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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. (EP 3499025) in view of Kothnur et al. (US 2008/0292408) and Isonokami et al. (JP 02109938).
Regarding claim 1, Murray discloses an arrangement, comprising: a hollow component (transition piece TP) with a component opening (aperture 12), and the component opening being arranged on an end side (top end side) of the component (TP) above a waterline; a covering (cover 20), by way of which the component opening is closed; and a fan (wind operated ventilation unit) for ventilating an interior space of the component (TP) via a ventilation opening (50) in the covering (20), and wherein the cover (20) is configured to be removed (via bolts along the circumferential edge 42 of the cover) so that a construction structure can be mounted on the pile (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; abstract; paragraphs 0006, 0014, 0018, and 0019). Murray fails to disclose the component being a pile that is anchored to a seabed; the fan being fastened pivotably to the covering, wherein the fan can be pivoted between a first position in which the fan conceals the ventilation opening, and a second position in which the fan is pivoted away from the ventilation opening. Kothnur teaches an offshore wind turbine mounted on a hollow component comprising a pile (monopile 24) mounted to a seabed (Fig. 1; paragraph 0033). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the pile as taught by Kothnur for the tower anchored to a foundation as disclosed by Murray as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007). Kothnur fails to disclose the fan being fastened pivotably to the covering, wherein the fan can be pivoted between a first position in which the fan conceals the ventilation opening, and a second position in which the fan is pivoted away from the ventilation opening. Isonokami teaches the fan (ventilation fan 2) being fastened pivotably to the covering (cover 6), wherein the fan can be pivoted (via hinge 4) between a first position in which the fan conceals the ventilation opening (opening covered by pedestal 3), and a second position in which the fan is pivoted away from the ventilation opening (Fig. 2; pages 2 and 3 of the previously-submitted translation). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the fan as disclosed above with the pivotable connection comprising a hinge as taught by Isonokami to ensure that no harmful gas or moisture accumulates in the pile by providing multiple ways (fan, open top) for gas and moisture to escape from the interior of the pile. Additionally, the opening (50) as disclosed by Murray is of a fixed size and is designed to remain open and it would have been considered obvious to have modified the fixed size and open position of the opening as taught by Murray with a hinged connection between the fan and the covering as taught by Isonokami to allow the size of the opening through which gases and moisture can escape from the pile to be increased/decreased based upon the amount of gas and moisture to be removed from the pile to ensure optimal release of the gas and moisture from the pile while limiting the size of the opening to decrease/prevent debris from entering the pile through the opening.
Regarding claim 4, Murray further discloses the fan (wind operated ventilation unit) being arranged in an operating position on an axis of the component opening (12) (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; paragraphs 0014 and 0019).
Regarding claim 5, Murray further discloses the covering (20) having a ring plate (upper edge flange 30) on which the fan (wind operated ventilation unit) is held (Figs. 2 - 4; paragraphs 0018 and 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Murray discloses a method for assembling an offshore construction (wind turbine), comprising: (a) anchoring a hollow component (TP) to a seabed (via a foundation), with the result that a component opening (12) on an end side (top end side) of the component (TP) lies above a waterline, the component opening (12) being closed by way of a covering (20), and a fan (wind operated ventilation unit) for ventilating an interior space of the component (TP) via a ventilation opening (50) in the covering (20), (b) removing the covering (removing cover 20 using bolts), and (c) mounting a construction structure (wind turbine) on the component (TP) (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; abstract; paragraphs 0006, 0014, 0018, and 0019). Murray fails to disclose the component being a pile that is anchored to a seabed; and the fan being fastened pivotably to the covering. Kothnur teaches an offshore wind turbine mounted on a hollow component comprising a pile (monopile 24) mounted to a seabed (Fig. 1; paragraph 0033). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted the pile as taught by Kothnur for the tower anchored to a foundation as disclosed by Murray as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007). Kothnur fails to disclose the fan being fastened pivotably to the covering. Isonokami teaches the fan (ventilation fan 2) being fastened pivotably (via hinge 4) to the covering (cover 6) (Fig. 2; pages 2 and 3 of the previously-submitted translation). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the fan as disclosed above with the pivotable connection comprising a hinge as taught by Isonokami to ensure that no harmful gas or moisture accumulates in the pile by providing multiple ways (fan, open top) for gas and moisture to escape from the interior of the pile.
Regarding claim 8, Murray further discloses the covering (20) being split (lid sections 22 of cover 20 being split by bolted or other releasable connection) in step b) (Figs. 2 and 4; paragraph 0018). Murray in view of Kothnur and Isonokami fails to disclose the covering subsequently being disposed of. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with subsequently disposing of the split covering to allow the wind turbine to be attached to the top of the pile and to remove unnecessary material (split cover is no longer needed) from the installation site. Additionally, the opening (50) as disclosed by Murray is of a fixed size and is designed to remain open and it would have been considered obvious to have modified the fixed size and open position of the opening as taught by Murray with a hinged connection between the fan and the covering as taught by Isonokami to allow the size of the opening through which gases and moisture can escape from the pile to be increased/decreased based upon the amount of gas and moisture to be removed from the pile to ensure optimal release of the gas and moisture from the pile while limiting the size of the opening to decrease/prevent debris from entering the pile through the opening.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray et al. in view of Kothnur et al. and Isonokami et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ellis (US 2006/0088386). Murray fails to disclose the covering having a rod assembly which is covered with a tarpaulin. Isonokami teaches the covering having a rod assembly (roof bones 5) which is covered with a covering material (cover 6) (Fig. 2; pages 2 and 3 of the translation). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the rod assembly as taught by Isonokami to provide additional structural support to the covering. Isonokami is silent regarding the material of which the cover (6) is composed. Ellis teaches a piling cover comprising a tarpaulin (fabric cover) (paragraph 0016). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the cover as disclosed above with the tarpaulin as taught by Ellis as a design consideration within the art. The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 10 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Examiner’s rationale addresses only ventilation and ignores the technical problem solved by the claimed invention. Examiner replies that the technical problem solved by the claimed invention is a covering for the opening of a hollow pile to prevent mold formation and a lack of accessibility. Examiner replies that while the cited prior art might not explicitly teach a solution to the technical problem solved by the invention of the present application. However, the cited prior art teaches all of the claim limitations and, therefore, the cited prior art reads on the claims. Examiner takes the position that by allowing gases and moisture to flow out of the hollow pile as disclosed by the cited prior art, the apparatus is addressing the problem of preventing mold formation in the interior of the hollow pile by releasing moisture from the interior of the hollow pile. Examiner takes the position that the hinged connection as taught by Isonokami allows the top of the hollow pile to be opened, thereby allowing access to the interior of the pile.
Applicant argues that since Murray provides sufficient means for ventilation (opening 50), it is unnecessary to combine the teachings of Murray and Isonokami. Examiner replies that it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the fan as disclosed above with the pivotable connection comprising a hinge as taught by Isonokami to ensure that no harmful gas or moisture accumulates in the pile by providing multiple ways (fan, open top) for gas and moisture to escape from the interior of the pile. Additionally, the opening (50) as disclosed by Murray is of a fixed size and is designed to remain open and it would have been considered obvious to have modified the fixed size and open position of the opening as taught by Murray with a hinged connection between the fan and the covering as taught by Isonokami to allow the size of the opening through which gases and moisture can escape from the pile to be increased/decreased based upon the amount of gas and moisture to be removed from the pile to ensure optimal release of the gas and moisture from the pile while limiting the size of the opening to decrease/prevent debris from entering the pile through the opening.
Applicant argues that Murray and Isonokami relate to distinct fields, making any combination non-obvious. Examiner replies that both Murray and Isonokami are directed to covering the top of a hollow pile (the transition piece of the hollow cylindrical shaft as taught by Murray is functionally equivalent to a pile; the manhole as taught by Isonokami is functionally equivalent to a pile), thereby making is obvious to combine the cover as disclosed by Murray with the hinged connection as taught by Isonokami.
Applicant argues that Isonokami’s pivotable fan serves a different purpose because it does not function as an access point. Examiner replies that the claims do not require the fan to function as an access point. Additionally, Applicant is arguing intended use. Since the hinged connection associated with the fan as taught by Isonokami allows the top of the manhole to be raised, thereby allowing access to the interior of the manhole/pile, the pivotable fan as taught by Isonokami functions as an access point.
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 SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
12/17/2025