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 Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: In line 25, the word of preceding seat is unnecessary. 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, 5-8, 12-14, 19, 26-30 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation match-cast is a process limitation. Method steps may not be claimed in an apparatus claim. Note that it is well settled case law that such limitations, which are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; and, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2nd 1647. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 5, antecedent basis has previously been established for upper and lower seat members. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "each seat member pair" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, antecedent basis has previously been established for upper and lower seat members. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation formed by casting an upper seat member atop a lower seat member by introducing settable material into a seat member formwork is a process limitation. Method steps may not be claimed in an apparatus claim. Note that it is well settled case law that such limitations, which are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; and, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2nd 1647. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "each seat member pair" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, antecedent basis has previously been established for upper and lower seat members. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation formed by: i. casting a lower seat member by introducing settable material into a seat member formwork, ii. casting an upper seat member atop the cast lower seat member by introducing settable material into the seat member formwork is a process limitation. Method steps may not be claimed in an apparatus claim. Note that it is well settled case law that such limitations, which are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; and, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2nd 1647. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "each seat member pair" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation match-cast is a process limitation. Method steps may not be claimed in an apparatus claim. Note that it is well settled case law that such limitations, which are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; and, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2nd 1647. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the elongate direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear the number of seat member formwork pieces are claimed, as two seat members are claimed as being formed of a singular formwork. The examiner will examine as best understood with each seat member formed within separate formwork pieces. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the bottom" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what bottom is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the top" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear what top is referring to. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, in line 20, it is unclear if the settable material is the same settable material previously established in the claim. The examiner will examine as best understood with the settable material of line 8. Appropriate correctio nis required.
Regarding claim 13, antecedent basis for settable material has previously been established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear how the step recited is performed prior to the same step which was performed in the claim from which it depends. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 14, antecedent basis for settable material has previously been established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the elongate direction" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, in line 15, antecedent basis for settable material has previously been established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first section” and “the second section" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Section segments were previously established in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 26, the term and/or renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear how the seats can be arranged only vertically or at vertically opposed ends, as the terms are understood with the same meaning. The examiner will examine as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation formed by introducing settable material into a void of a section formwork is a process limitation. Method steps may not be claimed in an apparatus claim. Note that it is well settled case law that such limitations, which are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; and, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2nd 1647. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation the formwork is repurposed is a process limitation. Method steps may not be claimed in an apparatus claim. Note that it is well settled case law that such limitations, which are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; and, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2nd 1647. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the seat member formwork" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 27, it is unclear which seat member formwork is repurposed. The examiner will examine as best understood with one of said seat member formwork pieces repurposed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the height" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the combined height" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "its respective upper and lower seat members" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 28, the limitation match-cast is a process limitation. Method steps may not be claimed in an apparatus claim. Note that it is well settled case law that such limitations, which are essentially method limitations or statements of intended or desired use, do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; and, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2nd 1647. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 29, antecedent basis for an elongate member has previously been established in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 30, it is unclear which seat member formwork is repurposed. The examiner will examine as best understood with one of said seat member formwork pieces repurposed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the height" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the combined height" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "its respective upper and lower seat members" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The casting of the seat member as claimed was recited in the claim from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobrusky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0314285.
Regarding claim 1, Dobrusky discloses a tower, the elongate member (1) constructed of a plurality of sections (10), each section comprising a lower seat member (11), an upper seat member (12) and an intermediate segment (concrete wall portion intermediate 11 and 12) cast vertically between said lower and upper seat members to span therebetween (see Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of sections is stacked in a sequence such that, at each interface of adjacent sections: a lower seat member of an upper-more of said adjacent sections, and an upper seat member of a lower-more of said adjacent sections, are seated cooperatively in an abutting manner, said upper and lower seat members at each interface having been match-cast as a seat member pair (see figures).
Regarding claim 5, Dobrusky discloses a tower wherein the intermediate segment of each section comprises of set concrete poured against and spanning between respective upper and lower seat members of said section (as the section is one piece, paragraph 101).
Regarding claim 6, Dobrusky discloses a tower wherein each seat member pair is formed by casting an upper seat member atop a lower seat member by introducing settable material (concrete, title) into a seat member formwork (as the section is cast per paragraph 136, formwork will inherently be present).
Regarding claim 7, Dobrusky discloses a tower wherein each seat member pair is formed by: i. casting a lower seat member by introducing settable material (concrete, title) into a seat member formwork, ii. casting an upper seat member atop the cast lower seat member by introducing settable material into the seat member formwork (as the section is cast per paragraph 136, formwork will inherently be present).
Regarding claim 8, Dobrusky discloses a tower wherein the seat members of each seat member pair comprise corresponding match-cast faces formed at casting interface therebetween (abutting flange faces, see figures).
Regarding claim 26, Dobrusky discloses a tower wherein the intermediate segment of each section is formed by introducing settable material into a void of a section formwork (as the section is cast per paragraph 136, formwork will inherently be present), said void defined between respective upper and lower seat members (as the intermediate segment is located between upper and lower seats) of said section arranged vertically within and/or at vertically opposed ends of said section formwork (see Fig. 1, generally).
regarding claim 27, Dobrusky discloses a tower wherein the seat member formwork capable of being repurposed as the section formwork when the height of each intermediate segment is the same or less than the combined height of its respective upper and lower seat members. The phrase “capable of being repurposed as the section formwork when the height of each intermediate segment is the same or less than the combined height of its respective upper and lower seat members” is a statement of intended use of the claimed invention and must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 28, Dobrusky discloses a tower wherein each section comprises outwardly facing match-cast faces defining opposing ends of said section (upper and lower tower segment surfaces, see figures).
Regarding claim 29, Dobrusky discloses a wind tower (abstract) comprising an elongate member as claimed in claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobrusky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0314285 in view of Lockwood et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0033628.
Regarding claim 19, Dobrusky discloses a tower comprising: a. forming a first seat member (11) of a settable material (concrete, title) against a second seat member (12), at an interface of the first seat member and second seat member (see Fig. 4), defining corresponding surfaces of each of said first seat member and second seat member (abutting surfaces as shown), and b. forming a first of said sections (10b) by casting a first section segment (wall intermediate 11 and 12 of 10b) against the first seat member using a settable material (concrete, title), such that the first section segment projects in the elongate direction away from the first seat member (see figures), with the cast surface of said first seat member presented at a bottom end of said first section (see Fig. 4), and c. forming a second of said sections by casting a second section segment (10a) against the second seat member using a settable material, such that the second section segment projects in the elongate direction away from the second seat member (see Fig. 4, generally), and stacking the first section atop the second section such that the corresponding surfaces are seated cooperatively in an abutting manner (see Fig. 4, generally), but does not disclose the first seat member is formed against the second seat member, or match-cast, with the match cast surface of said second seat member presented at a top end of said second section. Lockwood teaches match-casting (paragraph 38). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize match-casting in the production process of the tower segments to ensure a precision fit between adjacent segments as it is a known process in the art, forming the first seat member against the second seat member with the match cast surface of said second seat member presented at a top end of said second section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a method for assembling a tower comprising, for each tower segment, forming upper and lower seat portions by match-casting, subsequently separating the portions and then arranging formwork between the separated portions to cast a portion intermediate the upper and lower portions. Though the claim appears to be allowable at this time, the examiner will determine whether the metes and bounds as best understood are reflected in clarified amended claims upon receipt to make a final determination of allowability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GISELE D FORD whose telephone number is (571)270-7326. The examiner can normally be reached M-T,Th-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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.
GISELE D. FORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3633
/GISELE D FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3633