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 filed on 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejection, applicant argues that “applicant disagrees that the yaw plate (48) may properly be interpreted as part of the wind turbine tower.” To back this up, applicant argues that “One of ordinary skill in the wind turbine industry would not interpret the yaw plate as part of the wind turbine tower” and that “Cone uses the term "yaw plate" and "tower" in the very same sentence” and that “Cone considers the tower to include only polygonal tower sections” and that that “the yaw plate and the wind turbine tower are distinct elements”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, applicant has misrepresented the rejection because their statement that “the Examiner has to interpret the yaw plate (48) of the yaw drive of the wind turbine as the "at least one tubular tower section for connection to the nacelle" is incorrect because nowhere in the rejection the “at least one tubular tower section” is interpreted to be “the yaw plate (48) of the yaw drive” as applicant is alleging. Secondly, applicant has ignored that the rejection provides two distinct interpretations for the at least one tubular tower section; one is element 46 alone, and one is element 46 with element 58. Applicant has not provided any arguments for the at least one tubular tower section being element 46 alone, or being element 46 with element 58. Moreover, neither applicant nor Cone have provided any specific definition for “tower” or even more specifically for a “tubular tower section” that would exclude elements such as 46 or 46+58 from being a tower section. Furthermore, the claim recites a “tubular tower section” and any element that is tubular can be interpreted as a tubular tower section by virtue of being a section that is tubular and has a height. Moreover, there is nothing in Cone that prevents one from interpreting its elements with different terminology that would comply with the field of art. A tubular section (such as 46 or 46+58) that is part of a wind turbine tower (as cab be clearly seen in Cone’s figures) can be interpreted as a “tubular tower section” without deviating from the field of art. Applicant’s insistence that a cylindrical section having a height used in the yaw system, even when it is part of the wind turbine tower, cannot be considered a tower section is not convincing. Furthermore, applicant has not addressed the interpretation in which the at least one tubular tower section is element 46 with element 58. Also note that paragraph [0024] discloses that “the yaw plate 46 being rigidly secured to the upper end of the wind turbine towers.” This disclosure does not prevent one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret element 46 to be part of the wind turbine tower since after the installation they would be one integral tower section. This would be even more clear when element 58 is interpreted to be part of the tower section added to 46.
Moreover, applicant argues that the examiner is adding limitations to the claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is evident that in the absence of any descriptive limitation requiring the inner and outer peripheries of the lower portion of the transition piece to be completely within the confines of the inner and outer radius of the upper portion of the transition piece throughout an entire circumference of the lower portion, the inner and outer peripheries of the lower portion of the transition piece being at least partly within the confines of the inner and outer radius of the upper portion of the transition piece would read on the claim. The examiner respectfully notes that it seems like applicant is adding limitations to the claim that are not present in the claim and are providing an unjustified narrow interpretation of the claim. The interpretation that “at least partly within the confines […]” reads on the claim limitation is reasonable because the limitation doesn’t require remaining within the confines of the inner and outer radius throughout an entire circumference of the lower portion. This interpretation is in line with applicant’s own claims because claim 9 further narrows claim 1 to recite that “[…] remain within the confines of the inner and outer radius (Ri, Ro) throughout an entire height […].” This means that claim 1 doesn’t require remaining within the confines of the inner and outer radius throughout an entire height, hence remaining at least partly within the confines throughout the height would read on claim 1. With the same token, remaining at least partly within the confines throughout the circumference would read on claim 1. Moreover, applicant has not provided any argument for the interpretations of the lower portion being 62, with and without 64, with and without 30, 32. Applicant argues that pointing to the language in claim 9 is improper because the claim language is preceded by the phrase “at a connection joint between upper and lower portions of the transition piece.” The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s conclusion because the limitation that applicant is referring to is in claim 1 and claim 9 depends from claim 1 and hence include all of its limitations. In other words, no matter what claim 1 has, claim 9 depends from it and further narrows it down by reciting “the inner and outer peripheries (Pi, Po) remain within the confines of the inner and outer radius (Ri, Ro) throughout an entire height (H) of the lower portion of the transition piece,” adding “throughout an entire height”. If, as applicant alleges, remaining within the confines of the inner and outer radius would necessarily mean completely, there would be no reason to have “entire height” in claim 9. In other words, the reason claim 9 recites “entire”, is that in its absence the claim could encompass arts where it doesn’t disclose “entire.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In this instance, the limitation “the transition piece is located centrally along a height of the hybrid wind turbine tower” of claim 20 is newly presented, has not been previously disclosed in the specification, and does not find direct support in the originally filed disclosure, hence it is considered new matter. The specification doesn’t specifically disclose that the transition piece is located centrally along a height of the hybrid wind turbine tower and the figures are schematic and are not drawn to scale and hence cannot be relied upon to show the exact center of the height of the hybrid wind turbine tower. Thus, the originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that Applicant was in possession of the invention as now presented/claimed at the time of the filing of the instant application.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cone (US 2006/0228218).
With regard to claim 1, Cone discloses a hybrid wind turbine tower, comprising at least one polygonal tower section (12) connected to a foundation (Fig. 1-3), wherein the at least one polygonal tower section includes a polygonal cross-sectional profile (Fig. 1-3); at least one tubular tower section (46, with and without 58, see Fig. 1-3. Note that a plate can be interpreted as a tower section by virtue of having a height) for connection to a nacelle (Fig. 1, 2), wherein the at least one tubular tower section includes a circular cross-sectional profile ([0025]); and a transition piece disposed between the at least one polygonal tower section and the at least one tubular tower section ([0025]), wherein the transition piece comprises: an upper portion (60, with and without 58 and 54) having a circular cross-sectional profile connected to a lower end of the at least one tubular tower section ([0025], [0026], Fig. 5); and a lower portion (62, with and without 64, with and without 30, 32) having a polygonal cross-sectional profile connected to an upper end of the at least one polygonal section ([0025], [0026], Fig. 5), wherein at a connection joint (see the connection joint in Fig. 5) between upper and lower portions of the transition piece: the upper portion defines an inner radius (Ri) and an outer radius (Ro) and the lower portion defines an inner periphery (Pi) and an outer periphery (Po), and the inner and outer peripheries (Pi, Po) of the lower portion of the transition piece are within the confines of the inner and outer radius (Ri, Ro) of the upper portion of the transition piece (see Fig. 6 and 7. The inner and outer peripheries of the lower portion of the transition piece are at least partly within the confines of the inner and outer radius of the upper portion of the transition piece. The interpretation that “at least partly within the confines […]” reads on the claim limitation is reasonable because the limitation doesn’t require remaining within the confines of the inner and outer radius throughout an entire circumference of the lower portion. Note that this interpretation is inline with applicant’s own claims because claim 9 further narrows claim 1 to recite that “[…] remain within the confines of the inner and outer radius (Ri, Ro) throughout an entire height […].” This means that claim 1 doesn’t require remaining within the confines of the inner and outer radius throughout an entire height, hence remaining at least partly within the confines throughout the height would read on claim 1. With the same token, remaining at least partly within the confines throughout the circumference would read on claim 1. Moreover, note the interpretations of the lower portion being 62, with and without 64, with and without 30, 32).
With regard to claim 2, Cone further discloses that the transition piece is integrated into the lower end of the at least one tubular tower section such that the transition piece and the at least one tubular tower section form a unitary structure (Fig. 1, 2, 11, [0025], [0026]).
With regard to claim 3, Cone further discloses that the transition piece includes a mounting interface at an upper end of the upper portion of the transition piece (Fig. 1, 2), and wherein the mounting interface is connected to a mounting interface at the lower end of the at least one tubular tower section (Fig. 1, 2).
With regard to claim 4, Cone further discloses that the mounting interface of the transition piece is connected to the mounting interface of the at least one tubular tower section by a weld or a mounting flange (see mounting flange 54).
With regard to claim 5, Cone further discloses a plurality of splice plates (74) connecting the lower portion of the transition piece to the upper end of the at least one polygonal tower section ([0026]).
With regard to claim 6, Cone further discloses that the transition piece has a one-piece construction, a monolithic construction, or a two-piece construction (see 60 and 62 in Fig. 5, 10).
With regard to claim 7, Cone further discloses that the upper portion of the transition piece includes a first wall thickness (T1), wherein the lower portion of the transition piece includes a second wall thickness (T2), and wherein the second wall thickness (T2) is less than the first wall thickness (T1) (see Fig. 10).
With regard to claim 8, Cone further discloses that the transition piece has a height (H) and a diameter (D), and wherein the height-to-diameter (H/D) ratio is less than or equal to 0.5 (Fig. 5. Also note that based on the interpretations given in claim 1, the transition piece could only comprise of 60 and 62).
With regard to claim 9, Cone further discloses that the inner and outer peripheries (Pi, Po) remain within the confines of the inner and outer radius (Ri, Ro) throughout an entire height (H) of the lower portion of the transition piece (see Fig. 5 in conjunction with Fig. 7. The inner and outer peripheries remain at least partly within the confines of the inner and outer radius throughout an entire height of the lower portion of the transition piece because the inner and outer peripheries and the inner and outer radius remain uniform in the height direction of the lower portion of the transition piece).
With regard to claim 11, Cone discloses a wind turbine (Fig. 1, 2), comprising: the hybrid wind turbine tower according to claim 1 (Fig. 1, 2); the nacelle (44) mounted to the upper end of the tower ([0024], Fig. 1, 2); and a rotor having one or more wind turbine blades rotatably coupled to the nacelle (Fig. 1, 2).
With regard to claim 19, Cone discloses the transition piece is spaced away from a top of the hybrid wind turbine tower (Fig. 1-3, [0024]. Note that a top of the tubular tower section is 46, with and without 58. Moreover, note that the transition piece, by virtue of having a height, is necessarily at least partly away from a top of the hybrid wind turbine tower, i.e., its lower parts).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cone (US 2006/0228218).
With regard to claim 20:
Cone discloses the hybrid wind turbine tower of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the transition piece is located along a height of the hybrid wind turbine tower.
Cone does not appear to explicitly disclose that the location is centrally along a height of the hybrid wind turbine tower.
However, a careful examination of the specification reveals no criticality for the central location, nor any reason as to why the hybrid wind turbine tower of applicant with the central location would operate any different than the hybrid wind turbine tower of Cone, and Applicant has not disclosed that this exact location provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Hence the central location is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Cone and Applicant’s invention to perform equally well, because both would perform the same function.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the central location as claimed with the hybrid wind turbine tower of Cone in order to achieve a desired dimension or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cone (US 2006/0228218) in view of Jensen et al. (US 2015/0167645), referred to hereafter as Jensen.
With regard to claim 21:
Cone discloses the hybrid wind turbine tower of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses that the at least one polygonal tower section includes a plurality of polygonal tower sections connected in an end-to-end manner (Fig. 3).
Cone does not appear to explicitly disclose that the at least one tubular tower section includes a plurality of tubular tower sections connected in an end-to-end manner.
However, Jensen teaches a hybrid wind turbine tower comprising at least one polygonal tower section (3) and at least one tubular tower section (5) with a transition piece (6) in between them (Fig. 1), wherein: the at least one polygonal tower section includes a plurality of polygonal tower sections connected in an end-to-end manner; and the at least one tubular tower section includes a plurality of tubular tower sections connected in an end-to-end manner (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making the tower sections in segments connected in an end-to-end manner, to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar hybrid wind turbine tower such as US 10563419.
Regarding a transition piece that is spaced away from a top of the hybrid wind turbine tower, and located centrally along a height of the hybrid wind turbine tower, see Fig. 1 of Jensen et al. (US 2015/0167645).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745