DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed on 06/23/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-3 have been amended and claim(s) 4-5 have been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-5 are now pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
The previous drawing objections have been withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Some of the previous 35 USC 112 rejections are withdrawn in light of applicant's amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, at line 3, the recitation “the welded frange”, is understood to mean -- the welded flange --.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 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 1, at lines 13 and 14, the recitations “the bases of the concrete beams” and “the area” render the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, at line 20, the recitation “the metal parts” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, at line 22, the recitation "a central massive block" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to the same previously recited limitation “a massive block”.
Regarding claim 1, at line 23, the recitation “said base reinforcing rods” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 1, at line 26, the recitation "a steel strut" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to the same previously recited limitation “a steel strut”.
Regarding claim 1, at line 28, the recitation "connecting bolts" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to the same previously recited limitation “connecting bolts”.
Regarding claim 1, at line 32, the recitation "bearing connecting bolts" renders the claim indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis or creates ambiguity as to whether it is referring to the same previously recited limitation “connecting bolts”.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, at lines 2-3, the recitation “the central concrete ferrule” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, at line 3, the recitation “its” renders the claim indefinite because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired, in particular since it is unclear as to what constitutes "its".
Regarding claim 3, at line 3, the recitation “the tower” renders the claim indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
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, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phuly (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0061321) in view of Kellner (WO 2014012708 A1) with Espacenet translation.
Regarding claim 1, Phuly teaches a method for constructing a ribbed foundation (paragraph 2, figure 1) for wind turbines (abstract) comprising: -placing a central reinforcing mesh (24) on the ground (figure 8); -providing a central steel ferrule (10) having connecting bolts (56) on an outer surface (figure 9) of the central steel ferrule, -placing said central ferrule, with a geometrical axis in vertical position (arbitrary vertical axis), on the central reinforcing mesh (figure 9), - installing a central assembly (102) around the central ferrule (figure 4), so that the connecting bolts are housed in said central assembly (figure 4); -providing a plurality of prefabricated pieces, each prefabricated piece comprising a base (bottom of 16), a concrete beam (16); -assembling a plurality of sections (at 20) each section located between the bases of the concrete beams (figure 4), and a massive block (at 102) of the central assembly in the area facing each concrete beam (figure 4); -installing a plurality of formworks (17) around the central assembly (figure 4), the massive block of the central assembly and the outer perimeter of the bases of each concrete beam and of a plurality of assemblies (20) existing between each concrete beam (figure 4); -obtaining, by means of a simultaneous concreting of all the formwork areas, a monolithic concrete foundation (figure 11) that includes: portions of a slab between the concrete beams (figure 11), a central concrete ferrule (outer portion of 60; figure 11), the central massive block and the concrete beams themselves (figures 3a and 11) characterized in that -the concrete beam has a first end (outer end of 16), a second end (inner end of 16), the base (bottom of 16) from which said base reinforcing rods (42) protrude laterally (figure 3a), and upper section reinforcing rods (46) protrude from the second end of the concrete beam (figure 3a); -placing said prefabricated pieces on the ground, radially arranged with respect to the central ferrule (figure 4) and evenly distributed around said central ferrule (figure 4); so that the second end of the concrete beam faces the perimeter of the central reinforcing mesh (figure 4).
Phuly does not specifically disclose a steel strut which has a first end embedded in the corresponding concrete beam and a second end that protrudes in the longitudinal direction with an upward inclination relative to said beam and having connecting bolts; and the second end of the struts, bearing connecting bolts, is housed in the central assembly.
Kellner discloses a wind turbine ground anchor (paragraphs 1-3) including a steel strut (3.3; paragraph 21) which has a first end (lower end) embedded in the corresponding concrete beam (at 2.2) and a second end that protrudes in the longitudinal direction with an upward inclination relative to said beam (figure 6) and having connecting bolts (figure 6 [not labeled]); and the second end of the struts, bearing connecting bolts (figure 6 [not labeled]), is housed in the central assembly (in the combination, it is understood that the connecting bolts of Kellner would be housed in the central assembly of Phuly).
Therefore, from the teaching of Kellner, 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 Phuly to include a steel strut which has a first end embedded in the corresponding concrete beam and a second end that protrudes in the longitudinal direction with an upward inclination relative to said beam and having connecting bolts; and the second end of the struts, bearing connecting bolts, is housed in the central assembly, as taught by Kellner, in order to further stabilize the wind tower by providing additional bracing to resist high wind loads and further reduce bending and improve load distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Phuly teaches the use of the central steel ferrule (10), with a cylindrical section (figure 9), and with vertical axis (arbitrary vertical axis of 10), which is arranged internally with respect to the central concrete ferrule (figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, Phuly teaches the use of the central steel ferrule (10) having a flange (at 60) at its upper end (figure 9) capable of screwing the tower of the wind turbine onto the flange.
Although Phuly does not specifically disclose the flange is welded. Phuly does disclose the use of welding segments together (paragraph 156). Therefore, 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 utilize welding the flange since it is a common practice to weld steel components together in the field and in manufacturing to create a fast and strong bond without requiring additional fasteners.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s argument that the struts in Kellner are screw connections whereas the current application does not use screws has been considered but is not found persuasive since the claim is not being limited to not including screws. Furthermore, in the combination, it is obvious that the struts of Kellner would be embedded in the corresponding concrete beam of Phuly in the same manner that the beams 34a are embedded.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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