DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on March 07, 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claims 1-15 stand rejected as set forth below.
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 10, 12, 14, and 15 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 10 has indefinite limitations that require clarification:
“surface facing away” (line 2) interpreted as “the surface of the second plate facing away”. There is already “a surface of the first plate” in claim 9 line 12, so this change will make it clear which plate surface is being referred to.
The examiner’s interpretation of each limitation is included above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 has indefinite limitations that require clarification:
“other components” (line 4) interpreted as “other ring elements”. This is indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred to and what constitutes “other components”.
The examiner’s interpretation of each limitation is included above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 has indefinite limitations that require clarification:
“remaining components” (line 3) interpreted as “remaining ring elements”. This is indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred to and what constitutes “remaining components”.
The examiner’s interpretation of each limitation is included above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 has indefinite limitations that require clarification:
“remaining components” (line 3) interpreted as “remaining ring elements”. This is indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred to and what constitutes “remaining components”.
The examiner’s interpretation of each limitation is included above. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 1-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paura et al (“Paura”) (US 9,850,674).
Regarding claim 1, Paura discloses a tower 12 (fig 1) for a wind turbine 10, comprising;
at least one tubular tower section 20, the at least one tubular tower section 20 including two or more ring segments 22, 24 (fig 2) forming together a ring element (22, 24 form a ring element) and a connection arrangement (fig 8) connecting two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 of the two or more ring segments 22, 24 with each other, wherein the connection arrangement (fig 8) comprises a gap generation means 40 for generating and maintaining a predefined gap 68 between the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24.
Regarding claim 2, Paura discloses the tower according to claim 1, wherein the gap generation means 40 are configured to adjust a size of the predefined gap 68 between the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 based on a predetermined size (arrows of 68).
Regarding claim 3, Paura discloses the tower according to claim 2, wherein the predetermined size (arrows of 68) is predetermined based on determined tolerances required for assembling the two adjacent ring segments (the predetermined size of the arrows of 68 is determined by the size of the filler 70), for adjusting a position of the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 during erecting the tower (position of 22, 24 adjusted as indicated by the arrows of 68), and/or for balancing bending moments of the tower during operation of the wind turbine.
Regarding claim 4, Paura discloses the tower according to claim 1, wherein:
the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 have a same vertical height with respect to a height direction of the tower in an erected state (22, 24 have a same vertical height with respect to a height direction 35 of the tower 12 in fig 2); and
the predefined gap 45 between the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 is a vertical gap extending over an entire height of the two adjacent ring segments (68 is a vertical gap between and over an entire length of 22, 24 corresponding with the gap 45 in fig 2); and/or
the gap generation means 40 are configured to generate the predefined gap 68 between the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 over the entire height of the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24.
Regarding claim 5, Paura discloses the tower according to claim 1, wherein the predefined gap 68 between the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 is filled with an elastic material 70 (column 6 line 57“the filler plate 70 may be formed of a material that is configured to compress as the first and second L-flanges 42, 44 are secured together”).
Regarding claim 6, Paura discloses the tower according to claim 1, wherein the gap generation means 40 include:
two plates 42, 44 fixed respectively at the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 such that the two plates 42, 44 are arranged opposite each other forming a gap 68 between them, each plate 42, 44 having a protruding portion (vertical portion of 42, 44 in fig 8) protruding into an inner cavity of the at least one tubular tower section 20 and a borehole arranged in the protruding portion,
a threaded rod 62 inserted through the borehole of the two plates (column 6 line 23 “the first and second L-flanges 42, 44 may be secured or joined to each other via one or more second fasteners 62”),
and at least two nuts (two nuts 66 on threaded rod 62) engaged with the threaded rod 62 such that at least one of the two plates 42 is clamped between two of the nuts 66.
Regarding claim 7, Paura discloses the tower according to claim 6, wherein each of the two plates 42, 44 has a first plate portion (horizontal portion of 42, 44) and a second plate portion (vertical portion of 42, 44) angled with respect to each other so as to form an L-shaped profile (horizontal and vertical portion of 42, 44 form an L-shaped profile), and the respective first plate portion (horizontal portion of 42) is fixed to an interior wall of the respective ring segment 22 (horizontal portion of 42 fixed to interior wall of 22 via 52) and the respective second plate portion (vertical portion of 42) forms the protruding portion protruding into the inner cavity of the tower section 20.
Regarding claim 11, Paura discloses a wind turbine 10 with a tower 12 according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, as understood by the examiner, Paura discloses the wind turbine according to claim 11, comprising a foundation (foundation below 20 in fig 1), wherein the gap generation means 40 are configured to adjust a size of the predefined gap 68 between the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 before and/or after hoisting the connected ring segments 22, 24 onto the foundation (foundation below 20) or onto other ring elements of the tower section already installed on the foundation (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the gap generation means would still be configured to adjust a size of the predefined gap 68 when 20 is hoisted onto the foundation below 20 in fig 1, as broadly claimed).
Regarding claim 13, Paura discloses a method for manufacturing a tower 12 (fig 1) of a wind turbine 10, the tower 12 comprising at least one tubular tower section 20 including two or more ring segments (22, 24 in fig 2) forming together a ring element (22, 24 form a ring element), and the method comprising:
arranging two ring segments adjacent to each other (22, 24 adjacent to each other in fig 8)
connecting the two ring segments 22, 24 with each other such that a gap 68 is formed between the two ring segments 22, 24 by a connection arrangement (fig 8) with gap generation means 40 of the tower 12; and
maintaining the gap 68 by the gap generation means 40
Regarding claim 14, as understood by the examiner, Paura discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the gap 68 is maintained by the gap generation means 40 during hoisting the connected ring segments 22, 24 for erecting the tower 12, during installing remaining ring elements of the tower, and/or during operation of the wind turbine (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the gap 68 is maintained by the gap generation means 40 when 22 and 24 which make up 20 are connected to erect the tower 12 in fig 1).
Regarding claim 15, as understood by the examiner, Paura discloses the method according to claim 13, wherein the gap 68 is adjusted by the gap generation means 40 before hoisting the connected ring segments 22, 24 for erecting the tower 12, during installing remaining ring elements of the tower 12, and/or during operation of the wind turbine (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the gap could be adjusted by the gap generation means 40 during any stage of installation or operation because access is provided to 40 by an additional gap near 45 in fig 8).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paura et al (“Paura”) (US 9,850,674) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nyce at al (“Nyce”) (US 2013/0036679).
Regarding claim 8, Paura discloses the tower according to claim 6.
Paura does not disclose wherein the gap generation means 40 include at least four nuts (two nuts 66 on threaded rod 62) engaged with the threaded rod 62, wherein two first ones of the at least four nuts are engaged with the threaded rod 62 such that one of the two plates 42 is clamped between the two first nuts, and two second ones of the at least four nuts are engaged with the threaded rod 62 such that the other one 44 of the two plates 42, 44 is clamped between the two second nuts.
Nyce discloses a threaded rod 52 with at least four nuts (see Nyce fig 2 annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the threaded rod of Paura with two nuts to include four nuts as disclosed in Nyce. One of ordinary skill in the art could arrange the nuts of varying sizes as disclosed in Nyce onto the threaded rod of Paura to clamp both plates of Paura. This combination would ensure a more secure connection between both plates of Paura.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (2nd nut)][AltContent: textbox (4th nut)][AltContent: textbox (3rd nut)][AltContent: textbox (1st nut)]
PNG
media_image1.png
702
342
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nyce fig 2 annotated
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paura et al (“Paura”) (US 9,850,674) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jensen et al (“Jensen”) (EP 2534376) and Larsson et al (“Larsson”) (US 3858998).
Regarding claim 9, Paura discloses the tower according to claim 1, wherein the gap generation means 40 include:
two plates 42, 44 fixed respectively at the two adjacent ring segments 22, 24 such that the two plates 42, 44 are arranged opposite each other forming a gap 68 between them, each plate 42, 44 having a protruding portion (vertical portion of 42, 44) protruding into an inner cavity of the at least one tubular tower section 20, a first one of the two plates 42 having one borehole (42 has a borehole that 62 passes through), and a second one of the two plates 44 having a borehole corresponding to the borehole of the first plate (44 has a borehole that 62 passes through) and an additional borehole (44 has an additional borehole that 52 passes through),
a first screw 62 inserted through the corresponding boreholes of the first and second plates (62 passes through boreholes of 42, 44).
Paura does not disclose a second screw inserted through the additional borehole of the second plate and butting against a surface of the first plate, the surface facing the second plate.
Jensen discloses two plates 115, 116 with a gap (d1) and two screws 117, 119 (fig 2) and Larsson discloses a screw 12 butting against a surface of 22 (fig 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the two plates of Paura with two screws as disclosed in Jensen and a screw butting against a surface as disclosed in Larsson. Another borehole and screw could be inserted through the second plate 44 of Paura with the screw being allowed to butt against a surface of the first plate 42 of Paura. This combination would allow for the gap 68 of Paura to be adjusted with what Larsson calls an “adjustment screw” (Abstract of Larsson).
Regarding claim 10, as understood by the examiner, Paura as modified discloses the tower according to claim 9, wherein the first screw 62 comprises a screw head 66 butting against a surface of the second plate 44, the surface of the second plate 44 facing away from the first plate (surface of 44 that 66 butts against faces away from the first plate 42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY P HARRIS whose telephone number is (571) 270-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00am-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, 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.
/ZACHARY P HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3635
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights