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 § 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) 1-4, 8, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 101044752 B1 to Kim et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. disclose an offshore wind turbine installation (Fig.1), comprising: a wind turbine comprising a tower (15) having a tower flange (15a) at a lower end of the tower; a support structure (11, 13) for supporting the wind turbine in offshore conditions, the support structure comprising a tower support (13) having a support flange (13a); a concrete-cast transition piece (concrete within 40) between the support flange and the tower flange, the transition piece on its lower side in mechanical contact with the support flange and supported by the support flange (Fig.2), and the tower flange on its lower side in mechanical contact with an upper side of the transition piece and supported by the transition piece (Fig.2); wherein the support flange is at an upper end of the tower support (13a), and the support flange and the tower flange each comprise holes for bolts extending therethrough (holes into which bolts 41 are inserted), the bolts directly holding the tower flange to the tower support flange with the transition piece in between (Fig.2); wherein each of the bolts extends through both the support flange and the tower flange for pulling the support flange and the tower flange toward each other by the bolts with the transition piece sandwiched in between (41 extends through 13a and 15a).
Regarding claim 2, wherein at least some of the bolts also extend through holes in the transition piece (extends directly through 40).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the support flange and the tower flange each extend radially in a plane perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis of the tower (Fig.2).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the bolts, which extend through the holes in the flanges, are oriented with their longitudinal axes parallel to a central axis of the tower (41).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the transition piece is located entirely above a water source (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 11, wherein the transition piece extends over no more than a height H (height of 40, Fig.2), when measured in a direction parallel to the central ais of the tower, wherein H is less than half of a diameter Dt of the tower (in Fig.2, height of 40 is greatly smaller than half of the diameter of the tower).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101044752 B1 to Kim et al.
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. discloses wherein the height H is the same as the distance between the flanges, but does not disclose wherein the height H is specifically between 1 and 3 meters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the transition with the H of between 1 and 3 meters so to provide a substantial section of concrete which provides a sturdy, structural connection between tower portions which effectively withstands harsh water environments.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/068592 A1 to Mehra in view of DE 102019103589 A1 to Holscher in view of US 2012/0124924 A1 to Tooman.
Regarding claim 1,Mehra discloses an offshore wind turbine installation, comprising: a wind turbine (Fig.1, 4, 6) comprising a tower (102-1, 602-1) having a tower flange (lower flange of 102-1) at a lower end of the tower; a support structure (102-2 and 106; 602-1) for supporting the wind turbine in offshore conditions, the support structure comprising a tower support (102-2) having a support flange (top flange of 102-2); a transition piece (104) between the support flange and the tower flange, the transition piece on its lower side in mechanical contact with the support flange and supported by the support flange (Fig.1), and the tower flange on its lower side in mechanical contact with an upper side of the transition piece and supported by the transition piece (Fig.1); wherein the support flange is at an upper end of the tower support (Fig.1), and the support flange and the tower flange each comprise holes for bolts extending therethrough (holes in which bolts are inserted), the bolts indirectly holding the tower flange to the tower support flange with the transition piece in between (Fig.1); wherein a first number of bolts extends through the tower flange into the transition piece (top bolts, Fig.1) and a second number of the bolts extends through the support flange into the transition piece (lower bolts, Fig.1), thereby bolting the tower flange and the support flange to opposite sides of the transition piece (Fig.1).
Mehra discloses wherein the transition can be formed from materials other than steel, but does not specifically disclose concrete with embedded bushings.
Holscher discloses providing a transition (200) formed from concrete (240) having bolts (302) engaging the flange and the transition.
Tooman discloses providing bushings (22, 38, Fig.5 and 6) embedded in concrete (Fig.5 and 6) to effectively accept wind turbine bolts (16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have formed the transition of Mehra from concrete since concrete has great strength and is great in water and moisture environments.
It also would have been obvious to have provided the concrete transition with embedded bushings as taught by Tooman so to effectively secure the bolts within the concrete thereby increasing the strength and reducing the possibility of a pull out o the bolts.
Regarding claim 2, Mehra discloses wherein at least some of the bolts also extend through holes in the transition piece (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, Mehra discloses wherein the support flange and the tower flange each extend radially in a plane perpendicular to a central longitudinal axis of the tower (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, Mehra discloses wherein the bolts, which extend through the holes in the flanges, are oriented with their longitudinal axes parallel to a central axis of the tower (Fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the transition piece is located entirely above a water source (Fig.1, 4; placing the transition under water would allow water to have access to all openings into the tower and further to the bolts and attachment structure).
Regarding claim 9, Mehra discloses wherein the transition piece comprises a platform for workers (inside lower flange of 104).
Regarding claim 10, Mehra discloses wherein the tower support and the tower are steel columns (Paragraph [0030]), but does not disclose wherein the flanges are welded.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have welded the flanges to the tower so to enable the flanges to be changed or replaced if damaged without replacing the entire turbine tower sections.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2014/068592 A1 to Mehra in view of DE 102019103589 A1 to Holscher in view of US 2012/0124924 A1 to Tooman in view of Stiesdal.
Regarding claim 6, Mehra discloses wherein the support structure is formed as a tetrahedron (Fig.4; tetrahedron shaped outline) but does not disclose with a triangular base to which the tower support is fixed and with diagonal braces extending from the triangular base inclined upwards to form a tetrahedral structure with the tower support.
Stiesdal discloses a triangular base (Fig.1) to which the tower support is fixed and with diagonal braces extending from the triangular base inclined upwards to form a tetrahedral structure with the tower support (Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the tower of Mehra with a triangular base as taught by Stiesdal so to provide a sturdier base which will better resist bending from outside forces.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach the combination of elements pf the turbine specifically the arrangement of bolts and holes in the flanges and the transition per claim 5 and further the location of the concrete into with the diagonal braces are secured.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D KWIECINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday from 8:30 am to 4:00 pm.
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 Mattei can be reached at (571) 272-3238. 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.
RDK
/RYAN D KWIECINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635