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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 30 of claim 1, “a height direction” should be changed to “the height direction”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first reinforcing part" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner has interpreted the aforementioned limitation as “the first reinforcing portion”, as best understood.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second reinforcing part" in lines 29 - 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner has interpreted the aforementioned limitation as “the second reinforcing portion”, as best understood.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrotti et al. (US 5,144,830) in view of Larsen et al. (WO 2013/185769; hereinafter Larsen ‘769), Lynderup et al. (WO 2011/147592), and Larsen et al. (US 9,765,547; hereinafter Larsen ‘547).
Regarding claim 1, Ferrotti discloses a node (3) for a lower structure of an offshore wind power generator, the node comprising: a body part (large diameter tube 4) into which a main pipe is inserted; a support part (stub 11) which is formed to be branched from the body part at a predetermined angle with respect to a height direction and into which a branch pipe (brace 12) is inserted, wherein the body part (4) is formed such that a thickness of a portion (plate of thickness 8) from which the support part (11) initially branches is greater than a thickness of a portion spaced apart from the support part with reference to the height direction; an upper support portion (see the two upwardly-inclined legs 2 near the top of node 3 in Fig. 1) formed on a relatively high side in the height direction; a lower support portion (see the two downwardly-inclined legs 2 near the bottom of node 3 in Fig. 1) spaced apart from the upper support portion and formed on a relatively lower side; wherein the upper support portion includes a first upper support portion formed with a predetermined angle with respect to a reference surface that is a surface including a central axis of the body part on the basis of the height direction (Figs. 1 and 2) (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 4, lines 40 - 65). Ferrotti fails to disclose a reinforcement part that extends and protrudes from the body part, forms a predetermined radius of curvature, and thus reinforces coupling between the body part and the support part; an angle formed between the upper portion and the body part is smaller than an angle formed between the lower support portion and the body part in the height direction; the reinforcement part includes: a first reinforcement portion configured to reinforce coupling between the first upper support portion and the body part; and a second reinforcement portion configured to reinforce coupling between the second upper support portion and the body part, and the first reinforcement portion at least partially overlaps the second reinforcement portion in a region that includes the reference surface, when viewed in the height direction. Larsen ‘769 teaches a reinforcement part (brace 28) that extends and protrudes from the body part (leg portion 29), forms a predetermined radius of curvature, and thus reinforces coupling between the body part and the support part (root portions 26); and the reinforcement part (28) includes: a first reinforcement portion configured to reinforce coupling between the first upper support portion and the body part (29); and a second reinforcement portion configured to reinforce coupling between the second upper support portion and the body part (29), and the first reinforcement portion at least partially overlaps the second reinforcement portion in a region that includes the reference surface, when viewed in the height direction (Figs. 1, 15, and 16; page 6, lines 13 - 16; page 8, lines 9 - 14). 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 by Ferrotti with the reinforcement part as taught by Larsen ‘769 to provide additional structural support and to distribute the stress throughout the joint. Larsen ‘769 fails to teach an angle formed between the upper portion and the body part is smaller than an angle formed between the lower support portion and the body part in the height direction; a second upper support portion formed symmetrical to the first upper support portion with respect to the reference surface. Lynderup teaches an angle formed between the upper support portion (unlabeled smaller- diameter interior legs) and the body part (main legs 7) is smaller than an angle formed between the lower support portion (unlabeled wider-diameter interior legs) and the body part (7) in the height direction (Figs. 1 and 2). 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 angle formed between the upper support portion and the body part and the angle formed between the lower support portion and the body part in the height direction as taught by Lynderup so that the main pipes of the tower are angled inwardly to provide a predetermined amount of structural stability. Lynderup fails to teach a second upper support portion formed symmetrical to the first upper support portion with respect to the reference surface. Larsen ‘547 teaches the upper support portion (see upper portion of K-node 14) includes: a first upper support portion (upper right node portion of 14) formed with a predetermined angle with respect to a reference surface that is a surface including a central axis of the body part on the basis of the height direction; and a second upper support portion (upper left node portion of 14) formed symmetrical to the first upper support portion with respect to the reference surface (Figs. 1 and exploded view of Fig. 1). 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 upper support portion includes: a first upper support portion formed with a predetermined angle with respect to a reference surface that is a surface including a central axis of the body part on the basis of the height direction; and a second upper support portion formed symmetrical to the first upper support portion with respect to the reference surface as taught by Larsen ‘547 to provide a lower structure having a predetermined shape with a predetermined amount of structural support.
Although Ferrotti fails to explicitly disclose the apparatus is manufactured by a casting method, the claim(s) is directed to an apparatus and the method by which an apparatus is made lacks patentable weight in an apparatus claim.
2113 Product-by-Process Claims
PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE
MANIPULATIONS OF THE RECITED STEPS, ONLY THE STRUCTURE
IMPLIED BY THE STEPS
“TE]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 3, Ferrotti fails to disclose a diameter of the upper support portion is smaller than a diameter of the lower support portion. Lynderup teaches a diameter of the upper support portion (unlabeled smaller-diameter interior legs) is smaller than a diameter of the lower support portion (unlabeled wider-diameter interior legs) (Figs. 1 and 2). 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 relatively small diameter upper support portion and relatively wide diameter lower support portion as taught by Lynderup to provide a predetermined amount of structural stability.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferrotti in view of Larsen ‘769, Lynderup et al., and Larsen ‘547 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benedict (US 4,941,775).
Regarding claim 6, Ferrotti in view of Larsen ‘769, Lynderup, and Larsen ‘547 discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a connection part formed with a predetermined curvature and coupled to the support part and an adjacent support part, wherein the connection part includes a first connection portion coupled to portions of an outer circumferential surface of the first upper support portion, an outer circumferential surface of the second upper support portion, and the body part and configured to receive stress from the first upper support portion, the second upper support portion, and the body part. Benedict teaches a connection part (elastomeric coating 72) formed with a predetermined curvature and coupled to the support part (brace 22) and an adjacent support part (brace 22), wherein the connection part includes a first connection portion coupled to portions of an outer circumferential surface of the first upper support portion, an outer circumferential surface of the second upper support portion, and the body part (leg 28) and configured to receive stress from the first upper support portion, the second upper support portion, and the body part (Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6; col. 8, lines 33 - 38; col. 12, lines 41 - 53) to resist abrasion and wind/wave forces. 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 connection part as taught by Benedict to provide a coating on the offshore structure that resists abrasion and wind/wave forces.
Regarding claim 7, Ferrotti in view of Larsen ‘769, Lynderup, and Larsen ‘547 discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the connection part further includes a second connection portion coupled to portions of an outer circumferential surface of the upper support portion, an outer circumferential surface of the lower support portion, and the body part and configured to receive stress from the upper support portion, the lower support portion, and the body part. Benedict teaches the connection part (72) further includes a second connection portion coupled to portions of an outer circumferential surface of the upper support portion, an outer circumferential surface of the lower support portion, and the body part (28) and configured to receive stress from the upper support portion, the lower support portion, and the body part (Figs. 2, 3, 5, and 6; col. 8, lines 33 - 38; col. 12, lines 41 - 53) to resist abrasion and wind/wave forces. 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 connection part as taught by Benedict to provide a coating on the offshore structure that resists abrasion and wind/wave forces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach the reinforcing part is formed to overlap only in the region where stress is concentrated. Examiner replies that the claims do not recite the reinforcing part is formed to “overlap only in the region where stress is concentrated”. Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “wherein the first reinforcing part at least partially overlaps the second reinforcing part in a region that includes the reference surface”. Examiner takes the position that the aforementioned limitation does not limit the overlap to only the region where stress is concentrated.
Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach reducing weight of the reinforcing part itself by forming it only in the area where stress distribution is necessary. Examiner replies that the claims do not require reducing weight of the reinforcing part itself by forming it only in the area where stress distribution is necessary.
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
9/26/2025