DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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 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, 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.
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 1-2 and 8 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Inner Mongolia New Energy (CN1116088864) in view of Mtauweg (2019/0161991).
1. Inner Mongolia New Energy (IMNE) teaches a wind turbine supported by a plurality of cables 4, the wind turbine comprising:
a tower fixed at one end (the bottom) to a foundation and comprising:
at least two tower sections, including an upper section 2 and a lower section (the section below section 2), each of the upper and lower sections including an inwardly directed flange 21, fig. 5, having a plurality of through-bores )”flange bolt hole”;
an interface module 3 secured between the upper and lower sections and including a ring from which one or more ears (the pair of ears 32) extend outwardly, each ear being configured to be coupled to one of the plurality of cables, fig. 5, the ring including a plurality of through- bores 31 that align with the through-bores in the inwardly directed flanges of each of the upper and lower tower sections;
a plurality of fasteners 5 for securinq the interface module between the flanges of the upper section and the lower section, wherein each of the plurality of fasteners extends throuqh one of the plurality of throuqh-bores in the rinq and both the throuqh-bore in the lower tower section and the throuqh-bore in the upper tower section that are in alignment with the one of the plurality of throuqh-bores in the ring, fig. 5; and
an energy generating unit (wind turbine) on the tower and configured to produce electrical energy from wind.
IMNE does not teach the flange of the lower section further including second through-bores spaced apart from the through-bores and additional bores that align with the second through-bores in the inwardly directed flange of the lower section. Mtauweg teaches a flange of a lower section including second through-bores tb2 spaced apart from through-bores th and additional bores ab that align with the second through-bores in the inwardly directed flange of the lower section. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flange of the lower section to include second through-bores spaced apart from the through-bores, and additional bores that align with the second through-bores in the inwardly directed flange of the lower section for a strong joint that uses two rows of bolts in Mehra instead of just one, as taught by Mtauweg, for a strong connection.
PNG
media_image1.png
331
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mtauweg (annotated fig. 2)
2. INME in view of Mtauweg teaches the wind turbine of claim 1, Mtauweg further teaching the plurality of through-bores in the ring are arranged on a first (outer) radius from a central axis of the ring and the plurality of additional bores are arranged on a second (inner) radius, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius.
8. INME in view of Mtauweg teaches the wind turbine of claim 1, INME further teaching each ear includes a pair of spaced-apart flanges, fig. 5.
Claims 3-4 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over INME in view of Mtauweg and in further view of Tuerk (2018/0179776).
3. INME does not teach the ring is segmented, each segment being coupled to other segments at a joint at each end. Tuerk, fig. 6, teaches a ring (flange) is segmented, each segment being coupled to other segments at a joint (butt joint) at each end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ring to be segmented, each segment being coupled to other segments at a joint at each end for easier transportation.
4. INME in view of Mtauweg and in further view of Tuerk teaches the wind turbine of claim 3, Tuerk further teaching the ring consists of three segments, fig. 6, but NME in view of Mtauweg and in further view of Tuerk does not expressly teach each segment including at least two of the ears because the INME ring has either 3, 4, or 5 evenly spaced ears (figs. 5-7), a Mtauweg and in further view of Tuerk and in yet further view of Inner Mongolia 3 segment that has 6 ears would have two INME ears per segment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each segment to include at least two of the ears (for a total of 6 per ring) for stability.
Claim 5 - is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over INME in view of Mtauweg and in further view of Pederson (10,598,154).
5. INME in view of Mtauweg teaches the wind turbine of claim 1, INME further teaching the upper and lower tower sections include a wall 2 from which each inwardly directed flange extends, and each ear extending outwardly from the ring, fig. 4, but does not teach each ear extending outwardly and downwardly, so that a neutral axis of the ear intersects a neutral axis of the ring at a neutral axis of each of the walls. Pederson teaches ears extending downwardly so that a neutral axis of the ear intersects a neutral axis of the ring at a neutral axis of each of the walls (a neutral axis of the ear intersects a neutral axis of the ring, col. 7, lines 37-40, at a neutral axis of the wall (at convergence point 300), col. 7, lines 9-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each ear to extending outwardly and downwardly, so that a neutral axis of the ear intersects a neutral axis of the ring at a neutral axis of each of the walls “for the wind tower to withstand the varying and potentially high wind forces which in the interacting with the rotor creates complex and at times quite extreme dynamic loads”, col. 1, lines 52-54.
Claims 6-7 and 9 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over INME in view of Mtauweg and in further view of Segura (8,171,715).
6. INME in view of Mtauweg does not teach each ear is coupled to a respective cable at a cardan-type joint. Segura teaches an ear 28, coupled to a cable 20 at a cardan-type joint (the is essentially a cardan joint because it transmits rotational power and allows angular movement). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each ear is coupled to a respective cable at a cardan joint for a strong, easily assembled connection.
7. INME in view of Mtauweg and in further view of Segura teaches the wind turbine of claim 6, Segura further teaching the cardan-type joint includes an eyelet 100 and the eyelet includes a stop (the top loop of eyelet 100) and wherein the cable includes a socket (sleeve 22 is essentially a socket) and the socket includes a stop (the lower section that contacts the top loop of eyelet 100) that is configured to contact the stop on the eyelet to provide a limit to rotational movement of the socket when the socket rotates toward the foundation (rotation is limited somewhat because only a degree of rotational movement is possible where the two loops meet).
9. INME in view of Mtauweg does not teach each cable is coupled to a respective ear at a joint and the joint includes two rotational axes that are each oriented in a respective plane parallel to one another while being perpendicular to a vertical tower axis. Segura teaches an ear 28, coupled to a cable 20 at a joint including two rotational axes, a1 and a2, that are each oriented in a respective plane, p, parallel to one another while being perpendicular to a vertical tower axis (mtva is the INME tower vertical axis in the tower of the combination). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the joint to include two rotational axes that are each oriented in a respective plane parallel to one another while being perpendicular to a vertical tower axis for a strong, easy to operate, connection.
PNG
media_image2.png
384
228
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 4
Claims 12 and 19 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over INME in view of Pederson
12. Inner Mongolia New Energy (IMNE) teaches a wind turbine supported by a plurality of cables 4, the wind turbine comprising:
a tower fixed at one end (the bottom) to a foundation and comprising:
at least two tower sections including an upper section 2 and a lower section (the section below 2), each of the upper and lower sections including a wall 2 from which an inwardly directed flange 21 extends, each inwardly directed flange having a plurality of through-bores;
an interface module secured between the upper and lower sections and including a ring from which one or more ears (the pair of ears 32) extend outwardly and configured to be coupled to one of the plurality of cables, the ring including a plurality of through-bores that each aligns with both one of the through-bores in the inwardly directed flanges of each of the upper tower section and one of the throuqh-bores in the inwardly directed flange of the lower tower section; and
a plurality of fasteners, each of the plurality of fasteners extendinq throuqh one of the plurality of throuqh-bores in the rinq and both the throuqh-bore in the lower tower section and the throuqh-bore in the upper tower section that are in alignment with the one of the plurality of throuqh-bores in the rinq; and
an energy generating unit (wind turbine) being disposed on the tower and configured to produce electrical energy from wind.
INME does not teach the ears extend outwardly and downwardly from the ring so that a neutral axis of the ear intersects a neutral axis of the ring at a neutral axis of each of the walls. Pederson teaches ears extend outwardly and downwardly from a ring so that a neutral axis of the ear intersects a neutral axis of the ring at a neutral axis of each of the walls (a neutral axis of the ear intersects a neutral axis of the ring, col. 7, lines 37-40, at a neutral axis of the wall (at convergence point 300), col. 7, lines 9-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each ear to extending outwardly and downwardly, so that a neutral axis of the ear intersects a neutral axis of the ring at a neutral axis of each of the walls “for the wind tower to withstand the varying and potentially high wind forces which in the interacting with the rotor creates complex and at times quite extreme dynamic loads”, col. 1, lines 52-54.
19. INME in view of Pederson teaches the wind turbine of claim 12, INME further teaching each ear includes a pair of spaced-apart flanges, fig. 5.
Claims 13-14 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over IMNE in view of Pederson and in further view of Mtauweg.
13. Inner Mongolia New Energy (IMNE) in view of Pederson does not teach the flange of the lower section further includes a plurality of second through-bores spaced apart from the plurality of through-bores and the interface module includes a plurality of additional bores that align with the second through-bores in the inwardly directed flange of the lower section. Mtauweg, fig. 2, teaches it is old in the art to have second through-bores, tb2, spaced apart from through-bores, th, and a plurality of additional bores, ab, that align with the second through-bores in an inwardly directed element 300 of a lower section 101. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the flange of the lower section to include second through-bores spaced apart from the through-bores, and additional bores that align with the second through-bores in the inwardly directed flange of the lower section for a strong joint that uses two rows of bolts in Mehra instead of just one, as taught by Mtauweg, for a strong connection.
14. IMNE in view of Pederson and in further view of Mtauweg teaches the wind turbine of claim 13, Mtauweg further teaching the plurality of through-bores in the ring are arranged on a first (outer) radius from a central axis of the ring and the plurality of additional bores are arranged on a second (inner) radius, wherein the second radius is smaller than the first radius.
Claims 15-16 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over IMNE in view of Pederson and in further view of Tuerk (2018/0179776).
15. INME does not teach the ring is segmented, each segment being coupled to other segments at a joint at each end. Tuerk, fig. 6, teaches a ring (flange) is segmented, each segment being coupled to other segments at a joint (butt joint) at each end. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the ring to be segmented, each segment being coupled to other segments at a joint at each end for easier transportation.
16. INME in view of Mtauweg and in further view of Tuerk teaches the wind turbine of claim 15, Tuerk further teaching the ring consists of three segments, fig. 6, but NME in view of Mtauweg and in further view of Tuerk does not expressly teach each segment including at least two of the ears because the INME ring has either 3, 4, or 5 evenly spaced ears (figs. 5-7), a Mtauweg and in further view of Tuerk and in yet further view of Inner Mongolia 3 segment that has 6 ears would have two INME ears per segment. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each segment to include at least two of the ears (for a total of 6 per ring) for stability.
Claims 17-18 and 20 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over INME in view of Pederson and in further view of Segura.
17. INME in view of Pederson does not teach each ear is coupled to a respective cable at a cardan-type joint. Segura teaches an ear 28, coupled to a cable 20 at a cardan-type joint (the is essentially a cardan joint because it transmits rotational power and allows angular movement). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for each ear is coupled to a respective cable at a cardan joint for a strong, easily assembled connection.
18. INME in view of Pederson and in further view of Segura teaches the wind turbine of claim 17, Segura further teaching the cardan-type joint includes an eyelet 100 and the eyelet includes a stop (the top loop of eyelet 100) and wherein the cable includes a socket (sleeve 22 is essentially a socket) and the socket includes a stop (the lower section that contacts the top loop of eyelet 100) that is configured to contact the stop on the eyelet to provide a limit to rotational movement of the socket when the socket rotates toward the foundation (rotation is limited somewhat because only a degree of rotational movement is possible where the two loops meet).
20. INME in view of Pederson does not teach each cable is coupled to a respective ear at a joint and the joint includes two rotational axes that are each oriented in a respective plane parallel to one another while being perpendicular to a vertical tower axis. Segura teaches an ear 28, coupled to a cable 20 at a joint including two rotational axes, a1 and a2, that are each oriented in a respective plane, p, parallel to one another while being perpendicular to a vertical tower axis (mtva is the INME tower vertical axis in the tower of the combination). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the joint to include two rotational axes that are each oriented in a respective plane parallel to one another while being perpendicular to a vertical tower axis for a strong, easy to operate, connection.
Claims 23-26 - are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over INME in view Mtauweg and Saez Anthonisen (11,971,012).
23. The claim recites an obvious method of installing the INME in view of Mtauweg wind turbine, but does not expressly teach after tensioning, installing the energy generating unit on the tower. Saez Anthonisen teachs after tensioning, installing the energy generating unit on the tower, col. 5, lines 17-46, and figs. 1 and 10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to after tensioning, install the energy generating unit on the tower for safety.
24. INME in view of Mtauweg and Saez Anthonisen teaches the method of claim 23, INME further teaching after attaching the interface module to the upper tower section and prior to installing the energy generating unit, the method further comprises installing an additional interface module on the at least one upper tower section, fig. 9, and installing an additional upper tower section on the additional interface module, fig. 9, wherein the at least one upper tower section includes a wall, and a second flange that extends inwardly from the wall, the second flange including a plurality of through-bores and wherein installing the at least one upper tower section includes aligning the through-bores of the second flange with the through-bores of each of the interface module and the first flange and inserting fasteners (bolts) through the aligned through-bores of each of the upper tower section, the interface module, and the at least one upper tower section (fig. 9 shows two interface modules 3 with flanged tower segments above, between and below).
25. INME in view of Mtauweg and Saez Anthonisen teaches the method of claim 23, Saez Anthonisen further teaching prior to installing the interface module, the method further comprises attaching one or more of the plurality of cables to one or more of the plurality of ears, fig. 10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention prior to installing the interface module, the method further comprises attaching one or more of the plurality of cables to one or more of the plurality of ears because it easier to attach the cables on the ground.
26. INME in view of Mtauweg and Saez Anthonisen teaches the method of claim 25, Saez Anthonisen further teaching installing the interface module includes separating the attached cables to create an opening sized to allow the upper tower section and any previously installed lower tower section to pass through the opening (fig. 10 shows the cables separated and such an opening created. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention prior to installing the interface module, including separating the attached cables to create an opening sized to allow the upper tower section and any previously installed lower tower section to pass through the opening so the tower sections do not interfere with the cables.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on new primary reference, INME, for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 21-22 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. The claims are allowed because while Mayfield teaches the two rotational axes are spaced apart by a flexible chain, and the chain “may be replaced by…other suitable component”, col. 22, lines 50-55, absent impermissible hindsight, it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the chain to be replaced by a flexible arm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J KENNY whose telephone number is (571)272-9951. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nies (2011/0131898), figs. 7c-d, teaches threaded hub bores.
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 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.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/DANIEL J KENNY/Examiner, Art Unit 3633
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights