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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 24 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 30-48 and 50 are pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 30 or 31 be found allowable, claims 48 and 50 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Specifically, since claims 1 and 2 recite the step of “raising the solar tower assembly” from an initial “lowered orientation”, in light of the disclosure as originally filed, there is no other possible initial orientation than “substantially horizontal” that would differentiate the claims from claims 48 and 50.
Claim 45 is objected to because of the following informalities: “heat exchanges” in line 2 should read “a heat exchange” and “tubes” in line 4 should read “tube”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 30-32, 39, 43-46 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,897,076 B1 to Johnson, Jr. (Johnson) in view of US 2018/0187446 A1 to Homsi (Homsi).
In reference to claims 30 and 48, Johnson discloses a method of forming a concentrated solar power system for generating electricity, the method comprising: forming a solar tower (14; Fig. 1), at least one solar receiver (12) coupled to the solar tower to form a solar tower assembly, but fails to explicitly disclose coupling a plurality of tower segments together onsite in a lowered orientation, raising the tower assembly to a solar energy collection orientation by pivoting the tower assembly about a pivot axis located at a bottom portion of the tower and securing the tower assembly in the solar energy collection orientation. However, Homsi discloses a method of constructing a tower in the same field of endeavor of renewable energy, the method comprising a) coupling a plurality of tower segments together onsite to form a tower in a lowered orientation (par. 0030; “fabricated in segments... and assembled on site”); b) raising the tower assembly to a energy collection orientation by pivoting the tower assembly about a pivot axis (37) located at a bottom portion of the tower (par. 0042; Figs. 12, 13); and c) securing the tower assembly in the energy collection orientation (par.0042). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique disclosed by Homsi into the method of Johnson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Homsi teaches the technique advantageously provides for lowering of the tower in order to provide for safe repair or replacement (pars. 0005-0006, 0021).
In reference to claim 31, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 30 wherein in the lowered orientation, a tower axis of the solar tower is oriented substantially horizontal (see Homsi; Figs. 4-11).
In reference to claim 32, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 30 wherein in the solar energy collection orientation, the tower axis of the solar tower is oriented substantially vertical (see Homsi; Figs. 12-16).
In reference to claim 39, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 30 further comprising: prior to step a), receiving the plurality of tower segments in uncombined form via railroad or truck shipping (implicit; Homsi, par. 0003).
In reference to claim 43, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 30 wherein step a) comprises mounting the at least one solar receiver to a top section of the solar tower when in the lowered orientation (equivalent element 28 of Homsi is mounted when horizontal, see Figs. 6-11).
In reference to claim 44, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 30 wherein in the solar energy collection orientation, the at least one solar receiver of the solar tower assembly is positioned to receive concentrated solar energy from a heliostat field (Johnson, 16; Fig. 1).
In reference to claim 45, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 44 wherein the at least one solar receiver comprises a heat exchange tube (30; Fig. 3) and is configured to receive the solar energy and conduct the solar energy through walls of the heat exchange tubes and into a heat exchange fluid flowing through the heat exchange tubes that is used, directly or indirectly, to provide thermal energy for a power cycle (col. 4, lines 19-24).
In reference to claim 46, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 30 wherein step a) further comprises connecting piping to the at least one solar receiver when in the lowered orientation (equivalent element 28 of Homsi is mounted when horizontal, see Figs. 6-11).
Claim(s) 33, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Johnson as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of US 2025/0003391 A1 to Lindner. (Lindner).
In reference to claim 33, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 30, but fails to explicitly teach slidably mating end portions. However, Lindner discloses a similar method of constructing a segmented tower, wherein the plurality of solar tower sections are cylindrical shells (see Fig. 4) and wherein step a) comprises a-1) slidably mating end portions of adjacent ones of the cylindrical shells until a mechanical interference prevents further slidable mating between the adjacent ones of the cylindrical shells, thereby establishing a desired mating position for the adjacent ones of the cylindrical shells (see Figs. 2-11) and a-2) fixing the adjacent ones of the cylindrical shells together at the desired mating position to form a section of the solar tower (fixed by shape, mass and shape of sections). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique disclosed by Lindner into the method of the modified Johnson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as Lindner teaches the technique advantageously compensates for deviations in the segments and provides for improved damping and stability (par. 0018).
In reference to claim 35, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 33 wherein the cylindrical shells comprise inner shells (Lindner, 2; Fig. 2) and outer shells (4), each of the inner and outer shells extending along a shell axis from a first end to a second end; wherein the inner shell has an outer diameter and the outer shell has an inner diameter, the sizes of the inner and outer diameters selected so that at least the end portions of the inner shell can be slid into the end portion of the outer shells (see Figs. 2-11).
In reference to claim 36, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 35 wherein step a) comprises coupling the inner and outer shells together in an alternating manner to form at least a section of the tower (Lindner, see Figs.).
Claim(s) 34, 47 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Johnson as applied to claims 33, 30 and 48 above, and further in view of US 6,470,645 B1 to Maliszewski et al. (Maliszewski).
In reference to claim 34, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claim 33, but fails to explicitly to disclose welding the shells together. However, Maliszewski discloses a similar method of constructing a segmented tower and teach welding the end portions of the adjacent ones of the cylindrical shells together is customary in the art (col. 3, lines 5-22). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique disclosed by Maliszewski into the method of the modified Johnson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as the technique would advantageously provide for a secure connection between shells.
In reference to claims 47 and 50, the modified Johnson teaches the method according to claims 30 and 48, but fails to explicitly disclose performing all major welding when the solar tower assembly is in the lowered orientation. However, Homsi teaches that the components are assembled on site (par. 0030), but fails to explicitly disclose the method of assembly. Further, Maliszewski teaches that it is conventional to attach segments of a tower by welding on site (col. 3, lines 5-22). It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique disclosed by Maliszewski into the method of the modified Johnson. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it has been held that the use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious (see MPEP 2141).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37, 38 and 40-42 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 10,738,497 B1, 2016/0010621 A1, 2020/0173420 A1 and CA 2418021 C each also appear to anticipate at least claims 30 and 48 and may be relied upon in a subsequent Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MATTHIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5168. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Wednesday 10am - 6pm Pacific Time.
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, Mark Laurenzi III can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/JONATHAN R MATTHIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
20 May 2026
Prosecution Insights