DETAILED ACTION1
CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim 4 is objected to for a grammatical error. In step (d), the claim places a comma after the word distance. But there is not second comma denoting the end of the clause. The comma should either be removed or a second comma placed where desired and appropriate.
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.
Claim 4 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites a method for lifting a wind turbine component, such as a rotor blade, gearbox, or a rotor. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). If applicant chooses to place this phrase in a dependent claim, they should add the word ‘a’ prior to the word gearbox. For purposes of examination, claim 4 is interpreted as being any of the three components.
Claim 4 recites lifting a wind turbine component…using a lifting yoke comprising…wherein the method comprises the steps of. As a matter of claim interpretation, the first use of the word comprising is not treated as the end of the preamble as this text only describes the structures of the lifting yoke and does not recite any method steps. Rather, the later recitation the method comprises the steps of is treated as ending the preamble. Thus, the structures of the lifting yoke are part of the preamble. The preamble is normally interpreted as intended use and structures recited in the preamble are only considered part of the patentable claim if they are later invoked by reference in the claim body. Here the claim body later recites attaching the wind turbine component to the structural body of the lifting yoke. Thus, there is confusion as to whether all of the structures of the lifting yoke are invoked in the claim body or only the structural body. Examiner suggests amending claim 12 to recite a method step of ‘providing a lifting yoke, the lifting yoke including…’ and then reciting all of the yoke structures in the body of the claim. This will clarify the scope of the claim.
The structures of the lifting yoke also improperly use the phrase such as, specifically the two tensional elements recite such as a sling or a wire. This language is again indefinite.
Claim 4 recite a structural body and then a second structural body. The first body should be renamed as ‘a first structural body.’
REJECTIONS UNDER 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 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 obvious2 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 2,924,278 to Muller.
Claim 4 recites a method for lifting a wind turbine…rotor blade. Muller relates to such a method. See Muller [0001]. Muller teaches a lifting yoke (10) [having] a [first] structural body (18) [with] a first connection point (24) and a second connection point (28). See Muller Fig. 2. Figures 2 & 5 further show that the structural body further comprising a first axis defined as being parallel to a longitudinal direction of a second structural body.
Muller further teaches a first tensional element (20) connecting a crane hook attachment point (36) and the first connection point (24) [and], a second tensional element (34, 22) connecting the crane hook attachment point and the second connection point (28). The term tensional element is referred to as a sling or wire, but a rod can also be a tensional element as it holds elements in tension. Alternately, it would have been obvious to replace the rods (20, 22) with steel cables because they are known alternatives for transferring tensile forces. Muller further teaches that the length of the second tensional element is variable. See Muller [0035]. By winching rope (34) the angle of the first axis can be changed. See Muller [0042] and Figs. 2 & 4.
Claim 4 then continues to the method steps. Muller teaches attaching a crane hook (38) to the crane hook attachment point (36) via a sling (40). See Muller Fig. 2. Muller further teaches attaching the wind turbine component (12) to the structural body (18) of the lifting yoke via clamps (14, 16). See Muller [0030]-[0031] & Figs. 2 & 5. Muller also teaches lifting the wind turbine component via the lifting yoke. See Muller [0041].
Claim 4 then recites determining a distance… from the second connection point…to an intersection between an axis extending vertically through the center of gravity of the wind turbine component and the lifting plane, relaying this value to a crane operator and re-positioning the structural body of the lifting yoke if the distance is outside a pre-determined range. Muller does not explicitly teach this step. But it does infer it occurs. Muller teaches that the point of rotation is located at the center of gravity (A) and that during the lifting and rotation operations the center of gravity is “always positioned” directly below the crane hook. See Muller [0047] and Fig. 4. This requires the operator of the crane to position the yoke properly to achieve this effect. Specifically, it would require the operator to measure the distance between both clamps (14, 16) and the center of gravity (A). Thus, one of ordinary skill would infer that the determining and providing steps both occur, as well as the comparison against a pre-determined range. Claim 4 also recites that if said distance provided in step e) is outside a pre-determined range, the crane operator replacing the wind turbine component in a stationary position connected to the wind turbine. This requires that the comparison be done after the lifting operation has begun. While performing the comparison during the lift cannot be inferred, it would have been obvious as a matter of common-sense to double check positioning of the blade in the yoke at the commencement of the lifting operation. Likewise, if an error were discovered it would have been obvious as a matter of common sense to return the blade to its installed position rather than continue with an imbalanced lifting operation.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Moshe K Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 daily. 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 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.
/MOSHE WILENSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct claim quotations are presented in italics. All non-italic reference numerals presented with italicized claim language are from the cited prior art reference. All citations to “specification” are to the applicant’s published specification unless otherwise indicated. The use of the phrase “et al.” following a reference is used solely to refer to subsequent modifying references, and not to other listed inventors of the cited reference.
2 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.”