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 Objections
Claims 2-6, 8-17, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim starts with the preamble “A cable head ring”, “A wind turbine assembly”, or “A method” but should refer to the prior claims with “The” instead of “A” to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 7-17 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.
Claims 5 and 9 include the language “preferably” which is indefinite language as making it unclear as to whether the limitations following the language are required or optional.
Claim 7 includes multiple references to limitations already set forth in every other claim it might be dependent from while referencing them as new limitations. Specifically, limitations like “a tubular wind turbine component”, “fasteners”, and respective holes” have all been set forth previously in the claims and this duplicate recitation makes it unclear if these are intended to be the same items or new items.
Claims 8 and 10-17 are rejected due to being dependent from claim 7.
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) 1-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagfinn (NO 345416) in view of Stiesdal (US 20110239586).
Regarding claim 1, Dagfinn discloses A cable head ring (Figure 17, items 51, 30, 64, 10, and 60 combine to form the cable head ring) for use in connecting a wind turbine tower (50) to a concrete foundation (40), the cable head ring comprising:
an annular plate for connecting to the upper end of a concrete foundation (Figure 17, items 10, 64, 30, and 51), the annular plate comprising a plurality of passages extending axially therethrough for receiving tensioning tendons of the concrete foundation (Figure 17 shows the tensioners passing through passages in the plate with the tensioners denoted as items 44 and 42 in figure 11).
However, Dagfinn does not explicitly disclose an inner tubular web extending axially from the annular plate; and
an outer tubular web extending axially from the annular plate, the outer tubular web having a larger radius than the inner tubular web so that an annular gap is formed between the inner and outer tubular webs for receiving a tubular wind turbine component;
wherein the inner tubular web includes holes extending radially therethrough, and the outer tubular web includes holes extending radially therethrough, and
wherein the positions of the holes in the inner tubular web correspond to the positions of the holes in the outer tubular web such that a fastener can extend radially through a hole in the inner tubular web and a hole in the outer tubular web for securing a tubular wind turbine component within the annular gap.
Dagfinn and Stiesdal are analogous prior art because both describe connecting wind turbine towers to concrete foundations. Stiesdal teaches an inner tubular web extending axially from the annular plate (Figures 8 or 9, the right projection shows an inner tubular web); and an outer tubular web extending axially from the annular plate, the outer tubular web having a larger radius than the inner tubular web so that an annular gap is formed between the inner and outer tubular webs for receiving a tubular wind turbine component (Figures 8 and 9, the left projection shows an outer tubular web having a larger radius than the inner web and showing a gap between them that receives item 2. It is possible for the inner and outer webs to be flipped based on the cross-section but as shown in Figures 5, 7, and 13, the cross-sections are taken such that the smaller radius is on the right side of the figures); wherein the inner tubular web includes holes extending radially therethrough, and the outer tubular web includes holes extending radially therethrough (Figures 8 and 9, item 10 which are described as bolts and nuts in Paragraph 0034), and wherein the positions of the holes in the inner tubular web correspond to the positions of the holes in the outer tubular web such that a fastener can extend radially through a hole in the inner tubular web and a hole in the outer tubular web for securing a tubular wind turbine component within the annular gap (Figures 8 and 9 show the bolts and nuts passing through both webs and the wind turbine component 2 inside the gap and Figure 13 shows a plurality of fasteners being used).
Stiesdal teaches that the inclusion of the adapters and connections provided allows for a flange-less turbine tower that makes for easier transportation by decreasing the height or width of the tower (Par. 0011). Further, the connection means provide a tight and stable connection of the system (Par. 0011). As Dagfinn shows the turbine base 50 being a single vertical tower piece and Stiesdal shows the tower adapter from Figures 8 or 9 being capable of either adapting to a tower piece 2 (Figure 8) or being placed on a tower-shaped adapter 18 in Figure 9, the adapter of Stiesdal would be compatible with the tower connection and tower piece of Dagfinn. The adapter of Figure 8 would be placed as a part of item 51 of Dagfinn and the adapter of Figure 9 would be part of the tower portion 50 with a separate tower segment being connected vertically on top of it. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adapters of Stiesdal in the tower connection arrangement of Dagfinn because it allows for a flange-less turbine tower that makes for easier transportation by decreasing the height or width of the tower and the connection means provide a tight and stable connection of the system (Par. 0011) and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the holes in the inner tubular web and/or the outer tubular web are circumferentially spaced around the respective web (Stiesdal Figure 13 shows a plurality of fasteners spaced around the web and Figures 8 and 9 show the bolts and holes being aligned).
Regarding claim 3, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that one or more of the passages through the annular plate are located between the inner and outer tubular webs. Dagfinn Figure 17 shows the tensioners and thereby the passages being aligned with the center of item 50. As such, they would be aligned with the center of either 14 or 18 of Stiesdal Figures 8 or 9 and be located radially between the two webs. These limitations do not require the entire passage to be located between the webs.
Regarding claim 4, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the annular plate extends radially inward of the inner tubular web, and one or more of the passages through the annular plate is located radially inward of the inner tubular web; and/or
wherein the annular plate extends radially outward of the outer tubular web, and one or more of the passages through the annular plate is located radially outward of the outer tubular web. Dagfinn Figure 17 shows the plate extending both radially inward and radially outward of the tower portion 50 which contains the web. As such, the plate extends radially inward and radially outward of either web. Further, items 13 can be considered the passages through the annular plate and as shown in Figure 17 they are located either radially inward or radially outward of 50 and as such the corresponding webs.
Regarding claim 5, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the passages through the annular plate are circumferentially spaced around the annular plate, preferably wherein the passages are evenly spaced around the annular plate. Dagfinn paragraph 0063 describes that the tension cables are arranged in a pattern about the structure and paragraph 0073 describes the arrangement of the tension cables. The even spacing is an optional limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the cable head ring is made of steel (Dagfinn Paragraphs 0060, 0068-0069, and 0072).
Regarding claim 7, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches A wind turbine assembly comprising;
a tubular concrete foundation (Dagfinn Figure 17, item 40) having tensioning tendons protruding from the upper end thereof (Figure 17 shows tensioners as noted by items 42 and 44 in Figure 10);
a cable head ring according to any preceding claim mounted on the upper end of the concrete foundation (Figure 17), the tensioning tendons passing through the passages in the annular plate and being secured by anchors arranged on an upper surface of the annular plate (see rejection of claim 1 above and the securing in Figure 17);
a tubular wind turbine component received within the annular gap between the inner and outer tubular webs of the cable head ring, the wind turbine component comprising holes extending radially therethrough and corresponding with the holes in the inner and outer tubular webs (see rejection of claim 1 above and Figures 8 and 9 of Stiesdal); and
fasteners extending radially through respective holes in the inner tubular web, the wind turbine component, and the outer tubular web to secure the wind turbine component to the cable head ring (Stiesdal Figures 8 and 9, item 10).
Regarding claim 8, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the fasteners comprise bolts or expansion anchors (Stiesdal paragraph 0034 describes the fasteners as bolts).
Regarding claim 9, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that a layer of grout is provided between the cable head ring and the concrete foundation, preferably wherein the layer of grout comprises a level planar upper surface for the cable head ring to be mounted thereon. Dagfinn paragraphs 0060-0062 describe a mortar material 70 placed on top of the concrete foundation that serves as grout before mounting. This is shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 10, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the tensioning tendons are circumferentially spaced around the tubular concrete foundation, optionally evenly spaced around the tubular concrete foundation. Dagfinn paragraph 0063 describes that the tension cables are arranged in a pattern about the structure and paragraph 0073 describes the arrangement of the tension cables. The even spacing is an optional limitation.
Regarding claim 11, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that one or more of the tendons extend through respective passages in the annular plate that are located between the inner and outer tubular webs. Dagfinn Figure 17 shows the tensioners and thereby the passages being aligned with the center of item 50. As such, they would be aligned with the center of either 14 or 18 of Stiesdal Figures 8 or 9 and be located radially between the two webs. These limitations do not require the entire passage to be located between the webs.
Regarding claim 12, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that one or more of the tendons extend through respective passages in the annular plate that are located radially inward of the inner tubular web. Dagfinn Figure 17 shows the plate extending both radially inward and radially outward of the tower portion 50 which contains the web. As such, the plate extends radially inward and radially outward of either web. Further, items 13 can be considered the passages through the annular plate and as shown in Figure 17 they are located either radially inward or radially outward of 50 and as such the corresponding webs.
Regarding claim 13, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that one or more of the tendons extend through respective passages in the annular plate that are located radially outward of the outer tubular web. Dagfinn Figure 17 shows the plate extending both radially inward and radially outward of the tower portion 50 which contains the web. As such, the plate extends radially inward and radially outward of either web. Further, items 13 can be considered the passages through the annular plate and as shown in Figure 17 they are located either radially inward or radially outward of 50 and as such the corresponding webs.
Regarding claim 14, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the concrete foundation comprises a floating foundation, optionally a spar platform. Dagfinn Paragraphs 0002-0003 and 0006.
Regarding claim 15, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the tubular wind turbine component is made of steel (Dagfinn Paragraphs 0060, 0068-0069, and 0072).
Regarding claim 16, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches that the tubular wind turbine component comprises a tubular wind turbine tower (Dagfinn Paragraph 0075); or the tubular wind turbine component comprises a tower extension piece, optionally wherein the tower extension piece is secured to a wind turbine tower (these limitations are optional).
Regarding claim 18, Dagfinn discloses A method of connecting a tubular wind turbine component to a tubular concrete foundation, the method comprising:
providing a tubular concrete foundation (Dagfinn Figure 17, item 40) having tensioning tendons protruding from the upper end thereof (Figure 17 shows tensioners as noted by items 42 and 44 in Figure 10);
mounting a cable head ring (igure 17, items 51, 30, 64, 10, and 60 combine to form the cable head ring) on the upper end of the concrete foundation so that the tendons protruding from the upper end of the concrete foundation pass through passages that extend axially through the cable head ring (Figure 17 show the tensioners passing through passages through the cable head ring);
securing the tendons to the cable head ring using anchors, thereby securing the cable head ring to the concrete foundation (43).
However, Dagfinn does not explicitly disclose inserting a tubular wind turbine component into an annular gap formed between inner and outer tubular portions of the cable head ring; and securing the tubular wind turbine to the cable head ring by passing fasteners radially through the inner tubular portion, the wind turbine component, and the outer tubular portion.
Dagfinn and Stiesdal are analogous prior art because both describe connecting wind turbine towers to concrete foundations. Stiesdal teaches inserting a tubular wind turbine component into an annular gap formed between inner and outer tubular portions of the cable head ring (Figures 8 and 9 show inner and outer portions of the cable head ring 14 or 16 showing an annular gap between the two web portions); and securing the tubular wind turbine to the cable head ring by passing fasteners radially through the inner tubular portion, the wind turbine component, and the outer tubular portion (Figures 8 and 9 show fasteners 10 passing through all three portions).
Stiesdal teaches that the inclusion of the adapters and connections provided allows for a flange-less turbine tower that makes for easier transportation by decreasing the height or width of the tower (Par. 0011). Further, the connection means provide a tight and stable connection of the system (Par. 0011). As Dagfinn shows the turbine base 50 being a single vertical tower piece and Stiesdal shows the tower adapter from Figures 8 or 9 being capable of either adapting to a tower piece 2 (Figure 8) or being placed on a tower-shaped adapter 18 in Figure 9, the adapter of Stiesdal would be compatible with the tower connection and tower piece of Dagfinn. The adapter of Figure 8 would be placed as a part of item 51 of Dagfinn and the adapter of Figure 9 would be part of the tower portion 50 with a separate tower segment being connected vertically on top of it. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the adapters of Stiesdal in the tower connection arrangement of Dagfinn because it allows for a flange-less turbine tower that makes for easier transportation by decreasing the height or width of the tower and the connection means provide a tight and stable connection of the system (Par. 0011) and simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 19, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches applying a layer of grout to the upper end of the concrete foundation before mounting the cable head ring on the upper end of the concrete foundation, optionally wherein the layer of grout is levelled to provide a level planar surface before mounting the cable head ring on the upper end of the concrete foundation. Dagfinn paragraphs 0060-0062 describe a mortar material 70 placed on top of the concrete foundation that serves as grout before mounting. This is shown in Figures 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 20, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches tensioning the tendons to apply a compressive force to the tubular concrete structure (Paragraphs 0056-0057 of Dagfinn describe that the bolts are tension cables and bolts and as such provide the compressive force required).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dagfinn (NO 345416) in view of Stiesdal (US 20110239586) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Liu (US 20190293053).
Regarding claim 17, Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal teaches the limitations of claim 16 as set forth in the above 103 rejection. However, they do not explicitly teach that a nacelle is mounted on the wind turbine tower, and one or more rotor blades is mounted to the nacelle via a rotor hub.
Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal and Liu are analogous prior art because both describe wind turbine structures and tower mounts. Liu teaches a wind turbine (Figure 1) having a nacelle (16), blades (22) and a hub (20) that the blades extend from. While Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal describes a wind turbine they do not describe the type of wind turbine so one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a suitable wind turbine form for the system. As Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal and Liu show similar mounting structures for wind turbines to concrete foundations and the use of this form of horizontal wind turbine is common in order to provide the optimal wind efficiency and a high amount of energy capture from the wind, the horizontal axis wind turbine structure of Liu with the nacelle, blades, and hub would provide predictable results as the wind turbine of Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the wind turbine form of Liu as the wind turbine of Dagfinn in view of Stiesdal because such HAWT structures are commonly used for wind turbines, provide the optimal wind efficiency and a high amount of energy capture from the wind, and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571)-272-8648. 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights