plurality of valves in coordination with a plurality of vacuum pads. This addition would be motivated as a safety means as the independent vacuum tanks would ensure that suction is provided even if there is a power loss (Mogensen Paragraph 0060, The local vacuum reservoir will also ensure that suction is provided even if there is a power loss, and the one or more vacuum pumps are no longer able to provide suction then the grip is not lost immediately).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Mogensen because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (lifting apparatuses), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teaching above for claim 1, Secibovic further teaches
wherein the adjacent vacuum lifting pads each comprise a pair a lifting pads (Figure 3a, first vacuum circuit 9 and second vacuum circuit 11; Paragraph 0009).
The broadest reasonable interpretation for adjacency would cover adjacent pads in any given direction. Based on figure 3a, it can be seen that, along the diagonals, one could group vacuum pads on the first vacuum circuit into pairs which would still be adjacent to another set of pairs on the second vacuum circuit.
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the teaching above for claim 1, Secibovic further teaches
wherein the adjacent lifting pads are located on opposite sides of the longitudinally extending main beam from one another (Figure 2, support part 5, and Figure 3a, first vacuum circuit 9and second vacuum circuit 11; Paragraph 0009).
Assuming the support part seen in figure 2 is located between columns 2 and 3 of the suction pads of figure 3a, it can be seen in columns 2 and 3 of the suction pads of figure 3a that adjacent pairs corresponding to a first and second vacuum circuit would be located on opposing sides of the support part.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the teaching above for claim 1, Secibovic further teaches
wherein the adjacent lifting pads are located on a same side of the longitudinally extending main beam from one another (Figure 2, support part 5, and Figure 3a, first vacuum circuit 9 and second vacuum circuit 11; Paragraph 0009).
Assuming the support part seen in figure 2 is located between columns 2 and 3 of the suction pads of figure 3a, it can be seen in columns 1 and 2 or columns 3 and 4 of the suction pads of figure 3a that adjacent pairs corresponding to a first and second vacuum circuit would be located on the same sides of the support part.
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the teaching above for claim 1, Secibovic further teaches
A method for handling a wind turbine rotor blade for connection to a hub of a wind turbine (see at least method Claims 14-18), the method comprising:
positioning the vacuum material handler of claim 1 directly above the wind turbine rotor blade (Claim 14, providing the automated vacuum gripper);
lowering the vacuum material handler to place the lifting pads in contact with portions of the wind turbine rotor blade (Claim 14, picking a component up by means of the vacuum gripper by creating a vacuum at at least one suction element and a surface of the component);
applying a vacuum to the lifting pads (Claim 14, picking a component up by means of the vacuum gripper by creating a vacuum at at least one suction element and a surface of the component);
after the applying, lifting the wind turbine rotor blade for connection to the hub of the wind turbine (Claim 14, conveying the component to a predeterminable destination);
during the connection, continuing the applying (Claim 14, continuously monitoring the vacuum of the first vacuum circuit);
and, after the connection, releasing the vacuum (Claim 14, continuously monitoring the vacuum of the first vacuum circuit; it is implied that a release of vacuum will occur after a component is moved to the desired location properly placed and secured.).
Claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secibovic (US 2022/0033199 A1) in view of Mogensen (US 2026/0145914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Littell (US 2,890,077).
While Secibovic in view of Mogensen teaches fully for claim 1 as described above, it fails to teach wherein the vacuum tank is at least partially housed by the longitudinally extending main beam.
However, Littell teaches a C-frame which provides a housing for a vacuum tank (Column 1, Lines 50-54, vacuum tank 35, Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Secibovic with the teachings of Mogensen as described as above as well as with the teachings of Littell to incorporate the vacuum tank of the system within the main beam itself to provide the benefit of having the vacuum tanks move with the vacuum pads (Littell Column 7, Lines 16-20, the vacuum tank must rotate with the section cups).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had the capability to combine these systems and would have recognized that the combination would yield predictable results. Furthermore, each element in the combined context would perform the same function they did separately.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Mogensen and Littell because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (lifting apparatuses), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Secibovic (US 2022/0033199 A1) in view of Mogensen (US 2026/0145914) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ANVER cited in the IDS filed 6/19/2025.
While Secibovic in view of Mogensen teaches fully for claim 1 as described above, it fails to teach wherein the first and second vacuum systems each meet at least a 2:1 vacuum lifting standard.
However, ANVER teaches the ASME B30.20 standard for having a horizontal lift safety factor of 2 to 1 (ANVER, Horizontal lift safety factor of 2 to 1 at 24* Hg. Sea level). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Secibovic with the teachings of Mogensen as described as above as well as with the teachings of ANVER to ensure the vacuum systems meet the ASME B30.20 standard described. They would be motivated to do such as the ASME standard is a known standard in the art and meeting such a standard is optimal for commercial viability and product safety.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Mogensen and ANVER because they are in the same field of endeavor directed to the same technology (lifting apparatuses), which would prompt its use based on design improvements that are predictable and recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, while prior art teaches vacuum systems with a main longitudinal beam and a plurality of vacuum systems with a corresponding plurality of pivotable vacuum pads, it fails to teach the further incorporation of a smaller longitudinal beam (or beams) attached to the bottom of the main longitudinal beam and running in the same direction. Prior art teaches systems which have lateral beams attached to a main longitudinal beam. However, since claim 6 specifies the direction of this beam as running in the same direction, it is considered to distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claims 7-13, since they are dependent on claim 6 and further limit the system, they likewise are considered to have allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure [See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited] because the prior art references contain subject matter that related to one or more of the Applicant’s claim limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN THOMAS KOSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7277. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:00 am - 4:30 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, Jacob S Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/J.T.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights