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 .
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 gasket shaped as a hollow elongated body (claim 1), and the wind turbine, the monopile, the transition piece, the bottom part of the transition piece, and the gasket being sandwiched between the transition piece and the monopile (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner notes that as these elements when illustrated would likely constitute at least some small amount of new matter, Examiner recommends canceling the limitation in claim 1 and canceling claims 14, 15, and 17.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the bottom part” in line 1 should read “a bottom part”, “a pile structure” in line 3 should read “a pile structure of the one or more foundation piles”, there should be a colon at the end of line 8, and “the total weight” in line 14 should read “a total weight”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “polyetherpolyol” in line 2 should read “polyetherol” as it appears to refer to this limitation in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the weight ratio” in line 2 should read “a weight ratio”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the hydroxyl value” in line 2 should read “a hydroxyl value”, and the two recitations of “polyetherpolyol” in line 2 should read “polyetherol” as it appears to refer to these limitations in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the content” in line 2 should read “a content”, the two recitations of “polyol” in line 2 and line 3 should read “polyetherol” as it appears to refer to these limitations in claim 1, and “polymeric compounds” in line 4 should read “the polymeric compounds”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “isocyanate” in line 2 should read “organic polyisocyanate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “isocyanate” in line 2 should read “organic polyisocyanate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “MDI” in line 2 should read “the MDI”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the bottom part” in line 3 should read “a bottom part”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a wind turbine” in line 2 should read “the wind turbine”, and “the location” in line 2 should read “a location”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble should read “the gasket according to claim 1” instead of “the gasket for forming the bottom part of an upper structure of a wind turbine according to claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a wind turbine” in line 1 should read “the wind turbine”, and “a monopile” in line 2 should read “the monopile”. 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 1-13 and 16 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 fails to recite a transitional phrase which renders the claim indefinite as to whether it is inclusive or exclusive of other unclaimed elements. Additionally it would also be unclear where the preamble ends and thus unclear as to which elements pertaining to the combination are merely recitations of intended use in the preamble or could possibly be required structure for infringement/anticipation to occur. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to insert a “comprising:” after “the gasket” in lines 2-3 and deleting “shaped as”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the prepolymer”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis and is indefinite as it is unclear what if any previously claimed limitation it is intended to refer to (e.g. is it one of elements a-e as all appear to exist before the creation of the polyurethane polymer, or if it is intended to be a newly claimed component/element). Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “the organic polyisocyanate”.
Claims 2-7, 8-13, and 16 are indefinite at least by virtue of depending on an indefinite base claim rejected above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Though no claims are currently in condition for allowance, Examiner notes that upon overcoming the above drawing objections, claim objections, and 112(b) rejections in the manner suggested by Examiner, the claims would appear to be appear to be allowable over the prior art of record as none of it discloses or makes obvious to exact claimed polyurethan material (e.g. specifically (and in combination) the polyisocyanate being organic, the polymeric compounds having at least two isocyanate-reactive hydrogen atoms comprising at least one polyetherol (bl) obtained by alkoxylation of a difunctional starter molecule and at least one polyetherol (b2) obtained by alkoxylation of a tri-functional starter molecule, and the chain extender being 1-12 wt% of a total weight of components a)-c)).
Claims 14-15 and 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provide examples of similar polyurethane gaskets for use in wind turbines or similar polyurethan materials that potentially could be used in such an application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675