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 October 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record, specifically Hopkins US 938488, fails to disclose, teach or suggest an apparatus capable of relieving a tension strand of relieving a tension strand of a pre-stressed tower of a wind power plant as set forth in claim 1 (see pg. 6 of remarks).
In response to applicant's argument that “Hopkins fails to disclose, teach or suggest an apparatus capable of relieving a tension strand of relieving a tension strand of a pre-stressed tower of a wind power plant as set forth in claim 1”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of a tension strand of a prestressed tower of a wind power plant” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, The prior art of Brand teaches the use of a hydraulic power device as an actuator for changing the spacing between the first and second anchoring units. The prior art of Hopkins further teaches the use of a spindle actuator for changing the spacing between a first and second anchoring unit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the hydraulic power device with a spindle actuator as an alternative linear actuator for changing the spacing between a first and second anchoring unit. For the above reasons, the claims do not overcome the prior art of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hopkins US 938488.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hopkins discloses an apparatus capable of relieving a tension strand (wire not shown) for a prestressed tower capable of being used with a wind power plant, the apparatus comprising: a first anchoring unit (7) with a first tension strand receptacle (V-grooved section of 8) for receiving a first section of the tension strand (wire not shown), a second anchoring unit (2) with a second tension strand receptacle (V-grooved section of 12) for receiving a second section of the tension strand (wire not shown), and a lifting unit (14, 15) configured to change a spacing between the first and second anchoring units and to relieve the tension strand between the first (7) and second anchoring units (2), wherein the lifting unit connects the first (7) and second anchoring units (2) and is arranged between the first and second anchoring units, wherein the lifting unit (14, 15) is configured to increase and/or decrease the spacing between the first and second anchoring units (pg. 1, lines 61-67), and wherein the lifting unit is a spindle lifting mechanism (14, 15).
As for claim 5, Hopkins discloses wherein at least one of the first anchoring unit (7) or the second anchoring unit (2) is configured in two pieces (see Fig. 1, cross-sectional cut-out shows different pieces of the first and second anchoring units, anchoring unit 7 mounted to the threaded shaft 14 via a “screw-threaded connection”, also provided with fasteners 9 for attachment of jaws 8 and 12 to anchoring unit).
As for claim 6, Hopkins discloses wherein at least one of the first anchoring unit (7) or the second anchoring unit (2) has a first anchor base (bottom sections of 2 and 7) and a first anchor plate (mounting portions to the guide rods, 3, and the screw 14).
As for claim 7, Hopkins discloses wherein at least one of the first anchoring unit (7) and the second anchoring unit (2) has a length, a width, and a depth, the depth being multiple times smaller than the width and/or the length. See annotated figures above, the depth is smaller than the width and length of the anchoring units.
As for claim 8, Hopkins discloses wherein at least one of the first anchoring unit (7) or the second anchoring unit (2) has a first clamping unit (8 or 12, respectively), the first clamping unit and the second anchoring unit being arranged at least in sections in the first and second tension strand receptacles, respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand et al. EP 3358106 in view of Hopkins US 938488.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Brand discloses an apparatus for relieving a tension strand of a prestressed structure (100) capable of being a tower of a wind power plant, the apparatus comprising: a first anchoring unit (102/140) with a first tension strand receptacle (140a) for receiving a first section of the tension strand (106), a second anchoring unit (103/142) with a second tension strand receptacle (142a) for receiving a second section of the tension strand, a lifting unit (148) configured to change a spacing between the first and second anchoring units and to relieve the tension strand between the first and second anchoring units, wherein the lifting unit connects with the first and second anchoring units and is arranged between the first and second anchoring units (See Fig. 2 above), wherein the lifting unit (148) is configured to increase and/or decrease the spacing between the first and second anchoring units (see abstract and excerpt from translation below).
PNG
media_image3.png
819
861
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Brand discloses wherein the lifting units are hydraulic cylinders (148) but does not specify wherein they can be spindle lifting mechanisms. However, the use of spindle mechanisms (i.e. threaded rods/screws) is well known in the lifting and tensioning art as evidence by Hopkins who teaches a wire tensioning apparatus comprising a first and second anchoring units (7 and 2) capable of receiving a strand (wire) wherein a lifting unit (14, 15) is configured to change the spacing between the first and second anchoring units (7 and 2) wherein the lifting unit is a spindle (threaded spindle 14) lifting mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to substitute the hydraulic cylinder lifting units of Brand to spindle mechanisms as taught by Hopkins as an alternative lifting mechanism for adjusting the distance between the first anchor unit relative to the second anchor unit to increase and/or decrease the spacing between the first and second anchoring units.
PNG
media_image4.png
376
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for claim 5, Brand discloses wherein at least one of the first anchoring unit or the second anchoring unit is configured in two pieces (150).
As for claim 6, Brand discloses wherein at least one of the first anchoring unit or the second anchoring unit has a first anchor base (150) and a first anchor plate (150).
As for claim 7, Brand discloses wherein at least one of the first anchoring unit and the second anchoring unit has a length, a width, and a depth, the depth being multiple times smaller than the width and/or the length (see Fig. 2 above, the depth is the height/thickness which is smaller than the length and width of the plates 150).
As for claim 8, Brand discloses wherein at least one of the first anchoring unit or the second anchoring unit has a first clamping unit (two distinct clamping units 144 and 146), the first clamping unit (146) and the second anchoring unit (142) being arranged at least in sections in the first and second tension strand receptacles, respectively (see Fig. 2 above).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TYRONE V HALL JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5948. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/TYRONE V HALL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723