DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. The Preliminary amendment received on 09/13/2023 has been acknowledged. Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-17, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 27 have been amended and claim(s) 4, 8, 20, 23, 24, and 26 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-19, 21, 22, 25, and 27 are now pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6 and 7, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, at line 3, the recitation “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. For purpose of this Office Action, it is assumed that the limitation following “preferably” is meant to be optional.
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 “ballast tank” of claim 1 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) 1-3, 5, 6, 11-15, 17, 18, 21, and 22, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eusterbarkey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0185279).
Regarding claim 1, Eusterbarkey teaches a transition piece (foundation assembly; abstract) capable of use in a foundation of an offshore wind turbine, the transition piece comprising a tubular support structure (33) capable of supporting a wind turbine, the support structure having a first end (lower end of 33) arranged to receive an end portion (top portion) of a pile (31) for mounting the transition piece on the pile (figure 3), and a second end (top end of 33) distal from the first end (figure 3) capable of supporting a wind turbine.
Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the support structure is concrete. However, Eusterbarkey discloses that it is known in the prior art to have foundation elements made of concrete (paragraph 12). Therefore, 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 support structure of Eusterbarkey to be made of concrete, in order to provide low maintenance and corrosion resistance to marine structures.
Regarding claim 2, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the concrete support structure has a length of at least 20m.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the concrete support structure have a length of at least 20m, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, a mere change in size involves only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the concrete support structure have a length of at least 20m, in order to provide the appropriate length of the support structure depending on the depth of the water at a particular site.
Regarding claim 3, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the concrete support structure has an inside diameter of 5m to 15m.
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 concrete support structure has an inside diameter of 5m to 15m, 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 concrete support structure has an inside diameter of 5m to 15m, in order to provide the optimal structural strength for the support structure, based on the design requirements and to accommodate resistance to external loads.
Regarding claim 5, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the concrete support structure is formed of reinforced concrete.
However, Eusterbarkey discloses that it is known in the prior art to have foundation elements made of reinforced concrete (paragraph 12). Therefore, 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 support structure of Eusterbarkey to be made of reinforced concrete, in order to provide low maintenance and corrosion resistance to marine structures.
Regarding claim 6, Eusterbarkey teaches a skirt (32) coupled to the first end of the concrete support structure (figure 3) for inserting into the sea floor (figure 3), but does not specifically disclose the skirt has a length of 1m to 5m.
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 skirt has a length of 1m to 5m, 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 concrete support structure has an inside diameter of 5m to 15m, in order to provide the optimal structural strength for the support structure assembly, based on the design requirements and to accommodate resistance to external loads.
Regarding claim 11, Eusterbarkey teaches the pile having a toe end (bottom end) embedded in the sea floor (figure 3) and a distal end (top end) extending upwardly from the sea floor (figure 3), wherein the distal end of the pile is below the surface of the water (figure 3); and the transition piece mounted on the distal end of the pile (figure 3), wherein the transition piece protrudes above the surface of the water (figure 3).
Regarding claim 12, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the pile extends not more than 10m from the sea floor.
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 pile extends not more than 10m from the sea floor, 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 pile extends not more than 10m from the sea floor, in order to provide the optimal structural strength for the support structure, based on the design requirements and to accommodate resistance to external loads.
Regarding claim 13, Eusterbarkey teaches the distal end of the pile is received within the first end of the concrete support structure (figure 3) such that a portion of the concrete support structure surrounds and overlaps with a portion of the pile (figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Eusterbarkey teaches an annular gap (space between 31 and 33) is formed between the outer surface of the pile and the inner surface of the concrete support structure (figure 3), wherein grout (30b) is provided in the annular gap to secure the transition piece to the pile (figure 3).
Regarding claim 15, Eusterbarkey teaches the skirt penetrates the sea floor (figure 3), but does not specifically disclose the skirt extends into the sea floor up to a depth of 1m to 5m.
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 skirt extends into the sea floor up to a depth of 1m to 5m, 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 skirt extends into the sea floor up to a depth of 1m to 5m, in order to provide the optimal structural strength for the support structure assembly, based on the design requirements and to accommodate resistance to external loads.
Regarding claim 17, Eusterbarkey teaches a method installing a foundation for an offshore wind turbine (paragraph 19), comprising: providing the pile partially embedded in the sea floor (figure 3) such that an end of the pile extends from the sea floor (figure 3), the end of the pile being below the waterline (figure 3); and mounting the transition piece on the pile by lowering the transition piece towards the sea floor (figure 3) and onto the pile such that the end of the pile is received within the first end of the transition piece (figure 3).
Regarding claim 18, Eusterbarkey teaches the transition piece on the pile forms an annular gap between the outer surface of the pile and the inner surface of the concrete support structure (figure 3), but does not specifically disclose lowering. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to lower the transition piece onto the pile to form the annular gap between the outer surface of the pile and the inner surface of the concrete support structure in order to provide the optimal order of assembly to facilitate the construction process.
Regarding claim 21, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose transporting the pile to an installation site from a pile manufacturing site where the pile has been produced, and transporting the transition piece to the installation site from a transition piece manufacturing site where the transition piece has been produced, wherein the transition piece manufacturing site and the pile manufacturing site are at different locations. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to transport the pile to an installation site from a pile manufacturing site where the pile has been produced, and transport the transition piece to the installation site from a transition piece manufacturing site where the transition piece has been produced, wherein the transition piece manufacturing site and the pile manufacturing site are at different locations, in order to increase efficiency and reduce construction time by providing simultaneous manufacturing and timing their finalization at the same time.
Regarding claim 22, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the transition piece manufacturing site is located closer to the installation site than the pile manufacturing site. However, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the transition piece manufacturing site located closer to the installation site than the pile manufacturing site, in order to increase efficiency and reduce construction time by providing simultaneous manufacturing and timing their finalization at the same time.
Claim(s) 7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eusterbarkey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0185279) in view of Henderson (WO 02/27105 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the skirt is formed of corrugated steel.
Henderson discloses a foundation for wind turbines wherein the skirt is formed of corrugated steel (col. 10, lines 21-23).
Therefore, from the teaching of Henderson, 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 foundation assembly of Eusterbarkey such that the skirt is formed of corrugated steel, as taught by Henderson, in order to establish a strengthened boundary for the foundation assembly by increasing the robustness of the base.
Claim(s) 9 and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eusterbarkey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0185279) in view of Beck et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,909,541).
Regarding claim 9, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose at least one conduit extending along the length of the concrete support structure for directing grout towards the first end of the concrete support structure, wherein the conduit is formed within the wall of the concrete support structure.
Beck et al. discloses a pile construction assembly (abstract) including at least one conduit (9) extending along the length of the concrete support structure (figure 2) for directing grout towards the first end of the concrete support structure (col. 5, lines 55-60), wherein the conduit is formed within the wall of the concrete support structure (figure 2).
Therefore, from the teaching of Beck 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 foundation assembly of Eusterbarkey to include at least one conduit extending along the length of the concrete support structure for directing grout towards the first end of the concrete support structure, wherein the conduit is formed within the wall of the concrete support structure, as taught by Beck et al., in order to advance the delivery of grout to the foundation in order to facilitate the construction process and reduce the chances of concrete spillage.
Regarding claim 19, Eusterbarkey teaches passing grout (30b) to the annular gap in order to form a grouted connection between the pile and the transition piece (figure 3).
Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose wherein the grout is passed from the second end of the concrete support structure to the annular gap through conduits extending along the length of the concrete support structure.
Beck et al. discloses a pile construction assembly (abstract) wherein the grout is passed from the second end of the concrete support structure to the annular gap (col. 5, lines 55-60) through conduits (9) extending along the length of the concrete support structure (figure 2)
Therefore, from the teaching of Beck 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 foundation assembly of Eusterbarkey, such that the grout is passed from the second end of the concrete support structure to the annular gap through conduits extending along the length of the concrete support structure, as taught by Beck et al., in order to advance the delivery of grout to the foundation in order to facilitate the construction process and reduce the chances of concrete spillage.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eusterbarkey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0185279) in view of Anastaopoulos (WO 2015/071634 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the support structure comprises a ballast tank for storing ballast.
Anastaopoulos discloses an offshore foundation (abstract) whereby the footing (212) comprises a ballast tank for storing ballast (col. 13, lines 34-37).
Therefore, from the teaching of Anastaopoulos, 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 foundation assembly of Eusterbarkey such that the support structure comprises a ballast tank for storing ballast, as taught by Anastaopoulos, in order to advance the positioning of the footing structure underwater utilizing weighted ballast, to facilitate construction.
Claim(s) 16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eusterbarkey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0185279) in view of Tanabe (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0348597).
Regarding claim 16, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose a wind turbine mounted on the foundation, wherein the wind turbine comprises: a tower mounted on the foundation; a nacelle mounted at the top of the tower; one or more rotor blades rotatably mounted to the nacelle by a rotor hub; and a generator arranged to be driven by rotation of the rotor hub.
Tanabe discloses a pile foundation (abstract) including a wind turbine (figure 1) mounted on the foundation (figure 1), wherein the wind turbine comprises: a tower mounted on the foundation (figure 1); a nacelle (18) mounted at the top of the tower (figure 1); one or more rotor blades (22) rotatably mounted to the nacelle by a rotor hub (20); and a generator (12) arranged to be driven by rotation of the rotor hub (paragraph 48).
Therefore, from the teaching of Tanabe, 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 foundation assembly of Eusterbarkey, to include a wind turbine mounted on the foundation, wherein the wind turbine comprises: a tower mounted on the foundation; a nacelle mounted at the top of the tower; one or more rotor blades rotatably mounted to the nacelle by a rotor hub; and a generator arranged to be driven by rotation of the rotor hub, as taught by Tanabe, in order to provide the full package of components for the wind power installation, for optimal energy efficiency.
Claim(s) 25 and 27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eusterbarkey (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0185279) in view of Olav (GB 2,124,684).
Regarding claim 25, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose the transition piece is transported to the installation site in a horizontal orientation.
Olav discloses an off-shore (title) transported to the installation site in a horizontal orientation (col. 3, lines 15-20).
Therefore, from the teaching of Olav, 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 foundation assembly of Eusterbarkey, such that the transition piece is transported to the installation site in a horizontal orientation, as taught by Olav, in order to provide an optimal method of delivery for an elongated structure to reduce the probability of damage during transport.
Regarding claim 27, Eusterbarkey does not specifically disclose forming the concrete support structure as a monolithic structure, by slip-forming.
Olav discloses an off-shore (title) including forming monolithic structures, by slip-forming (col. 1, lines 125-130).
Therefore, from the teaching of Olav, 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 foundation assembly of Eusterbarkey, to include forming the concrete support structure as a monolithic structure, by slip-forming, as taught by Olav, in order to provide a continuous and uniform construction for elongated structures to reduce manufacturing defects.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited patents listed on the included form PTO-892 further show the state of the art with respect to offshore foundations in general.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR 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