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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-30 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The arguments do not overcome the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because by the Applicant’s own admission, the road transport restrictions will vary by jurisdiction. This indicates that there is no universal standard for transporting such a device and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be expected to be aware of the standard across different countries.
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.
Claim 23 is/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.
The term “does not exceed applicable road transport restrictions” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “does not exceed applicable road transport restrictions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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) 16-21, 23-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coordes (US Pub. 2016/0312431 A1) in view of Kersten (US Pub. 2021/0148335 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Coordes discloses a frustum connector for connecting a lower tower portion and an upper tower portion of a wind turbine tower (Fig. 3, tower segment 22), wherein the lower tower portion is made of concrete (Fig. 3, concrete foundation 12) and the upper tower portion is made of steel (Fig. 3, tower segment 21 is made of steel, see abstract).
However, Coordes fails to disclose as taught by Kersten, similarly drawn to a wind turbine steel tower portion, a frustum connector comprising:
a plurality of individual steel segments (Pg. 7, [0073], 1-5: “FIG. 8 shows a schematic three-dimensional view of an exemplary embodiment of a wind turbine tower. The tower 500 has a first wind turbine steel tower portion 502 with a total of eight horizontally adjacent steel tower ring segments”), wherein:
each segment comprises two side edges, an upper edge and a lower edge, wherein a length of the lower edge of a segment exceeds a length of the upper edge of the segment (Fig. 8, the diameter of the overall structure tapers upwards indicating the lower edge is longer than the upper edge);
and the vertical side edges of adjacent segments are configured for connection at a wind turbine installation site (Abstract, lines 1-3: “A wind turbine steel tower portion, to a wind turbine tower, to a wind turbine and to a method for producing a wind turbine steel tower portion”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the connector of Coordes to comprise a plurality of steel segments as taught by Kersten for ease of assembly in the field.
Regarding claim 17, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kersten, wherein the vertical side edges of adjacent segment are configured for connection by a weld joint (Fig. 8, vertical joint 512).
Regarding claim 18, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes, wherein a collective length of the lower edges corresponds to a circumference at an apex of the lower tower portion (Fig. 3, the circumference of the lower portion of lowermost tower segment 22 matches that of foundation 12).
Regarding claim 19, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes, wherein the segment comprises a flange along a lower edge to facilitate connection to an apex of the lower tower portion (Fig. 3, a flange on the bottom of lowermost tower segment 22 comprises a flange which is fastened to the foundation with bolts).
Regarding claim 20, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes, wherein a collective length of the upper edges corresponds to a circumference at a base of an upper tower portion (Fig. 3, the circumference of the upper portion of lowermost tower segment 22 matches that of the bottom of tower segment 21).
Regarding claim 21, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes, wherein the segment comprises a flange along an upper edge to facilitate connection to a flange at a base of the upper tower portion (Fig. 3, a flange on the top of lowermost tower segment 22 comprises a flange which is fastened to the bottom of tower segment 21).
Regarding claim 23, as best understood by the Examiner, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kersten, wherein a number of segments is chosen such that a largest dimension of a segment does not exceed applicable road transport restrictions (Fig. 8, the wind turbine tower is divided into a larger number of segments than the instant application indicating smaller individual pieces).
Regarding claim 24, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kersten, wherein the plurality of individual steel segments are cut from a complete frustum formed at a manufacturing site (Fig. 8, tower ring segments mate as if they were cut from a larger piece).
Regarding claim 25, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes, a wind turbine tower (See Fig. 1) comprising:
a lower tower portion made of concrete (Fig. 3, concrete foundation 12);
an upper tower portion made of steel (Fig. 3, tower segment 21 is made of steel, see abstract);
and a frustum connector according to claim 16 (Fig. 3, tower segment 22, see citations from claim 16 rejection), wherein a collective lower edge of the frustum connector is connected to an apex of the lower tower portion (Fig. 3, the circumference of the lower portion of lowermost tower segment 22 matches that of foundation 12), and a collective upper edge of the frustum connector is connected to a base of the upper tower portion (Fig. 3, a flange on the top of lowermost tower segment 22 comprises a flange which is fastened to the bottom of tower segment 21).
Regarding claim 26, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes, wherein a largest diameter of the frustum connector exceeds a smallest diameter of the frustum connector by a factor of at least 1.03 (Fig. 3, the lower diameter is at least 3% larger than the upper diameter).
Regarding claim 27, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes, a nacelle mounted at the apex of the upper tower portion (Fig. 1, nacelle 4);
and an aerodynamic rotor mounted at a front of the nacelle, comprising a plurality of rotor blades mounted to a hub (Fig. 1, spinner 10 and rotor blades 8).
Regarding claim 28, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a diameter at the base of the upper tower portion is at most 6 m and a diameter at the apex of the lower tower portion is at least 4.5 m. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to designate the top diameter to be greater than 4.5 m and the bottom diameter to be less than 6 m as it is common design practice to set the diameters to be within these ranges for wind turbine towers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 29, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes. constructing a lower tower portion at the wind turbine installation site (Fig. 3, concrete foundation 12 is constructed at the site);
transporting segments of a frustum connector according to the installation site (Pg. 6, [0071]: “A further advantage of this is that flat extents, configured with the framework structure, of the planes of extent of the inner web and/or the outer web and/or the upper belt and/or the lower belt and/or the bearing element can save material and weight and can therefore ultimately reduce costs. Furthermore, the said framework structure advantageously facilitates both the transport and the assembly of the annular bracket”);
assembling the frustum connector and connecting the collective lower edge of the frustum connector to an apex of the lower tower portion (Fig. 3, tower segment 22 is attached to the foundation).
Regarding claim 30, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Coordes. transporting components of an upper tower portion to the installation site (The tower segment 21 is necessarily transported to the site);
and mounting the upper tower portion to the collective upper edge of the frustum connector (Fig. 3, the tower segment 21 is shown mounted to tower segment 22).
Regarding claim 31, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Kersten, wherein each segment is a curved or flat trapezoidal panel, such that when the plurality of segments are joined along their vertical side edges, the segments collectively form a frustoconical or pyramidal frustum shape constituting an outer wall of the frustum connector (Fig. 8, the tower segments form a substantially frustoconical shape with the top edge being of smaller length than the bottom edge).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coordes (US Pub. 2016/0312431 A1) in view of Kersten Kersten (US Pub. 2021/0148335 A1), and further in view of Bagepalli (US Pub. 2011/0138704 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Coordes as modified by Kersten discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Bagepalli, similarly drawn to a wind turbine tower, wherein the plurality of individual steel segments are made of rolled steel (Pg. 1, [0019], lines 1-6: “The wind turbine 100 shown in FIG. 1 comprises a tower 110 bearing a nacelle 120 on its top end. A rotor including a rotor hub 130 and rotor blades 140 is attached to one side of the nacelle 120. The tower 110 is mounted on a foundation 150. The tower may be formed of rolled steel and have multiple stacked sections 112”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the steel of Coordes in view of Kersten to be rolled steel as taught by Bagepalli for its superior strength.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights