DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the amendment filed on 7/24/2026. Currently, claims 1-10, 16-17, 20, 24 and 25-29 are pending. Claims 11-15, 18-19 and 21-23 have been cancelled. Claim 25 has been withdrawn. No new claims have been added.
Drawings
The replacement drawings received on 7/24/2026 are acceptable for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “heating source” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 20, 24 and 26-29 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 20, “comprising at least one set of the claim 1” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. Does applicant intend to recite, “comprising at least the set of claim 1?”. Applicant is requested to clarify.
The remaining claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 5, 16-17, 20 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’).
Claim 1, Fernandez provides a set of a concrete segment of a wind turbine tower and a heating source (note that the claimed set was treated as requiring a concrete segment and a heating source; Fernandez concrete segment 6 and heating source 1; Fig. 3), wherein the concrete segment comprises an inner surface (see annotated Fig. 3 of Fernandez shown below in Examiner’s Notes), an outer surface (surface opposite the inner surface in annotated Fig. 3) and at least one connection flange (3; annotated Fig. 3), the at least one connection flange comprising a connecting surface (annotated Fig. 3; note that the surface shown in annotated Fig. 3 constitutes a connecting surface, as exceedingly broadly claimed), wherein the concrete segment comprises at least one recess provided within the connecting surface of the at least one connection flange (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the openings 2, which can be “blind” or “through-holes” are set back into the connection flange and are present on the connecting surface and thus constitute recesses, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 7, lines 43-53; Fig. 3), and
wherein the heating source is at least partially allocated in the at least one recess provided within the connecting surface of the at least one connection flange (col. 5, lines 45-51; Fig. 3).
Claim 3, Fernandez further provides wherein the at least one recess is placed at least partially essentially parallel to at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface (Fig. 3).
Claim 4, Fernandez further provides wherein the at least one recess comprises at least two recesses being at least an outer recess (2 on the side of the outer surface; Fig. 3) and an inner recess (2 on the side of the inner surface; Fig. 3), wherein a first radial distance from the inner recess, to the inner surface (distance between 2 closest to inner surface; Fig. 3) is smaller than a second radial distance from the outer recess, to the outer surface (distance between 2 that is second closest to the outer surface and the outer surface; Fig. 3) or a single recess comprising an inner branch and an outer branch (not required by the claim due to recitation of or), wherein a first radial distance from the inner branch, to the inner surface is smaller than a second radial distance from the outer branch, to the outer surface (not required by the claim due to recitation of or).
Claim 5, Fernandez further provides wherein the at least one recess comprises at least one end (an end of one of the recesses 2; Fig. 3) configured to connect the at least one recess with the connecting surface of the concrete segment (the end of the at least one recess is located at the connecting surface and thus under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the at least one end connects or is suitable to connect the at least one recess with the connecting surface of the concrete segment, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 3).
Claim 16, Fernandez further provides a retainer configured to hold the heating source within the at least one recess (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, coating 7 and/or or pipes 11 surrounds the heating source and nonetheless is suitable to hold the heating source within the at least one recess, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 5a-5b).
Claim 17, Fernandez further provides wherein the retainer comprises at least one layer of a cured filler material disposed at least partially over the heating source (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the plastic or steel material of 11 constitutes a cured material that fills the space around the heating source, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 8, lines 1-4; col. 5, lines 58-62; Fig. 5a).
Claim 20, Fernandez provides a section of a wind turbine tower comprising at least one set of the claim 1 (“a precast segment for wind turbine towers” and “a method of manufacturing wind turbine towers using said precast segment”; see rejection of claim 1 as above; col. 5, lines 20-30).
Claim 24, Fernandez provides a wind turbine comprising a tower which in turn comprises at least two sections of claim 20 (two sections 6; see rejection of claim 1 and 20 as above) and a joint disposed between the at least two sections (joint between the two sections; Fig. 3).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’).
Claim 2, Fernandez teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Fernandez further teaches wherein the at least one connection flange comprises at least two connection flanges (two connection flanges 3; Fig. 3), wherein each one of the at least two connection flanges comprises a connecting surface (Fig. 3). Although, it is understood that a horizontal joint in Fernandez, shown in Fig. 2a uses the same heating source as shown in Fig. 3 (col. 8, lines 28-38), Fernandez does not explicitly show a horizontal joint in the embodiment of Fig. 3, and thus does not show two connection flanges being in particular at least an upper flange and a lower flange, wherein each one of the at least two connection flanges comprises a connecting surface. However, in the embodiment of Figs. 2a-2b, Fernandez shows a horizontal joint, wherein at least one connection flange comprises at least two connection flanges (surface on 6 lower and surface on 6 upper; Fig. 2a), being in particular at least an upper flange (6 lower) and a lower flange (6 upper), wherein each one of the at least two connection flanges comprises a connecting surface (upper surface on 6 lower, and lower surface on 6 upper; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the set such that the at least one connection flange comprises at least two connection flanges, being in particular at least an upper flange and a lower flange, wherein each one of the at least two connection flanges comprises a connecting surface, with the reasonable expectation of success of dividing the concrete segments in a known manner to make the concrete segments more manageable to manufacture, transport and move, and since the embodiments of Figs. 3 and 2a were treated as obvious variants of one another (Fernandez col. 8, lines 28-38; Figs. 2a and 3).
Claim 9, Fernandez teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as above and further teaches wherein the at least one recess comprises at least one recess 2 disposed in the upper flange and at least one recess 2 disposed in the lower flange (Fig. 2a).
Claim 10, Fernandez teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Fernandez further teaches the at least one recess comprising a first depth (depth of 2; Fig. 3), wherein in use, the first depth has a height (Fig. 3) and the heating source is partially allocated in the at least one recess and has a height (height of 1; Fig. 3). Fernandez is silent as to the first depth being greater than the height of the heating source at least partially allocated in the at least one recess, in use. However, Fernandez teaches the heating source is suitable to be temporarily or permanently inserted into the at least one recess. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to form the proportions of the first depth of the at least one recess and the height of the heating source such that in use, the first depth is greater than a height of the heating source at least partially allocated in the at least one recess, with the reasonable expectation of success of allowing the heating source to be completely embedded in the at least one recess, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’) in view of EP 2886752 (‘EP ‘752’).
Claims 6-8, Fernandez teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as above. Fernandez does not teach [claim 6] wherein the at least one end is configured to connect the at least one recess with at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface. [claim 7] wherein the at least one end is oblique or perpendicular to at least one of the inner surface and/or the outer surface, and [claim 8] wherein the at least one end is configured to connect the at least one recess with the connecting surface of at least one connection flange. However, EP ‘752 teaches a concrete segment (“voussoir” as referred to throughout the specification; Figs. 1-8) of a wind turbine tower, wherein at least one end (end of at least one recess 6 or 9, which could be interpreted as either the web or one of the two sides of the at least one recess, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5) is configured to connect at least one recess (6 or 9) with at least one of an inner surface (inner surface on one side in Fig. 5) and an outer surface (outer surface on one side of Fig. 5; the at least one end extends between the at least one recess and the inner surface and outer surface and thus is suitable to connect the at least one recess with the inner surface and the outer surface, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 1-8), wherein the at least one end is oblique or perpendicular to at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface (the web of 9 is perpendicular to the inner and outer surfaces in Fig. 5; alternatively, a portion of recess 6 is oblique to the inner and outer surfaces in Fig. 5), and wherein the at least one end (angled portion so f6; Figs. 4-5) is configured to connect the at least one recess with the connecting surface of at least one connection flange (the angled portions of 6 connect the at least one recess, such as 6 or 9 with the connecting surface of at least one connection flange (Figs. 4-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the concrete segment of Fernandez such that the at least one end is configured to connect the at least one recess with at least one of the inner surface and the outer surface, the at least one end is oblique or perpendicular to at least one of the inner surface and/or the outer surface, and the at least one end is configured to connect the at least one recess with the connecting surface of at least one connection flange, with the reasonable expectation of success of using known means to securely couple adjacent segments together in a known arrangement.
Claim(s) 26-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’) in view of Garcia Maestre et al. (US 20130001954) (‘Garcia’).
Claims 26-28, Fernandez teaches a method of assembling the wind turbine of claim 24 (see rejection of claim 24 as above) comprising:
- a step of lifting at least one concrete segment (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner takes the position that the at least one concrete segment 6 is inherently lifted to a final position on the tower; “a method for manufacturing a wind turbine tower using the precast segments described above” col. 6, lines 46-50; Fig. 3);
- a step of disposing the heating source 1 within the at least one recess 2 of the at least one concrete segment provided within a connecting surface of at least one connection flange of the at least one concrete segment (“use of precast segments such as the ones described above which incorporate at least one heating cable 1 inside the conduits 2” col. 6, lines 58-62).
Fernandez does not explicitly teach the lifting occurring before or after the disposing the heating source within the at least one recess of the at least one concrete segment. However, lifting sections of wind turbine towers is known in the art. Garcia teaches lifting sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of a wind turbine tower 1 such that adjacent sections are coupled together with a flange and mortar or grout 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the invention, to modify the method of assembly the wind turbine, such that the method includes a lifting at least one concrete segment by sequentially disposing the heating source within the at least one recess of the at least one concrete segment provided within a connecting surface of at least one connection flange of the at least one concrete segment before or after the step of lifting at least one concrete segment, with the reasonable expectation of success of improving installation efficiency and safety on the ground (carried out before lifting), and reducing risk of damaging the sections of the wind turbine that could occur during lifting (carried out after lifting) to lift the segments of the wind turbine tower into a final position, since it is known to lift concrete segments into position, and since such a modification would have involved a mere change in sequence of adding components. A change in sequence is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results).
Claim 29, Fernandez further teaches a step of disposing retainer a (7 or 11) inside the at least one recess 2, holding the heating source 1 within the at least one recess in such a way that the heating source are completely embedded in the at least one recess (Fig. 3).
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
289
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figs. 3 of Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 16-17, 20 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’).
Re claim 1, applicant argues that Fernandez allegedly does not teach:
“a concrete segment comprising at least one recess provided within the connecting surface of the at least one connection flange”, as claimed and
“wherein the heating source is at least partially allocated in the at least one recess provided within the connecting surface of the at least one connection flange”, as claimed.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive. As further outlined in the rejection above, Fernandez’s concrete segment 6 has at least one recess 2 provided within the connecting surface (see connecting surface shown above in annotated Fig. 3 of Fernandez in the Examiner’s Notes section of this instant Office action). Fernandez’s recess 2 constitutes a recess as claimed because under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the openings 2, which can be “blind” or “through-holes” are set back into the connection flange and are present within the connecting surface, as exceedingly broadly claimed col. 7, lines 43-53; Fig. 3). Further, the heat source 1 is plainly located in the recess 2 (annotated Fig. 3). Thus, Fernandez meets the claim.
The remainder of the claims stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 2 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’).
Claims 2 and 9-10 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 6-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’) in view of EP 2886752 (‘EP ‘752’).
Claims 6-8 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Rejection of claim(s) 26-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Fernandez Falces et al. (US 9920538) (‘Fernandez’) in view of Garcia Maestre et al. (US 20130001954) (‘Garcia’).
Claims 26-29 stand or fall with claim 1 as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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 571-270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights