DETAILED ACTION1
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 providing 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.
Muller further 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.
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant's arguments filed March 31, 2026 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Each of applicant’s remarks is set forth, followed by examiner’s response.
Applicant argues that Muller discloses a method that presumes the blade is already attached to the lifting element with the center of gravity aligned with the hook. Applicant argues that the recited method recites checking this alignment after the start of the lifting operation and then making modifications mid-process. This argument is not persuasive.
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. This requires the operator of the crane to position the yoke properly to achieve this effect. The rejection asserts that it would have been obvious to check this alignment during the lift as a safety and efficiency precaution. Applicant fails to rebut this argument or provide evidence it would not have been obvious. The rejection then asserts that 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 and reposition the load. Applicant’s arguments again fails to rebut this logic.
Applicant also argues that Muller fails to rigorously disclose processes for determining if the center of gravity is properly aligned and by what amount. Specifically, that it fails to determine a distance and provide this distance to the crane operator. Yet as argued, determining if the hook is above the center of gravity requires also knowing the distances between the attachment points as well, because on the geometry of bars (20, 34). Thus, a double check of the system would include verifying there are connected at the proper locations, which by extension provides the recited distance. If an error is determined the operator would be notified.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Moshe Wilensky whose telephone number is 571-270-3257. Mr. Wilensky’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. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant may also use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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. 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.”
Prosecution Insights