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
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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
Claims 1, 2, 9, 13-16, 20, 21 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “turbine and” should be deleted and “turbine, wherein” inserted therefor.
In claim 1, line 11, “in” should be deleted.
In claim 1, line 13, “that” should be deleted.
In claim 2, line 4, the first comma should be deleted.
In claim 9, lines 2-3, “device, which is arranged for monitoring the relative movements/oscillation of the tower” should be deleted and “device” inserted therefor.
In claim 13, line 14 is redundant and should be deleted.
In claim 13, line 34, “the” should be inserted before “strap”.
In claim 14, line 4, a comma should be added to the end of the line.
In claim 15, line 10, “is” should be deleted and “are” inserted therefor.
In claim 16, line 5, “in” should be deleted.
In claim 16, line 6, “and” should be added to the end of the line.
In claim 20, line 1, “for” should be deleted.
In claim 21, line 1, “for” should be deleted.
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 1-23 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.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether “an onshore wind turbine” in line 7 and “an offshore wind turbine” in line 8 are the same as or different than “an onshore or offshore wind turbine” in lines 1-2 because of the double positive recitation of “an onshore wind turbine” and “an offshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an onshore wind turbine” to mean “the onshore wind turbine” and interprets “an offshore wind turbine” to mean “the offshore wind turbine”. Claims 2-12 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear whether “an offshore wind turbine” in line 2 is the same as or different than “an offshore wind turbine” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “an offshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an offshore wind turbine” to mean “the offshore wind turbine”.
Regarding claim 3, the wording of “the wind turbine installation system comprises two winches, each of the winches having a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” in lines 2-3 is confusing. It is unclear whether “two winches” include or are different than, and in addition to, “at least one winch” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “winch”. Similarly, it is unclear whether “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the wind turbine installation system comprises two winches, each of the winches having a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” to mean “the at least one winch comprises two winches”.
Regarding claim 4, the wording of “and that the strap or straps are attached to the transition piece” in lines 3-4 is confusing. Only “a strap” is previously recited such that there is insufficient antecedent basis for “straps” in the claim. There are also grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “and that the strap or straps are attached to the transition piece” to mean “wherein the strap is attached to the transition piece”.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear whether “an onshore wind turbine” in line 2 is the same as or different than “an onshore wind turbine” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “an onshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an onshore wind turbine” to mean “the onshore wind turbine”.
Regarding claim 6, the wording of “the wind turbine installation system comprises two winches, each of the winches having a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” in lines 2-3 is confusing. It is unclear whether “two winches” include or are different than, and in addition to, “at least one winch” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “winch”. Similarly, it is unclear whether “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the wind turbine installation system comprises two winches, each of the winches having a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” to mean “the at least one winch comprises two winches”.
Regarding claim 7, the wording of “wherein the, that the straps are arranged with a mutual angle, which angle is between 40° and 120°, between 45° and 110° and between 75° and 95°, and/or 90°” in lines 2-4 is confusing. Only “a strap” is previously recited such that there is insufficient antecedent basis for “straps” in the claim. The progressively smaller angle ranges are redundant. There are also grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “wherein the, that the straps are arranged with a mutual angle, which angle is between 40° and 120°, between 45° and 110° and between 75° and 95°, and/or 90°” to mean “wherein the strap comprises two straps arranged with a mutual angle between 40° and 120°”.
Regarding claim 8, the wording of “and that the strap or straps are attached to the transition piece” in lines 3-4 is confusing. Only “a strap” is previously recited such that there is insufficient antecedent basis for “straps” in the claim. There are also grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “and that the strap or straps are attached to the transition piece” to mean “wherein the strap is attached to the transition piece”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the connection between the control system and the sensors” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear whether “a monitoring device” in line 10 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a monitoring device” in lines 7-8 because of the double positive recitation of “a monitoring device”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a monitoring device” to mean “the monitoring device”. Further, it is unclear whether “an onshore wind turbine” in lines 11-12 and “an offshore wind turbine” in line 12 are the same as or different than “an onshore or offshore wind turbine” in line 1 because of the double positive recitation of “an onshore wind turbine” and “an offshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an onshore wind turbine” to mean “the onshore wind turbine” and interprets “an offshore wind turbine” to mean “the offshore wind turbine”. Further, the wording of “providing the winch with” in line 15 is confusing. The winch is previously provided in line 6. How can the winch be provided twice? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “providing the winch with” to mean “wherein the winch includes”. Further, the wording of “providing the winch control system which includes” in line 18 is confusing. The winch control system is previously provided in line 7. How can the winch control system be provided twice? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “providing the winch control system which includes” to mean “wherein the winch control system includes”. Further, the wording of “placing the winch for establishing a distance between the winch and the attachment, be placing the winch in a distance from the tower” in lines 23-24 is confusing. There are grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “placing the winch for establishing a distance between the winch and the attachment, be placing the winch in a distance from the tower” to mean “placing the winch a distance from the attachment and a distance from the tower”. Further, it is unclear whether “an onshore wind turbine” in line 28 and “an offshore wind turbine” in lines 28-29 are the same as or different than “an onshore or offshore wind turbine” in line 1 because of the double positive recitation of “an onshore wind turbine” and “an offshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an onshore wind turbine” to mean “the onshore wind turbine” and interprets “an offshore wind turbine” to mean “the offshore wind turbine”. Further, the wording of “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activates the winch motor for rotation, if necessary, the spool with a rotation speed to counteract these movements hereby damping the movements of the tower until a pre-set limit for the oscillation is reached” in lines 30-32 is confusing. There is no method step recited. There are grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activates the winch motor for rotation, if necessary, the spool with a rotation speed to counteract these movements hereby damping the movements of the tower until a pre-set limit for the oscillation is reached” to mean “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activating the winch motor for rotation to counteract these movements/oscillations thereby damping the movements/oscillations of the tower until a pre-set limit for the movement/oscillations is reached”. Further, claim 13 also recites the limitation “the installation procedure” in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14-23 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear whether “an offshore wind turbine” in lines 1-2 is the same as or different than “an offshore wind turbine” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “an offshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an offshore wind turbine” to mean “the offshore wind turbine”. Further, the wording of “providing the winch on the tower” in line 5 is confusing. The winch is previously provided in claim 13. How can the winch be provided twice? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “providing the winch on the tower” to mean “wherein the providing the winch includes providing the winch on the tower”. Further, the wording of “providing the attachment for the strap on the vessel” in line 7 is confusing. The attachment is previously provided in claim 13. How can the attachment be provided twice? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “providing the attachment for the strap on the vessel” to mean “wherein providing the attachment includes providing the attachment on the vessel”. Further, the wording of “positioning the monitoring device” in line 11 is confusing. The monitoring device is previously positioned in claim 13. How can the monitoring device be positioned twice? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “positioning the monitoring device” to mean “wherein positioning the monitoring device includes positioning the monitoring device”. Further, it is unclear whether “a site of installation” in line 12 is the same as or different than “a site of installation” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “a site of installation”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a site of installation” to mean “the site of installation”. Further, it is unclear whether “tying the strap between the winch and the attachment” in line 13 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “tying the strap between the winch and the attachment” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “tying the strap between the winch and the attachment”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets this to be the same step and recommends deleting this redundant limitation. Further, it is unclear whether “monitoring the relative movements/oscillation of the tower” in line 14 is the same as or different than, and in addition to, “monitoring the relative movements/oscillation of the tower” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “monitoring the relative movements/oscillation of the tower”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets this to be the same step and recommends deleting this redundant limitation. Finally, the wording of “during movement/oscillations of the tower or fundament, the control system activates the winch motor for rotation, if necessary, the spool with a rotation speed to counteract these movements hereby damping the movements of the tower or fundament until a pre-set limit for the oscillation is reached” in the last paragraph is confusing. There is no method step recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the spool”. There are grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “during movement/oscillations of the tower or fundament, the control system activates the winch motor for rotation, if necessary, the spool with a rotation speed to counteract these movements hereby damping the movements of the tower or fundament until a pre-set limit for the oscillation is reached” to mean “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activating the winch motor for rotation to counteract these movements/oscillations thereby damping the movements/oscillations of the tower until a pre-set limit for the movement/oscillations is reached”.
Regarding claim 15, the wording of “providing a winch arrangement, comprising two winches, each of the winches having a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” in lines 3-4 is confusing. The winch arrangement was previously provided in claim 13. How can the winch arrangement be provided twice? It is unclear whether “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “providing a winch arrangement, comprising two winches, each of the winches having a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” to mean “wherein the at least one winch comprises two winches”. Finally, the wording of “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activates the winch motors for rotation, if necessary, the spools with a rotation speed to counteract these movements hereby damping the movements of the tower until a pre-set limit for the oscillation is reached” in the last paragraph is confusing. There is no method step recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the spools”. There are grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activates the winch motors for rotation, if necessary, the spools with a rotation speed to counteract these movements hereby damping the movements of the tower until a pre-set limit for the oscillation is reached” to mean “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activating the winch motors for rotation to counteract these movements/oscillations thereby damping the movements/oscillations of the tower until a pre-set limit for the movement/oscillations is reached”.
Regarding claim 16, it is unclear whether “an onshore wind turbine” in lines 1-2 is the same as or different than “an onshore wind turbine” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “an onshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an onshore wind turbine” to mean “the onshore wind turbine”. Further, the wording of “providing the winch on the tower or on the ground in a distance from the tower” in lines 3-4 is confusing. How can the winch be provided “on the tower” when the winch is previously recited as “a distance from the tower” in claim 13. These limitations are contradictory. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “providing the winch on the tower or on the ground in a distance from the tower” to mean “providing the winch on the ground a distance from the tower”.
Regarding claim 17, it is unclear whether “an onshore wind turbine” in lines 1-2 is the same as or different than “an onshore wind turbine” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “an onshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an onshore wind turbine” to mean “the onshore wind turbine”. Further, the wording of “providing a winch arrangement, comprising two winches, each of the winches having a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” in lines 3-4 is confusing. The winch arrangement was previously provided in claim 13. How can the winch arrangement be provided twice? It is unclear whether “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” are the same as or different than, and in addition to, “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “providing a winch arrangement, comprising two winches, each of the winches having a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap” to mean “wherein the at least one winch comprises two winches”. Finally, the wording of “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activates the winch motors for rotation, if necessary, the spools with a rotation speed to counteract these movements hereby damping the movements of the tower until a pre-set limit for the oscillation is reached” in the last paragraph is confusing. There is no method step recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the spools”. There are grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activates the winch motors for rotation, if necessary, the spools with a rotation speed to counteract these movements hereby damping the movements of the tower until a pre-set limit for the oscillation is reached” to mean “during movement/oscillations of the tower, the control system activating the winch motors for rotation to counteract these movements/oscillations thereby damping the movements/oscillations of the tower until a pre-set limit for the movement/oscillations is reached”.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear whether “an onshore wind turbine” in lines 1-2 is the same as or different than “an onshore wind turbine” in claim 13 because of the double positive recitation of “an onshore wind turbine”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “an onshore wind turbine” to mean “the onshore wind turbine”. Further, the wording of “ensuring that a mutual angle between the straps is between 40° and 120°, between 45° and 110° and between 75° and 95°, and/or 90°” in lines 3-4 is confusing. The progressively smaller angle ranges are redundant. There are also grammatical issues in the wording. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “ensuring that a mutual angle between the straps is between 40° and 120°, between 45° and 110° and between 75° and 95°, and/or 90°” to mean “ensuring that a mutual angle between the straps is between 40° and 120°”.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the redirection rollers”, “the desired mutual angle”, and “the straps” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Examiner notes that a single redirection roller and strap are previously recited but not plural redirection rollers and straps.
Regarding claim 22, the wording of “attaching the strap or straps to the transition piece” in line 5 is confusing. A single strap is previously recited. It is unclear whether “straps” are a plurality of the single recited strap or different straps. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “attaching the strap or straps to the transition piece” to mean “attaching the strap to the transition piece”.
Regarding claim 23, the wording of “attaching the strap or straps to the transition piece” in line 5 is confusing. A single strap is previously recited. It is unclear whether “straps” are a plurality of the single recited strap or different straps. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “attaching the strap or straps to the transition piece” to mean “attaching the strap to the transition piece”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-23 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
None of the prior art, individually or in combination, discloses or teaches a wind turbine installation system for installation of a wind turbine comprising a tower and a nacelle, the system comprising: a crane arrangement, a winch, and a control arrangement comprising a winch control system and a monitoring device for monitoring movements/oscillation of the tower, wherein the winch has a winch motor and a bi-directional rotational spool with a strap, the strap is provided with an attachment for applying a controlled pull on the tower or the nacelle, the control system includes a tension sensor for determining strap tension and a spool rotation sensor for determining spool rotation, and the control system is controllably connected to the winch motor for controlling spool rotation in order to induce counter movements to the oscillations in the tower and thereby stabilize the tower.
Soe-Jensen (US 2011/0123274) discloses a wind turbine installation system for installation of a wind turbine (e.g. 1, Fig. 1) comprising a tower (e.g. 2, Fig. 1) and a nacelle (e.g. 3, Fig. 1), the system comprising: a crane arrangement (e.g. 11, Fig. 7), and a support for applying a force on the tower (e.g. 18, Fig. 7, paragraph 0067). Soe-Jensen does not disclose that the support includes a winch, a strap for applying a controlled pull on the tower, and a control arrangement controllably connected to the winch for controlling rotation to induce counter movements to monitored oscillations in the tower and including a tension sensor for determining strap tension and a spool rotation sensor for determining spool rotation. There is no teaching for such a support system.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights