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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaal US 10,889,356 in view of Botwright US 9,732,726.
PNG
media_image1.png
286
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Zaal Figure 1
Regarding claim 1, Zaal discloses a system for transporting a wind turbine tower, the system comprising:
a vessel 1 for transporting one or more of the towers 21 to an installation site;
a cradle (any components against which the tower rests) for holding the one or more towers in a horizontal orientation on the vessel; and
an upending device 13, 3, for transitioning the one or more towers from the horizontal orientation to a vertical orientation for subsequent installation to a foundation at the installation site;
wherein the upending device comprises a pivot tool 3 for connection to the lower end of each tower and a lifting tool 13 attachable to the top end of that tower 21 for upending and lifting the tower when connected to the pivot tool.
PNG
media_image2.png
315
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Zaal Figure 5C
Zaal does not provide details of the cradle. Botwright teaches a system for transporting a wind turbine tower, the system comprising: a vessel 11 for transporting one or more of the towers 5 to an installation site; and a cradle 7 for securing the one or more towers in a horizontal orientation on the vessel during transportation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport system of Zaal with a cradle support system as taught by Botwright in order to ensure that the tower components are securely fixed to the vessel during transport.
PNG
media_image3.png
319
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3- Botwright Figure 7
Regarding claim 3, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Zaal also teaches that the lifting tool (engagement portion of 13) is connectable to a crane 13 for lifting the top end of the tower.
Regarding claim 4 as best understood, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Zaal does not teach one or more transporters for supporting one of the one or more towers in a horizontal orientation and for loading the supported tower onto the vessel. Botwright teaches one or more transporters 9, for supporting one of the one or more towers 5 in a horizontal orientation and for loading the supported tower onto the vessel (column 5, lines 36-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport system of Zaal with SPMTs as taught by Botwright in order to transport the tower components to the vessel for transport.
Regarding claim 6, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Zaal also teaches that the upending device 13, 3 further comprises a motion compensating device for compensating for movement of the vessel when the tower is being transitioned to a vertical orientation. In this case, the upending device’s ability to pivot can compensate for rolling/pitching of the vessel, while the crane can compensate for vertical displacement.
Regarding claim 7, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Zaal does not provide details of the cradle. Botwright teaches that the cradle 7 is a multi-purpose frame for supporting the one or more towers 5 during onshore storage, load-out, and on the vessel 11 during transportation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport system of Zaal with a cradle support system as taught by Botwright in order to ensure that the tower components are securely stored during all phases of handling.
Regarding claim 8, Zaal teaches a method for transporting a wind turbine tower, the method comprising:
supporting one or more wind turbine towers 21 with a cradle on a vessel 1, the cradle being configured to support the towers in a horizontal orientation;
transporting the one or more towers using the vessel to an installation site; and
transitioning, using an upending device 3, 13, the one or more towers from the horizontal orientation to a vertical orientation for subsequent installation to a foundation at the installation site, wherein the step of transitioning using an upending device comprises:
connecting a lower end of a tower to a pivot tool 3;
attaching the top end of the tower to a lifting device 13; and
upending the tower by lifting the top end about the lower end (column 5, lines 37-52).
Zaal does not provide details of the cradle. Botwright teaches a method for transporting a wind turbine tower, the method comprising:
securing one or more wind turbine towers 5 to a cradle 7 on a vessel 11, the cradle being configured to support the towers in a horizontal orientation; and
transporting the one or more towers using the vessel to an installation site.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport system of Zaal with a cradle support system as taught by Botwright in order to ensure that the tower components are securely fixed to the vessel during transport.
Regarding claim 10, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 9. Zaal also teaches connecting the lifting device (engagement portion of 13) to a crane 13 for lifting the top end of the tower 21.
Regarding claim 11, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Zaal also teaches that the crane 13 is provided on a jack-up vessel or on a floating heavy-lift vessel 1.
Regarding claim 12, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Zaal does not teach details of loading the towers onto the vessel. Botwright teaches supporting one of the towers 5 in a horizontal orientation using one or more transporters 9; and moving and loading the supported tower onto the vessel (column 5, lines 36-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport system of Zaal with SPMTs as taught by Botwright in order to transport the tower components to the vessel for transport.
Regarding claim 14 as best understood, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Zaal also teaches that the upending device 13 used for transitioning the one or more towers 21 to a vertical orientation is provided on the vessel 1 used for transporting the one or more towers to the installation site.
Regarding claim 15 as best understood, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. Zaal also teaches that the step of attaching the top end of the tower 21 to a lifting device comprises engaging part of the lifting device 13 with a flange on the tower (see Zaal figure 5).
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaal US 10,889,356 in view of Botwright US 9,732,726 and Foster US 4,825,791.
Regarding claim 5 as best understood, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Zaal does not teach that the vessel for transporting one or more of the towers to an installation site is a first vessel and the upending device is provided on a second vessel. Foster teaches a system for transporting a wind turbine tower in which a first vessel 16 is used for transporting one or more towers 10 to an installation site and a lifting device 56 is provided on a second vessel 58. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport system of Zaal with separate vessels for tower transport and lifting devices as taught by Foster in order to more efficiently allocate resources or save transportation costs.
Regarding claim 13 as best understood, Zaal and Botwright teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Zaal does not teach that the vessel for transporting one or more of the towers to an installation site is a first vessel and wherein a crane for upending the towers is provided on a second vessel. Foster teaches a system for transporting a wind turbine tower in which a first vessel 16 is used for transporting one or more towers 10 to an installation site and a lifting device 56 is provided on a second vessel 58. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the transport system of Zaal with separate vessels for tower transport and lifting devices as taught by Foster in order to more efficiently allocate resources or save transportation costs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Zaal does not relate to the transportation of wind turbine towers,” the examiner disagrees. Zaal teaches a system for upending both jacket and monopile support structures, which are a component of wind turbine towers.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, applicant’s argument that “Botwright does not consider an upending device” is unpersuasive because Botwright is not relied upon for the teaching of the upending device.
[AltContent: textbox (Upper End)]
PNG
media_image4.png
450
260
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant’s argument that “Zaal teaches…the connector member 7 is configured to connect to the side of the jacket 21…not the ‘lower end of each tower’ as claimed,” the examiner disagrees for two reasons:
[AltContent: connector][AltContent: textbox (Lower End)][AltContent: textbox (Figure 4- Zaal Figure 4D)]The “lower end of each tower” is a relative term. In the “jacket” embodiment of the invention, the division between upper and lower end is arbitrary. In this case, the attachment point 7 is located near the bottom of the tower in a location that can be considered the “lower end.” That is, everything from the absolute bottom extreme of the tower up to the connector 7 can be interpreted as the “lower end.
Further, Zaal teaches that the device can be used with jacket or monopile tower sections. In the case of monopile towers, pivot tool 3 is directly attached to the lowermost face of tower 21 (see Zaal figure 5 above).
In response to applicant’s argument that “Zaal relates only to upending of support structures and does not consider transportation of a ‘wind turbine tower,’” the examiner disagrees. Not only can most components of a wind turbine be considered to be support structures, but both Zaal and the current application pertain to the upending and installation of support structures in piece parts.
In a related argument, the applicant states that “the claimed arrangement allows a fully welded horizontal tower to be upended and lifted by a jackup vessel onto a foundation in a single step,” this is at odds with the disclosure, which teaches that the current invention is intended to install sections of a (incomplete, not fully welded) tower. Please also note that no completed size or number of sections are recited in the claims- so depending on the location and desired tower size, one section could be the complete tower.
Where applicant argues that “Zaal relies of the center of mass falling at a specific point ‘Z,’” this is a misinterpretation of Zaal. Zaal teaches how its setup would work with a variety of tower structures- it is not that they will only work if Z is in a specific location, but that it is teaching how the structure would be oriented for the demonstrated location of Z. This would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
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, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615