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 .
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.
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 11 and 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 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 11:
The term “substantially” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is unclear how to establish the metes and bounds of a substantially vertical movement path. It is unclear at what measurement or term of degree a movement path is no longer substantially vertical.
Claim 14:
The term “substantially” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
It is unclear how to establish the metes and bounds of a substantially vertical movement path. It is unclear at what measurement or term of degree a movement path is no longer substantially vertical.
Claim Rejections - 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen (US 2020/0332761 A1) in view of Rubner et al. (US 2022/0145859 A1).
Claim 1:
Pedersen discloses a method of handling a wind turbine blade of a wind turbine (abstract), the wind turbine comprising a tower (8) and a nacelle (7) connected to the tower, the wind turbine blade (12) configured to be rotatably attached to the nacelle (7) (figs. 2-8, ¶¶78, 81), the method comprising:
providing a first crane (16) supported from the nacelle and including a first attachment structure (15) (fig. 5-7, ¶81);
providing a second crane (11) including a second attachment structure (13) (fig. 5-7, ¶81);
attaching the first attachment structure (19) to the wind turbine blade (12) (fig. 5-7, ¶81);
attaching the second attachment structure (13) to the wind turbine blade (12) (fig. 5-7, ¶81);
operating the first crane (16) and the second crane (11) to arrange the wind turbine blade in an angular position (abstract, claim 1, see also ¶21); and
attaching the wind turbine blade (12) respectively to the nacelle while the wind turbine blade is arranged in the angular position (abstract, claim 1, see also ¶21).
Pedersen fails to disclose arranging and attaching the wind turbine blade while in an oblique angular position. Instead, Pedersen discloses arranging and attaching the wind turbine blade while in a horizontal angular position (figs. 5-7, ¶82).
Rudner discloses a method of handling a wind turbine blade of a wind turbine (abstract), the wind turbine comprising a tower (102) and a nacelle (104) connected to the tower (102), the wind turbine blade (201-203) configured to be rotatably attached to the nacelle (104) (fig. 1, ¶22), the method comprising:
operating a second crane (410) to arrange the wind turbine blade (203) in an oblique angular position (figs. 4 and 17-23, ¶33); and
attaching the wind turbine blade (203) respectively to the nacelle (104) while the wind turbine blade (203) is arranged in the oblique angular position (figs. 4 and 17-23, ¶33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position the wind turbine blade handled by Pedersen’s external crane and nacelle-supported crane obliquely for attachment, as taught by Rubner, to facilitate installation of long wind turbine blades while avoiding excessive crane loading (Rudner, ¶10). See MPEP §2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because the modification would apply Rubner’s known oblique-attachment technique to Pedersen’s wind-turbine-blade installation method, with the cranes continuing support and guiding the blade toward the hub.
Claim 12:
Pedersen in view of Rubner renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein handling of the wind turbine blade comprises attaching the wind turbine blade to the nacelle (Pedersen, fig. 5-7, ¶81); the method further comprising: operating the first crane and the second crane to raise the wind turbine blade from a storage location to the nacelle (Pedersen figs. 3-8, ¶¶67-72); operating the first crane and the second crane to arrange the wind turbine blade in the oblique angular position (Pedersen figs. 3-8, ¶¶67-72 and Rubner, figs. 4 and 17-23, ¶33); and attaching the wind turbine blade to the nacelle (Pedersen figs. 3-8, ¶¶78-82 and Rubner, figs. 4 and 17-23, ¶33).
Claim 13:
Pedersen in view of Rubner renders obvious the method of claim 12, wherein operating the first crane and the second crane to arrange the wind turbine blade in the oblique angular position further comprises:
raising the wind turbine blade from the storage location in a horizontal position (Pedersen figs. 3-8, ¶¶67-72); rotating the wind turbine blade from the horizontal position to the oblique angular position (Rubner, figs. 4 and 17-23, ¶33); and attaching the wind turbine blade to the nacelle while the wind turbine blade is at the oblique angular position (Pedersen figs. 3-8, ¶¶78-82 and Rubner, figs. 4 and 17-23, ¶33).
Claim 14:
Pedersen in view of Rubner renders obvious the method of claim 12, wherein operating the first crane and the second crane to arrange the wind turbine blade in the oblique angular position further comprises: raising the first attachment structure along a substantially vertical movement path from the storage location to the oblique angular position (Pedersen figs. 3-8, ¶¶78-82 and Rubner, figs. 4 and 17-23, ¶33).
Claim 15:
Pedersen in view of Rubner renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the second crane (Pedersen, 11) is a ground-based crane operated independently of the first crane, and wherein the first crane and the second crane are operated in unison to handle the wind turbine blade (Pedersen, figs. 2-8, ¶¶69, 81-82).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Rubner as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (CN 103723614 B) as provided by (CN 103723614 B) machine translation as an English language equivalent.
Claim 3:
Pedersen in view of Rubner renders obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the second attachment structure comprises a tip clamp (Pedersen, 13) configured to be attached to a tip end of the wind turbine blade (Pedersen, fig. 5, ¶81). Pedersen fails to disclose a root clamp configured to be attached to a root end of the wind turbine blade. Instead, Pedersen discloses a control line including a control line section (18) and an additional control line section (19) configured to be attached to a root end of the wind turbine blade (fig. 7, ¶84). Yu discloses a mounting hanger for setting a wind turbine blade (abstract), further comprising a root clamp (1) configured to be attached to a root end of the wind turbine blade (figs. 1-3, ¶46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the loop or tied-line arrangement at the blade end of the nacelle-crane control line of Pedersen in view of Rubner for the blade root clamp of Yu, such that Pedersen’s control line is connected to the blade through Yu’s root clamp. Both arrangements are known attachment structures serving the same purpose of transferring a guiding or positioning force from a crane line to the blade root. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The substitution would predictably provide a secure, releasable, and positively controlled attachment to the blade root, while avoiding the need to tie the control line directly around the blade and while preserving Pedersen’s established operation of using the nacelle crane and control line to guide the blade root toward the rotor.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pedersen in view of Rubner as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Baun (WO 2021/164831 A1).
Claim 4:
Pedersen in view of Rubner renders obvious the method of claim 1; and Pedersen in view of Rubner fails to disclose the nacelle includes a main nacelle unit and the first crane is supported from the main nacelle unit so as to be located along a side of the main nacelle unit. Instead, Pedersen in view of Rubner discloses the first crane is supported on the top of the main nacelle unit.
Baun discloses a wind turbine nacelle configured for mounting on a wind turbine tower (abstract) further comprising includes a main nacelle unit (2) and the first crane is supported from the main nacelle unit (2) so as to be located along a side (in service unit 22) of the main nacelle unit (2) (fig. 2, p8, ll5-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to position and support Pedersen’s nacelle crane along a side of the main nacelle unit in the manner taught by Baun in order to provide the nacelle-mounted crane with improved access and reach to the rotor, hub, and blades, thereby facilitating the blade-handling and installation operations taught by Pedersen as modified by Rubner (fig. 2, p2, ll6-7). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The results would have been predictable because this modification constitutes the predictable use of Baun’s known side-mounted nacelle-crane arrangement for performing Pedersen’s established blade-guiding and positioning function.
Claim 5:
Pedersen in view of Rubner and Baun renders obvious the method of claim 4, wherein the first crane (Pedersen, 16) is located within a service unit (Baun, 21 or 22) attached to the side of the main nacelle unit (Pedersen, 7 in view of Baun 2) (Baun, fig. 2, p8, ll5-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 6-10 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) 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:
Claim 2:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 1, wherein the oblique angular position of the wind turbine blade is at an angle within a range of between 140° to 160°.
Claim 6:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 1, wherein handling of the wind turbine blade comprises detaching the wind turbine blade from the nacelle, the method further comprising: operating the nacelle to arrange the wind turbine blade in the oblique angular position; detaching the wind turbine blade from the nacelle; and operating the first crane and the second crane to lower the wind turbine blade from the nacelle.
Claim 7:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 1, wherein attaching the first attachment structure to the wind turbine blade further comprises: rotating the blade to a first angular position; attaching the first attachment structure to the wind turbine blade while the blade is at the first angular position; and rotating the blade to a second angular position for attachment of the second attachment structure, the second angular position being different from the first angular position.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Aitken et al. (US 2020/0071138 A1) discloses a nacelle-mountable lift system for mounting and dismounting a rotor blade of a wind turbine. Mora et al. (US 2018/0297822 A1) discloses a hub crane assembly for a wind turbine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (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 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights