DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 07/02/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1 and 12 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-16 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Specification
The amendment filed 07/02/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: element 12 in replacement figure 1.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 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 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) 1-7 and 9-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serna et al. (ES 2524840 B1) with Espacenet translation, in view of Kierat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0194245).
Regarding claim 1, Serna et al. teaches a foundation for a wind turbine tower (figure 7), the foundation comprising: a base slab (4); a pedestal (section 18) provided on the base slab (figure 7), the pedestal comprising an attachment means (at 24) capable of attaching the wind turbine tower; and a plurality of radial walls (40) extending from the pedestal towards an outer edge of the base slab (figure 7); wherein at least one radial wall has a void space between the radial wall and both the pedestal and the base slab (40 – left; figure 7); wherein at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is made of or comprises concrete (para 28) without rebar meshes that intertwine with other rebar meshes (figure 7).
Serna et al. does not specifically disclose the concrete is fiber reinforced.
Kierat et al. discloses a concrete that is fiber reinforced (para 29).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kierat et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tower foundation of Serna et al. such that the concrete is fiber reinforced, as taught by Kierat et al., in order to improve the crack strength, and ductility of the structure to provide resistance to impact and energy absorption on the tower structure, for a greater lifespan.
Regarding claim 2, Serna et al. teaches at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is at least partially free of rebars (figure 7).
Regarding claim 3, Serna et al. teaches the plurality of radial walls have a prismatic-triangular or prismatic-trapezoidal shape (figure 7).
Regarding claim 4, Serna et al. teaches the base slab has a circular shape (figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, Kierat et al. in the combination discloses the fiber reinforced concrete comprises steel microfibers (para 207).
Regarding claim 6, Kierat et al. in the combination discloses the fiber reinforced concrete comprises polymeric microfibers (para 207).
Regarding claim 7, Kierat et al. in the combination discloses the polymeric microfibers are polyvinylalcohol microfibers (para 207).
Regarding claim 9, Kierat et al. in the combination discloses the fiber reinforced concrete comprises synthetic microfibers and/or glass fibers (para 207).
Regarding claim 10, with regards to the limitation wherein the synthetic microfibers are extruded microfibers, etc., the examiner would like to point out that these limitations are drawn to the method or process of forming the product. Therefore, since this claim is an apparatus claim, the prior art only needs to show the final product. Thus, since Serna et al. as modified teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim stands rejected. See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 11, Kierat et al. in the combination does not specifically disclose wherein the fiber reinforced concrete comprises fibers and/or microfibers having a density of at least 4 kg/m3. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the fiber reinforced concrete comprises fibers and/or microfibers having a density of at least 4 kg/m3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Further, it has been held that by discovering an optimum value of a result, the effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Refer to MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to contrive any number of desirable ranges wherein the fiber reinforced concrete comprises fibers and/or microfibers having a density of at least 4 kg/m3, in order to improve the crack strength, and ductility of the structure to provide resistance to impact and energy absorption on the tower structure, for a greater lifespan.
Regarding claim 12, Serna et al. teaches a method for constructing a foundation for a wind turbine tower (para 74), the method comprising: providing a foundation comprising a base slab (4); a pedestal (section 18) provided on the base slab (figure 7), the pedestal comprising an attachment means (at 24) capable of attaching the wind turbine tower; and a plurality of radial walls (40) extending from the pedestal towards an outer edge of the base slab (figure 7); wherein at least one radial wall has a void space between the radial wall and both the pedestal and the base slab (40 – left; figure 7); wherein at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is made of or comprises concrete (para 28) without rebar meshes that intertwine with other rebar meshes (figure 7).
Serna et al. does not specifically disclose the concrete is fiber reinforced.
Kierat et al. discloses a concrete that is fiber reinforced (para 29).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kierat et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tower foundation of Serna et al. such that the concrete is fiber reinforced, as taught by Kierat et al., in order to improve the crack strength, and ductility of the structure to provide resistance to impact and energy absorption on the tower structure, for a greater lifespan.
Regarding claim 13, Serna et al. as modified discloses admixing concrete and fibers to obtain the fiber reinforced concrete (para 204 of Kierat et al.); pouring the fiber reinforced concrete in a framework defining a shape and dimensions of at least one of the slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall forming the foundation (figure 7 of Serna et al.); and curing the fiber reinforced concrete (it is understood that the poured concrete is adapted to cure or harden).
Regarding claim 14, Serna et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the fiber reinforced concrete is obtained by admixing fibers and concrete at a workshop, during transportation or at a construction site of the foundation. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to admix the fibers and concrete at a construction site of the foundation, in order to accommodate for on-site environmental conditions that may affect the performance of the mixed concrete to optimize quality of a concrete batch.
Claim(s) 8 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serna et al. (ES 2524840 B1) with Espacenet translation, in view of Kierat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0194245) and further in view of Stokes et al. (WO 2021/145857).
Regarding claim 8, Serna et al. as modified does not specifically disclose wherein the fiber reinforced concrete comprises crushed recycled wind turbine blades.
Stokes et al. discloses a method for recycling wind turbine blades for concrete (abstract).
Therefore, from the teaching of Stokes et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified fiber reinforced concrete of Serna et al. such that the fiber reinforced concrete comprises crushed recycled wind turbine blades, as taught by Stokes et al., in order to improve the crack strength, and ductility of the structure to provide resistance to impact and energy absorption on the tower structure.
Regarding claim 16, Serna et al. as modified does not specifically disclose the fiber reinforced concrete comprises fibers oriented in at least two different directions to provide a higher resistance and load capacity to the foundation.
Stokes et al. discloses recycling material for concrete (abstract) including fibers oriented in at least two different directions (the direction of the fibers may include multi-axial, unidirectional, biaxial, triaxial, or any other another suitable direction and/or combinations thereof; paragraph 29) to provide a higher resistance and load capacity to the foundation (in the combination, it is understood that the different directions would provide a higher resistance and load capacity to the foundation).
Therefore, from the teaching of Stokes et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified fiber reinforced concrete of Serna et al. such that the fiber reinforced concrete comprises fibers oriented in at least two different directions to provide a higher resistance and load capacity to the foundation, as taught by Stokes et al., in order to improve the crack strength, and ductility of the structure to provide resistance to impact and energy absorption on the tower structure.
Claim(s) 15, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serna et al. (ES 2524840 B1) with Espacenet translation, in view of Kierat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0194245) and further in view of Cotrell (U.S. Patent No. 10,988,909).
Regarding claim 15, Serna et al. as modified does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is obtained by additive manufacturing of fiber reinforced concrete.
Cotrell discloses manufacturing support structures for wind turbines (abstract) wherein at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is obtained by additive manufacturing (3D concrete printing; col. 1, line 40).
Therefore, from the teaching of Stokes et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the modified fiber reinforced concrete of Serna et al. such that at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is obtained by additive manufacturing of fiber reinforced concrete, as taught by Cotrell, in order to provide an efficient means of customizing a building element in a manner that allows for consistent replication of the product enabling faster assembly and reducing on site labor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
New reference Serna et al. (ES 2524840 B1) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s amendment regarding void space between the legs, pedestal, and base slab overcome the previous rejection. The new limitation is overcome in view of Serna et al.
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 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 or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR F HIJAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5790. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6 EST Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached on (571) 270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F HIJAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
