DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered.
This communication is a Non-Final rejection Office Action on the merits. Claim(s) 1 and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are now pending and have been considered below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “attachment means” of claims 1 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101701651 B1) with Espacenet translation in view of Kierat et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0194245).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a foundation for a wind turbine tower (para 3), the foundation comprising: a base slab (20); a pedestal (at 21) provided on the base slab (figure 3b), the pedestal comprising an attachment means (at 22) capable of attaching the wind turbine tower; and a plurality of radial walls (29) extending from the pedestal towards an outer edge of the base slab (figure 3b); wherein at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is made of or comprises concrete (para 60) without rebar meshes that intertwine with other rebar meshes (no rebar meshes that intertwine with other rebar meshes are disclosed by Lee).
Lee 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 Lee 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, Lee teaches at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is at least partially free of rebars (figure 3b).
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the plurality of radial walls have a prismatic-triangular or prismatic-trapezoidal shape (figure 3b).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the base slab has a circular shape (figure 3b).
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 Phuly 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, Lee teaches a method for constructing a foundation for a wind turbine tower (para 81), the method comprising: providing a foundation comprising a base slab (20); a pedestal (at 21) provided on the base slab (figure 3b), the pedestal comprising an attachment means (at 22) capable of attaching the wind turbine tower; and a plurality of radial walls (29) extending from the pedestal towards an outer edge of the base slab (figure 3b); wherein at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is made of or comprises concrete (para 60) without rebar meshes that intertwine with other rebar meshes (no rebar meshes that intertwine with other rebar meshes are disclosed by Lee).
Lee 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 Lee 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, Lee 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 (para 49 of Lee); and curing the fiber reinforced concrete (it is understood that the poured concrete is adapted to cure or harden).
Regarding claim 14, Lee 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, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101701651 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, Lee 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 Lee 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, Lee 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 Lee 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/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 101701651 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, Lee 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 Lee 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(s) Lee (KR 101701651 B1) has been added to overcome the newly added limitations. Applicant’s argument that previous reference Phuly does not specifically disclose wherein at least one of the base slab, the pedestal and at least one radial wall is made of or comprises fiber reinforced concrete without rebar meshes that intertwine with other rebar meshes, has been considered and found persuasive. With regards to the argument that Phuly does not disclose which specific components would include fiber reinforced concrete, nor does Phuly disclose how fiber reinforcement would be incorporated into the foundation structure, the examiner attests that it would have been within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate fiber reinforcement into the concrete since adding additive reinforcements is known as an obvious matter of design choice to optimize the concrete for strength depending on the structural design requirements of the foundation.
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
Prosecution Insights