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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued, see page 9, lines 3-31, that Coultate fails to teach the second energy generating unit is configured to consume the remaining tower life rate at a lower rate than the first energy generating unit is configured to consume the total tower life because Coultate teaches de-rating as part of an analysis of one wind turbine comparing the fatigue produced to the value of electricity at that time. The analysis is based on a single wind turbine and not a comparison to a different machine head. Therefore, Coultate cannot modify Leonard to teach the cited limitation. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The limitation in question requires complicated analysis because it presents methods of using the apparatus as functional language, rather than straightforward structural features.
The claim limitation states “the second energy generating unit is configured to consume the remaining tower life rate at a lower rate than the first energy generating unit is configured to consume the total tower life”.
The rates of consumption of the total tower life of both the first and second energy generating units are determined by how the energy generating units (and the overall wind turbine) are used. For instance, an energy generating unit which is over-rated for its entire lifespan will have a shorter lifespan than an identical energy generating unit which is under-rated for its entire lifespan. Even if the energy generating units were completely identical, the rates of consumption could differ based on how an operator chooses to control the wind turbines. Paragraph 4 of the applicant’s specification supports this by describing the life rate of a component as depending on the loads (forces, moments, cycles, etc.) imposed on the particular component.
Since the claim refers to the second energy generating unit as “configured to consume the remaining tower life”, the phrase “configured to” presents the manner of using the second energy generating unit as a function. In order for a prior art device to read over the functional limitation, the device has to be capable of performing the function.
Leonard teaches the first and second energy generating units, and refers to the second energy generating unit (new machine head 116) as providing “additional life” to the wind turbine assembly (column 1, line 35) and reduces capital expenses (column 1, lines 36-37). Thus, Leonard makes comparisons between the performance of the first and second energy generating units. Although, Leonard is silent regarding the consumption rate of the life.
Coultate was cited to explain why an energy generating unit would be configured to consume the life at a lower rate (under-rating to maximize profitability).
While Coultate does not make a comparison between the first and second energy generating units, Coultate does compare methods of operating a wind turbine. Operating a turbine at rated power will incur the expected, baseline level of fatigue and/or damage. Up-rating a wind turbine causes more fatigue and/or damage (paragraph 2 of Coultate). De-rating a wind turbine will produce less fatigue. An operator may choose to up-rate a wind turbine when the fatigue cost is less than the spot price of electricity (paragraph 65). An operator may choose to operate at rated power when the electricity price is high and the wind speed is high (paragraph 66).
Based on the combination of the teachings, one having ordinary skill in the art could configure the second energy generating unit of Leonard to de-rate its performance in order to elongate the lifespan of the wind turbine and increase profitability as taught by Coultate. By configuring the second energy generating unit to be able to de-rate its performance, the second energy generating unit is capable of consuming the life rate at a lower level than the first energy generating unit. The examiner maintains that the combination of teachings results in the second energy generating unit having the claimed function.
The corrections to the claims are noted with appreciation. The rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn.
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: “energy generating unit” in claims 1 and 19 and the “control mechanism for reducing loads” in claim 14.
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 generic term “unit” is defined by the function of “generating energy” and is not defined by additional structure. Therefore, this meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the applicant’s specification, paragraph 24, lines 10-18 state the energy generating unit includes “the part of the wind turbine which actually transforms the energy of the wind into electrical energy” which includes the nacelle, rotor having the hub and blades, and a generator with a drivetrain. The “energy generating unit” will be interpreted as the nacelle, generator, drive train, and rotor and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the “control mechanism”, the generic term “mechanism” is defined by the functions of “control” and “reducing loads” and is not defined by additional structure and therefore meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the specification, paragraph 35 states a controller (52) sends a signal to one or more “control mechanisms” that results in a reduction of loads on the tower. Paragraph 36 further states the controller is coupled to “pitch mechanism 56” to pitch the blades which dumps wind energy to reduce loads on the tower. Accordingly, the “control mechanism for reducing the loads” will be treated as a pitch mechanism and equivalents thereof.
The examiner notes claim 15 specifies the at least one control mechanism is a pitch mechanism. Accordingly, claim 15 does not meet the requirements of 35 USC 112(f) and is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (where the control mechanism is a pitch mechanism).
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 § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,982,659 to Leonard in view of additional evidence by US 2015/0003983 to Coultate.
In Reference to Claim 1
Leonard teaches:
A wind turbine assembly (10) comprising:
a first configuration and a second configuration,
the first configuration comprising:
a wind turbine tower (11, 12, 13, Figures 1 and 5);
a first energy generating unit (machine head 16 having nacelle 17, rotor 18, hub 20, blades 22, generator 24, and drivetrain 44, see Figures 1 and 3) coupled to the wind turbine tower; and
a second energy generating unit (new machine head 116 having nacelle 117, rotor 118, hub 120, blades 122, generator 124, and drivetrain 144, see Figures 1 and 4) not coupled to the wind turbine tower;
wherein in the first configuration, the wind turbine tower has a total tower life (time from construction until the first energy generating unit and top tower section 12 are removed) at a life expectancy design value (intended lifespan of the tower), and
wherein the first energy generating unit is configured to consume the total tower life, and
the second configuration comprising:
at least a portion of the wind turbine tower (lower tower sections 13, coupled to new top tower section 112, see Figure 6) having a remaining tower life (life of lower tower sections 13 after top tower section 12 is removed and before top tower section 112 is added) that is less than the total tower life at a time before the life expectancy design value is reached;
the first energy generating unit not coupled to the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower; and
the second energy generating unit coupled to the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower,
wherein the second energy generating unit is different than the first energy generating unit and the second energy generating unit has a rated power curve (inherent for the design of the second energy generating unit), and
wherein in the second configuration, the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower has a tower life expectancy value (life of lower tower sections 13 and top tower section 112) that exceeds the tower life expectancy design value of the wind turbine tower in the first configuration (see column 3, lines 3-31, column 4, lines 34-51, column 5, line 33 through column 6, line 12, column 7, lines 15-33, column 8, lines 27-61, and Figures 1-6).
Regarding the tower life expectancy value, Leonard teaches the second energy generating unit, which includes the new machine head 116, provides “additional life” to the wind turbine assembly (column 1, lines 31-37). The sum of the “additional life” where the second energy generating unit is operated plus a first period of time of the total tower life when the first energy generating unit was operated exceeds the first tower life expectancy design value.
Leonard fails to teach:
The second energy generating unit is configured to consume the remaining tower life at a lower rate than the first energy generating unit is configured to consume the total tower life. Leonard is silent regarding the rate at which the second energy generating unit consumes the total tower life relative to the first energy generating unit.
Leonard does teach that the second energy generating unit, which includes the new machine head 116, is a “new, more technologically advanced machine head” (column 1, lines 33-34) provides the advantages of a more efficient technology, and more efficient power generation with reduced capital expenses (column 1, lines 28-37).
Coultate teaches a method of operating a wind turbine where wind turbine performance is evaluated and the life extended in the context of cost analysis.
Specifically, Coultate teaches calculating the fatigue and/or damage caused to wind turbine components (including the tower) based on current or future operating conditions, calculating the proportion of the total life consumed for a component under the current or future conditions, calculating the equivalent cost per unit time of operating the component under the current or future conditions, comparing the cost per unit time to the value per unit time of electricity generated by the wind turbine, and modifying the current or future behavior (see flow chart in Figure 1). Coultate describes an example of a modification of the current or future behavior, where when the amount of fatigue and/or damage is equated to the cost of fatigue for previous, current, or future operation, the operation is compared to the spot price of electricity and the output of the wind turbine generator. If the electricity price is low, and the wind speed is high, then the turbine can be de-rated, and conversely if the electricity price is high and the wind speed is high, then the turbine can be fully rated. This wind turbine operation allows the wind turbine to be operated to ensure the cost of generating electricity does not exceed the revenue gained from selling electricity (see paragraphs 65-67).
De-rating a wind turbine involves operating the wind turbine below the rated power which results in lower loads on the system – including being transferred to the tower. Accordingly, with smaller loads, the fatigue life of the components is increased. Since Coultate teaches de-rating when the electricity price is low, the life of the components is extended and consumed when generating electricity is profitable. Accordingly, the overall rate at which the component life is consumed is lower to ensure profitability of the wind turbine operation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wind turbine assembly of Leonard by configuring the second energy generation unit to consume the remaining tower life at a lower rate than the first energy generating unit in view of Coultate for the purpose of increasing the fatigue life of the components and ensuring profitability.
When modifying the wind turbine assembly of Leonard with the teachings of Coultate, the second energy generating unit would be more efficient (as taught by Leonard) and configured to consume the remaining tower life at a lower rate than the first energy generating unit.
The examiner notes paragraph 27 of the applicant’s specification, describes the applicant’s motivations for extending the life of the wind turbine. Specifically, when the costs are higher than the revenue, a wind turbine operator may take a financial loss with further operation of the wind turbine, and in some instances a business case can be made to discontinue operation of the wind turbine until the end of the service life.
To the extent disclosed by the applicant, this motivation appears to be the using the same consideration as Coultate regarding cost analysis relative to the life usage of a wind turbine.
In Reference to Claim 2#
Leonard as modified by Coultate teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 1, wherein a height of the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower in the second configuration is different than a height of the wind turbine tower in the first configuration (column 10, lines 35-43 of Leonard). Leonard teaches the height of the new tower top section 112 may be different than the height of the hold tower top section 12 – including being either greater than or less than in height.
In Reference to Claim 3#
Leonard as modified by Coultate teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 2, wherein the height of the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower in the second configuration is less than the height of the wind turbine tower in the first configuration (embodiment of Leonard where length 302 is less than length 300).
In Reference to Claim 5#
Leonard as modified by Coultate teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 2, wherein the height of the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower in the second configuration is greater than the height of the wind turbine tower in the first configuration (embodiment of Leonard where length 302 is greater than length 300).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,982,659 to Leonard as modified by US 2015/0003983 to Coultate as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2009-068407 to Usami (a machine translation provided January 13, 2023 will be referred to herein).
In Reference to Claim 6
Leonard teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 1, comprising the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower in the second configuration.
Leonard fails to teach:
The at least a portion of the wind turbine tower includes a tower transition adaptor that forms no part of the wind turbine tower in the first configuration.
Usami teaches:
A wind turbine assembly (20) comprising at least a portion of the wind turbine tower (second generation tower T1, 3, 23a) in a second configuration including a tower transition adaptor (21a, 23a) that forms no part of a wind turbine tower (first generation tower 3) in a first configuration (see page 3, line 35-42, page 5, lines 18-31, and Figures 1, 5, and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wind turbine assembly of Leonard as modified by Coultate by adding a tower transition adaptor as taught by Usami as both references are directed to retrofitted wind turbine towers, and for the purpose of increasing the strength of the wind turbine tower (page 5, lines 22-23 of Usami).
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,982,659 to Leonard as modified by US 2015/0003983 to Coultate and JP 2009-068407 to Usami as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US 2010/0313497 to Jensen.
In Reference to Claim 7
Leonard as modified by Coultate and Usami teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 6, comprising the tower transition adaptor which comprises a first end (top end of adaptor 21a of Usami) with a first interface and a second end (bottom end of adaptor 23a of Usami) with a second interface (see Figure 6 of Usami).
Leonard as modified by Coultate and Usami fails to teach:
The first and second interfaces are sized to be different from each other. Usami shows the first and second interfaces have the same diameter (see Figure 6).
Jensen teaches:
A wind turbine (1) comprising a wind turbine tower (2) and a tower transition adaptor (uppermost segment 6 having top 14) having a first end (top end having top 14) with a first interface and a second end (bottom end) with a second interface, wherein the first and second interfaces are sized to be different from each other (see paragraphs 104 and 113-115, and Figures 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wind turbine assembly of Leonard as modified by Coultate and Usami by re-shaping the tower transition adaptor to be tapered as taught by Jensen as both references are directed to wind turbine towers having multiple segments, and which is a simple substitution of one known tower shape for another tower shape which would yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result would be a tapered tower transition adaptor with a decreasing diameter rather than a tower transition adaptor with a constant diameter.
In Reference to Claim 8#
Leonard as modified by Coultate, Usami, and Jensen teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 7, wherein the first and second interfaces of the tower transition adaptor include annular flanges (not numbered, top of adaptor 21a and bottom of adaptor 23a, see Figure 6 of Usami) and the diameter of the annular flanges are different from each other. The diameters of the flanges would be different as a result of the modification from the teachings of Jensen with the rejection of claim 7.
In Reference to Claim 9#
Leonard as modified by Coultate, Usami, and Jensen teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 7, wherein the first interface of the tower transition adaptor is coupled to the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower and the second interface is coupled to the second energy generating unit. The first interface is indirectly connected to the lower tower sections 13 of Leonard, and the second interface is connected to corresponding flanges of the second energy generating unit of Leonard.
In Reference to Claim 10#
Leonard as modified by Coultate, Usami, and Jensen teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 9, wherein the wind turbine tower includes a plurality of tower sections (bottom two lower tower sections 13 of Leonard) stacked one on top of another to define one or more lower tower sections and an upper most tower section (top instance of tower section 13 and upper tower section 12 of Leonard), wherein each tower section includes an upper end and a lower end (see Figure 1 of Leonard).
PNG
media_image1.png
626
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 11#
Leonard as modified by Coultate, Usami, and Jensen teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 10, wherein the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower in the second configuration comprises the one or more lower tower sections, and wherein the first interface of the tower transition adaptor is coupled to an upper end of the one or more lower tower sections. The tower transition adaptor is coupled to the upper end of the upper most tower section (112 of Leonard), which is coupled to the upper end of the adjacent lower tower section (13 of Leonard). Therefore, the tower transition adaptor is indirectly coupled to an upper end of the one or more lower tower sections.
In Reference to Claim 12#
Leonard as modified by Coultate, Usami, and Jensen teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 10, wherein the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower in the second configuration comprises the one or more lower tower sections and a portion (upper instance of tower section 13 of Leonard) of the upper most tower section, and wherein the first interface of the tower transition adaptor is coupled to the portion of the upper most tower section. The tower transition adaptor is coupled to the upper end of the upper most tower section (112 of Leonard).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,982,659 to Leonard as modified by US 2015/0003983 to Coultate as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,822,762 to Kooijman.
In Reference to Claim 14
Leonard as modified by Coultate teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 1, further comprising:
a controller (126, column 6, lines 13-21 of Leonard);
one or more sensors (not numbered, column 7, line 11 of Leonard) operatively coupled to the wind turbine assembly and operatively coupled to the controller; and
at least one control mechanism (pitch adjustment mechanism 132, see column 6, lines 28-40 of Leonard) for reducing loads on the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower (column 6, lines 21-28 of Leonard),
wherein the controller is configured to collect data from the one or more sensors (see column 7, lines 8-13 of Leonard), and
wherein the controller is configured to activate the at least one control mechanism to reduce the loads on the second wind turbine tower (column 6, lines 21-28).
Coultate further teaches one or more sensors (not shown, device which measures operating parameters, see paragraph 42) which indicate loads (operating parameter “force”, see paragraph 42) on the wind turbine tower (paragraph 43), and determining an effective rate (cost per unit time which is based on the fatigue and/or damage accumulated over the proportion of total life consumed) when operating the wind turbine, and wherein the wind turbine is operated to reduce the loads when the effective rate exceeds a predetermined threshold value (spot price of electricity).
Coultate teaches collecting operating parameters, which includes forces and moments acting on wind turbine components (paragraph 42). Fatigue and/or damage to the components is calculated. The components include the tower (paragraph 43). The total life consumed for the component is calculated and an equivalent cost per unit time is calculated (paragraphs 44-45). The cost per unit time is compared to the spot price of electricity, and if the cost exceeds the spot price, then the wind turbine can be de-rated (paragraphs 65-66).
Leonard as modified by Coultate fails to teach:
The effective rate is a tower life rate.
Kooijman teaches:
A wind turbine assembly (10) comprising a controller (26) configured to activate at least one control mechanism (pitch adjustment mechanism, column 7, lines 30-34) when a tower life rate (slope of line 54 in graph of Figure 2) exceeds a predetermined threshold value (slope of line 52 in graph of Figure 2) (see column 2, lines 8-14 and Figure 2). Kooijman teaches the controller (26) has a processor (58) (column 7, lines 38-42) which estimates loading conditions including tower loading (column 9, lines 17-22). Kooijman teaches de-rating the wind turbine when the actual loads exceed the predicted loads (column 12, lines 7-15). The predicted loads are the predetermined threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wind turbine assembly of Leonard as modified by Coultate by adding sensors which indicate loads acting on the wind turbine tower and configure the controller to activate the at least one control mechanism to reduce the loads on the wind turbine tower when an effective rate exceeds a predetermined threshold as taught by Coultate for the purpose of being able to determine when the tower loads exceed acceptable values and maintaining profitability of operating the wind turbine by avoiding and/or reducing operation when the costs of operation exceed the value generated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wind turbine assembly of Leonard as modified by Coultate by additionally using an effective tower life rate as the effective rate as taught by Kooijman as both references are directed to wind turbine systems which have control mechanisms, and for the purpose of being able to better determine when to reduce the operation of the wind turbine to avoid damage (column 12, lines 9-12 of Kooijman).
When modifying the wind turbine assembly of Leonard with the teachings of Coultate and Kooijman, the sensor would monitor the loading on the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower in the second configuration, and the controller would determine an effective second tower life rate and compare the second tower life rate to the predetermined threshold value since the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower is being used during the second configuration.
In Reference to Claim 15#
Leonard as modified by Coultate and Kooijman teaches:
The wind turbine assembly of claim 14, wherein the at least one control mechanism includes a pitch mechanism (132, see column 6, lines 28-36 of Leonard).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is allowed.
Claim 4 is 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: The prior art of record fails to teach the entirety of the at least a portion of the wind turbine tower in the second configuration is formed by the wind turbine tower as recited in claim 4. Leonard teaches additional structures (the new top tower section 112) is used to form the second wind turbine tower. Usami similarly teaches additional structures (concrete reinforcement around the tower) which form the second wind turbine tower. The prior art of record does not teach the second wind turbine tower being formed entirely from components of the first wind turbine tower.
Claim 19 recites a limitation with a similar scope which states “a second wind turbine tower consisting of the first wind turbine tower”. The phrase “consisting of” excludes any element not specified in the claim (see MPEP §2111.03 II for further clarification). The prior art of record fails to teach the second wind turbine tower consists of the first wind turbine tower.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745