The Curious Case of Green Tech Bolts

A recent post covered General Electric receiving a patent from the US Patent Office’s Green Technology Pilot Program for a wind turbine doorway. When I initially ran across the patent, I halfway jokingly told a colleague “Makes me wonder whether the bolts that are used to hold the door to the door frame are also considered green tech.” Little did I know at the time …

Exactly three weeks later, USPTO granted GE and inventor Denis Heide (Munster, Germany) US 8,186,923, “Connecting arrangement and method of fastening a bolt.”
The abstract provides a summary:

A connecting arrangement is provided. The connecting arrangement includes a bolt with a fastening portion at one end thereof, which has one or more grooves; a cotter having a conical shape and one or more convex cuts on the inner side of the cotter adapted for fitting with the one or more grooves of the fastening portion of the bolt; two support blocks, each having a thread on the outer side, wherein at least one of them is on the inner side adapted for fitting to the conical shape of the cotter; and a fastener having a thread on the inner side, wherein the fastener is adapted for being screwed on the support blocks.

Claim 1 provides some excellent patent-speak:

A connecting arrangement, comprising:
a bolt including a fastening portion including one or more grooves, whose circumference is differentiable between at least two portions;
a cotter including at least two parts and including an essentially conical shape on the outer side and a axial bore when the at least two parts are put together, wherein the axial bore provides one or more convex cuts on the inner side of the bore, wherein the convex cuts are adapted for fitting with the one or more grooves of the fastening portion of the bolt;
at least one first support block including a thread on the outer side;
at least one second support block including a thread on the outer side, wherein the at least one second support block is on the inner side adapted for fitting to the conical shape of the cotter;
and a fastener including a thread on the inner side, wherein the fastener is adapted for being screwed on the support blocks.

What does this have to do with clean tech? According to the Background of the Invention, “Especially in very large applications, such as wind energy systems, the screw connection has to meet high security demands. The flange connections of wind energy systems are also screwed and the required strength is achieved by using large screws.”

Curiously, the same sequence of events occurred for this ‘923 patent as for the ‘674 patent - the filing of the Petition to Make Special, some volleying back and forth with the examiner and then, USPTO miraculously, accepting the petition. In this case, GE submitted the petition to USPTO on July 12, 2011. The same Tech Center 3600 QA Specialist dismissed the petition on July 22, 2011. Once again, item 4 requirements were the basis of the Tech Center dismissal. The detail continues a theme we saw in the ‘674 doorway patent:

In regard to item 4, the claimed bolt-nut/connecting system for being used in a wind energy system would not materially contribute to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation since the bolt-nut/connecting system cannot generate energy or convert the mechanical energy into electrical energy. It is unclear which part of the bolt/connecting system conserves energy. A bolt-nut/connecting system plays no role in the operation of the wind energy system. In addition, as the claimed bolt-nut/connecting system and the resulting support structure may not necessarily be used in a wind energy system, petitioner’s assertion of the bolt-nut/connecting system’s contribution to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation is entirely speculative. As stated in the notice, the materiality standard does not permit an applicant to speculate as to how a hypothetical end-user might specially apply the invention in a manner than [sic] could materially contribute to category (A) or (B). Also see MPEP §708.02 (VI). Accordingly, it is not agree that the application on its face meets that materiality standard.

(emphasis added)

GE filed a Request for Reconsideration on August 24, 2011 which contained some artful linguistic gymnastics on why a bolt is critical to green energy.  This time they,

"respectfully submit[ted] that the Federal Registry does not require that an invention generate energy or convert mechanical energy into electrical energy in order to materially contribute to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation. … Embodiments of the present invention materially contribute to the development of renewable energy by providing an arrangement and methods of fastening a bolt that increases the fatigue resistance of a connection in wind energy systems. These measures increase the availability of wind energy as a viable power generating option by reducing maintenance and decreasing costs, and also by reducing wind turbine down time. As a result, embodiments of the present invention promote increased energy production, and thus materially contribute to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation.

However, here is text from Federal Register 74FR64666 (found in section III of the Notice) which seems to undercut GE’s argument:

Patent applications are also eligible for the Green Technology Pilot Program if the applications are for inventions that materially contribute to: (1) The discovery or development of renewable energy resources; (2) the more efficient utilization and conservation of energy resources; or (3) the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The term “renewable energy resources” for purposes of the procedure specified in this notice includes hydroelectric, solar, wind, renewable biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, and municipal solid waste, as well as the transmission, distribution, or other services directly used in providing electrical energy from these sources. [emphasis added]

Admittedly, this wording is somewhat open-ended, but “development of renewable energy resources”, and the last emphasized clause, strongly suggest that USPTO did not intend the connection and fastening of bolts to be considered eligible under the program. This is supported by the wording of their petition dismissal.

No matter, however, as the USPTO accepted GE’s arguments and granted their petition on September 29, 2011. This decision was also signed by the same Tech Center 1700 QA Specialist as the corresponding one for the ‘674 patent.

Did we mention that as of May 29, 2012, the date of the ‘923 bolt patent, the USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program had granted 213 GE patents, out of a total of 1126 issued, or 18.9%? GE’s next closest competitor in terms of total program patent grants through May 29 was Ford Motor Company, and its subsidiary Ford Global Technologies, LLC, with 108 patents (9.6%). Certainly, GE has very successfully used the Green Tech Pilot Program to reduce the pendency of its clean tech inventions over the past few years. Given GE’s vast patent portfolio (more than 37,000 as of November 6, 2012), IP prosecution experience, and very large IP staff, these results are not surprising.

Doorway To Green Technology - Green Tech Doorway

A clean tech door: the doorway 102,
a doorway frame 106,
a doorway opening 122, and
an outer face 134.

Curious Green Tech Program Patents - #1

While reviewing patents issued under the USPTO’s Green Technology Pilot Program], I was struck by the title of US 8,171,674 – “Doorway for a wind turbine tower.”

A doorway receives a green tech/clean tech  patent from the US Patent Office?

First, details on the ‘674 patent, issued in early May 2012. The inventors – Bharat Bagepalli of Niskayuna, NY and Russell Earle Walthers, from Saratoga, CA. The assignee – General Electric Company. The technology, according to USPTO,  static structures including a component designed to receive a disparate article having disparate article mounted thereto on shaft or tower. Isn’t government-speak great?

In other words, an object (in this case, a doorway) mounted on a tower. The abstract:

A doorway for a tower of a wind turbine is disclosed. The doorway may generally comprise a doorway frame having a substantially rectangular shape and including an inner face and an outer face. An opening may be defined between the inner and outer faces and may be configured to provide access to an interior of the tower. Additionally, at least one of the inner face and the outer face may define a substantially planar surface along at least a portion of its width.

The patent contains 13 claims, of which claim 1 is representative:

A tower for a wind turbine, the tower comprising:
a tower segment having a first end and a second end, the tower segment defining a curved shape between said first and second ends; and
a doorway disposed between said first and second ends, said doorway comprising:
a doorway frame having a substantially rectangular shape and including an inner face and an outer face and,
an opening defined through said inner and outer faces, said opening configured to provide access to an interior of the tower,
wherein at least one of said inner face and said outer face defines a substantially planar surface along a substantial portion of its width.

Wondering how a patent for a doorway was issued as a green tech/clean tech, a review of the various documents supporting the patent ensued.

Applicants wishing to have their inventions considered under the US Patent Office’s Green Tech Pilot Program were required to complete a form (it’s government, after all) to specifically request accelerated examination under the program. The inventor duly filed the form (received at USPTO 5/24/11); here is an excerpt:

Applicant respectfully submits that Special Status is sought on the basis that the present invention materially contributes to the development of renewable energy resource or energy conservation.  

Materially?  Do real inventors say materially or is this a lawyer term?  In this case it's a USPTO term.

The petition to make special was routed to Art Unit 3633 for a decision. On June 7, 2011, USPTO (a Tech Center 3600 Quality Assurance Specialist, specifically) replied:

The petition is DISMISSED.

The Patent Office’s reasoning was that “[t]he petition lacks item 4”. Item 4 in the requirements for achieving Green Tech accelerated exam status was:

If the disclosure is not clear on its face that the claimed invention materially contributes under category (A) or (B) [A) materially enhances the quality of the environment or B) materially contributes to: i) the discovery or development of renewable energy resources, ii) the more efficient utilization and conservation of energy resources, or iii) greenhouse gas emission reduction.] [^1], the petition must be accompanied by a statement by the applicant, assignee, or an attorney/agent registered to practice before the Office explaining how the materiality is met.

Additional justification for dismissal was provided by USPTO:

In regard to item 4, the claims are directed to a doorway used in a tower which can be used to support a wind turbine. Since the wind turbine is not claimed, the claimed doorway or tower in and by itself would not ordinarily contribute to the development of renewable energy resources - a doorway or a tower cannot generate energy or convert the mechanical energy into electrical energy. There is no evidence in the present application that the claimed doorway or tower materially contributes to the development of renewable energy resources. In addition, as the claimed doorway or tower would not necessarily result in a tower used to support a wind turbine, petitioner’s assertion of the claimed method’s contribution to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation is entirely speculative. As stated in the notice, the materiality standard does not permit an applicant to speculate as to how a hypothetical end-user might specially apply the invention in a manner than [sic] could materially contribute to category 9A) or (B). Also see MPEP §708.02 (VI). Accordingly, it is not agreed that the application on its face meets that materiality standard.

This seems to be a very reasoned and well-supported dismissal.

GE disagreed and filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Patent Office’s denial of the request for accelerated examination under the Green Tech Program; this was received by USPTO on June 30, 2011. The heart of GE’s request to reconsider is contained in the penultimate paragraph of their Request:

Embodiments of the present invention materially contribute to the development of renewable energy by reducing the thickness of tower segments required for wind turbines and reducing the time and expense necessary to form the tower doorway. As such, these measures promote investment in wind turbine technology by making it a more cost-effective alternative to other non-renewable energy technologies, which in turn promotes increased energy production.

GE is arguing that reducing the thickness of tower segments, and reducing time and expense (to them, the manufacturer) to form a wind tower doorway constitute sufficient reasons for the application to be accepted for accelerated examination under the program. They are arguing here that thinner wind turbine tower segments, and reduced manufacturing time and expense for GE do materially contribute to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation. But none of those aspects address either the requirements of Item 4, provided above, under which the accelerated exam request was dismissed, orthe USPTO’s specific, detailed reasoning supporting that dismissal.

On August 4, 2011, USPTO agreed with GE’s request (what a surprise); this time, however, the reply came from a QA Specialist in Tech Center 1700:

The petition is GRANTED.

USPTO did not provide any reasoning for supporting their grant of the petition to make special, nor any reasoning to explain why they now viewed GE’s wind turbine doorway as meeting program requirements, when just a few weeks previously they had given a well-written, logical set of reasons for rejecting the application for acclerated examination under the program.

Thus, the bottom line in GE’s and USPTO’s thinking is that a wind tower door is clean tech.
Did we mention that GE has received the largest number of patents of any assignee under the USPTO Green Tech Program? Or that GE was definitively involved in the program prior to its announcement on December 7, 2009? See the USPTO press release announcing the program on that date with a quote from Carl Horton, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of General Electric, who “hailed the new initiative” (I’m sure he did, considering how well GE subsequently did under the program)  ”We hail this initiative as an excellent incentive to fuel further innovation of clean technology and a terrific mechanism to speed the dissemination of these patented technologies throughout the world,” Horton said. ’) Or that Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman of the Board and CEO of GE, is head of the Obama Administration’s Jobs Council (nothing more need be said here?)  Representatives from GE introduced their colleague who wrote many of the patent applications and crafted the green tech justifications at the USPTO Green Technology Partnership meeting too.

Inventors, remember, precedent has been established. A doorway is clean tech, if you tie it to a wind turbine.  (Improving a the driving experience of an electric vehicle also qualified.)

Amazing. One might think the Office was under some pressure to produce clean tech/clean energy patents from this program. Naahh, that couldn’t be, could it?

[^1] Pretty limited criteria for energy-related clean tech inventions, wouldn’t you agree?