DETAILED ACTION
The Amendment filed 12/18/25 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10, 12, 16-19, 21 and 28 are currently pending, with claims 4, 13 and 22-27 being cancelled. In light of the claim amendments, certain rejections are revised while most are maintained as detailed below. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Nielsen in view of Custodero, Evans and Hatchman
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 18-19, 21 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (WO 0077394) (previously cited) in view of Custodero et al. (WO 2009040091) (previously cited), Evans et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0057607) (previously cited) and Hatchman et al. (WO 2015/104308) (previously cited). Nielsen is directed to the damping of oscillations in wind turbines. See Abstract. Custodero is directed to a hydroelastic anti-vibration device. See Abstract. Evans is directed to reduced toxicity ethylene glycol-based antifreeze. See Abstract. Hatchman is directed to corrosion inhibitors used with weighting agents. See Abstract.
Claim 1: Nielsen discloses a damper for damping oscillatory movements of a tower of a wind turbine [see Title; Abstract], the damper comprising a container located in an upper third of the tower of the wind turbine [see page 3, lines 11-17]; an aqueous liquid contained in the container that damps the oscillatory movement of the wind turbine, wherein the aqueous liquid comprises: (1) water; (2) at least one salt for increasing the density of the fluid, such as sodium chloride [see page 9, lines 12-22]; (3) an antifreeze agent to reduce the freezing temperature, such as glycerol [see page 9, lines 12-22, 35]; and (4) at least one corrosion inhibitor for reducing or even preventing corrosion of part of the damper [see page 9, lines 28-34 (“nitrates” or “sulphates”)].
Nielsen discloses all the limitations of this claim except for: (1) the salt being potassium citrate 50-66% by weight; (2) the antifreeze agent being monoethylene glycol up to 30% by weight and monopropylene glycol up to 9% by weight; (3) the corrosion inhibitor being 1-3% by weight; (4) water being 3-40% by weight; and (5) a biocide up to 0.1% by weight to suppress a growth of bacteria/algae.
First, Custodero discloses the use of potassium citrate, with a total salt/citrate weight of 50-66%, in an aqueous fluid for the purpose of increasing the density of a fluid. See Translation (10-80%). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make this modification because Custodero, like Nielsen, is concerned specifically with densifying aqueous solutions with salts for the purpose of making damping fluids. Custodero also contemplates the use of this dense damping fluid for a ‘sloshing’-type system in a single chamber, much like Nielsen and the instant invention. See Translation (“…single chamber containing the damping liquid”). Custodero discusses the utility of “the use of salt in a relatively large amount,” i.e., “saturated with salt,” in damping liquids to achieve the desired high density. See Translation.
Second, Evans discloses the use of both monoethylene glycol and monopropylene glycol as a substitute for glycerol for the purpose of providing an antifreeze agent in a fluid. See para. 0010, 0041, 0083. Evans discloses that monoethylene glycol is at an amount of 30%. See para. 0010. Evans discloses that monopropylene glycol is at an amount of 9%. See para. 0053; claim 1 (PG amount is 5-30% of total glycol amount and 9/39 is 23%.). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make this modification because Nielsen explicitly states the need for an antifreeze agent, specifically using glycerol, and Evans explicitly states that using both monoethylene glycol and monopropylene glycol is an acceptable alternative that reduces the toxicity of the agent. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art that glycols have been used to replace glycerols, and PG is often used in tandem with EG to reduce toxicity.
Third, Evans also discloses the use of a corrosion inhibitor in the amount of 1-3% by weight. See para. 0011 (additive to prevent corrosion in concentrations of 0.1-3% by weight). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add this feature because Nielsen already explicitly contemplates the use of a corrosion inhibitor, namely nitrates or sulphates, like the type used in the instant application. The specific percentages are ultimately a design choice base don cost/availability, but also due to the relatively small percentage needed to achieve the objective of corrosion prevention.
Fourth, Hatchman discloses that water is used in a damping liquid in the amount of 3-40%. See para. 0110, 0112 (“solvents include water…solvent will be used…from 10 to 85wt%”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature because Nielsen is directed to an aqueous liquid in a damper, aqueous liquids typically contain water in large percentages and there is no criticality to this fairly large range of 3-40%.
Fifth, Hatchman also discloses that the fluid further includes a biocide [see para. 0116 (“may include biocide as an additional component”)], in an amount up to 0.1% by weight [see para. 0118 (“in an amount of from 0.1 to 10 wt%”)], to suppress a growth of any bacteria or algae [see para. 0116 “for example, quaternary ammonium”)]. See para. 0116, 0118. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make this modification because the use of additives such as corrosion inhibitors, biocides, etc. are well-known and commonly used in the art to main the integrity of the fluid to ensure optimal performance and longevity of the fluid itself, and therefore, the apparatus employing the fluid as well.
It should be noted that Hatchman also discloses the use of a corrosion inhibitor in the amount of 1-3% by weight [see para. 0080, 0082 (0.1-80%)] and at least one of monoethylene glycol and propylene glycol in the combined range recited [see para. 0119-20 (“coupling agent may, for example, be selected from…ethylene glycol, propylene glycol…in an amount of 0.5 to 40wt%”)].
Claim 3: While Nielsen does not discuss the use of “deionized” water, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use deionized water because this is a minor modification to simply rid the water of any impurities and ensure the longevity of the damping liquid and system. Removing unwanted minerals from the water is a design choice that is relatively quick and inexpensive.
Claim 6: Nielsen discloses that the aqueous liquid further comprises an antifreeze. See page 9, lines 12-22, 35 (glycerol).
Claim 9: Nielsen discloses the use of a corrosion inhibitor, which may include a nitrate or sulfonate. See page 9, lines 28-34.
Claim 10: Hatchman discloses the use of both potassium citrate and sodium citrate in an aqueous fluid for the purpose of increasing the density of a fluid [see para. 0141-42 (“The weighting agent may, for example, be selected from the group consisting of…water-soluble salts of alkali metals, such as sodium chloride…sodium citrate and potassium citrate, and mixtures thereof…”)], water at an amount of 3% [see para. 0110, 0112 (1-95%)], and a corrosion inhibitor at a total amount of 3% [see para. 0080, 0082 (0.1-80%)]. Custodero discloses the use of citrates at an amount of 57% [see Translation (10-80%)], and combined with Hatchman’s teaching of using both potassium citrate and sodium citrate, a mixture of 50% and 7%, respectively, of these two citrates would fall within the disclosed range. Evans discloses the use of monoethylene glycol at an amount of 30% or monopropylene glycol at an amount of 7% [see para. 0053, 0070 (1-50% for both EG and PG), claim 1 (PG amount is 5-30% of total glycol amount and 7/37 is 18%)], and a corrosion inhibitor at a total amount of 3% [see para. 0011 (0.1-3%).
Claim 12: Nielsen discloses a wind turbine comprising the damper according to claim 1. See Title.
Claims 18-19: Custodero discloses the use of potassium citrate at an amount of 50% or 55% [see Translation (10-80%)]. Evans discloses the use of monoethylene glycol at an amount of 13% or monopropylene glycol at an amount of 9% [see para. 0053, 0070 (1-50% for both EG and PG), and a corrosion inhibitor at a total amount of 1 or 1.9% [see para. 0011 (0.1-3%). Hatchman discloses the use of water at an amount of 35% [see para. 0110, 0112 (1-95%)], a corrosion inhibitor at a total amount of 1 or 1.9% [see para. 0080, 0082 (0.1-80%)], and a biocide in the amount of 0.1% [see para. 0118 (0.1-%10)]. Evans further discloses the use of a dye [see para. 0028, 0041]. As does Custodero [see Translation (“coloring agent”)].
Claim 21: see claims 1, 3 and 10 above.
Claim 28: Nielsen discloses that the container is in a shape of a toroid located proximate the top of the tower and encircling the space for the elevator. See page 8, lines 4-14 (“container having a circular cross section” to provide “circular motion of the liquid” using tubes). The specifics regarding the tower/elevator are not afforded patentable weight since they are not a structural limitation of the claimed damper.
Custodero in view of Hatchman
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Custodero in view of Hatchman.
Claim 16: Custodero discloses an aqueous liquid for damping [see Abstract] comprising: (1) water; (2) potassium citrate at an amount of 50-66% by weight [see Translation (10-80%)]; (3) monoethylene glycol and/or monopropylene glycol [see Translation (antifreeze agent, for example ethylene glycol)]; and (4) at least one corrosion inhibitor [see Translation (“potassium phosphate”)].
Custodero discloses all the limitations of this claim except: (1) the specific weight of water in the aqueous liquid; (2) an additional citate, namely sodium citrate; and (3) a biocide in an amount of 0.05-0.2% by weight to suppress algae/bacteria growth.
Hatchman discloses an aqueous liquid comprising: (1) water, at an amount of 10% to 50% by weight [see para. 0110, 0112 (“solvents include water…solvent will be used…from 10 to 85wt%”)]; (2) the use of both potassium citrate and sodium citrate in an aqueous fluid [see para. 0141-42 (“The weighting agent may, for example, be selected from the group consisting of …sodium citrate and potassium citrate, and mixtures thereof…”)]; and (3) a biocide [see para. 0116 (“may include biocide as an additional component”)], in an amount up 0.05% to 0.2% by weight [see para. 0118 (“in an amount of from 0.1 to 10 wt%”)], to suppress a growth of any bacteria or algae [see para. 0116 “for example, quaternary ammonium”)]. First, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use this water weight percentage range because Custodero is directed to an aqueous liquid in a damper, aqueous liquids typically contain water in large percentages and there is no criticality to this fairly large range of 10-50%. Second, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to also include sodium citrate because this furthers the objective of densifying the aqueous liquid to provide the desired damping effect in the damper. The mix of citrate salts is also a design choice based on the cost/availability of materials. Third, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include a biocide because the use of additives such as corrosion inhibitors, biocides, etc. are well-known and commonly used in the art to main the integrity of the fluid to ensure optimal performance and longevity of the fluid itself, and therefore, the apparatus employing the fluid as well.
It should be noted that Hatchman further discloses at least one corrosion inhibitor [see Title]; and monoethylene glycol and/or monopropylene glycol [see para. 0119]. This provides yet another reason to combine Custodero with the Hatchman reference – since Custodero includes the use of a corrosion inhibitor in an aqueous liquid, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would consider the Hatchman reference since it is directed specifically to aqueous liquids that are corrosion inhibitors [see Title] and may find acceptable alternatives.
Claim 17: The Custodero aqueous liquid is intended to be used in a damper. See Abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the existing rejection(s) and cited prior art fails to disclose that the potassium citrate concentration is 50-55% by weight. See Remarks, page 8-11. The only reference used to disclose this specific feature is Custodero., although Applicant first addresses why all other references are insufficient. See Remarks, pages 8-9. Applicant then contends that Custodero is also inadequate allegedly because the damping liquid is used in a different type of a damper than the base reference Nielsen. See Remarks, pages 10-11. Specifically, Applicant explains that Nielsen is a ‘sloshing’-type damper composed of liquid in a container and contends that Custodero’s “damping mechanism relies on liquid flow through restricted passages between chambers…” This is incorrect. Custodero contemplates the use of “a single chamber containing the damping liquid, or a plurality of chambers containing said liquid and communicating, at least in part, between them.” See Translation (emphasis added). Hence, Custodero discloses an embodiment that also employs the ‘sloshing’-type damping mechanism in Nielsen and Applicant’s argument is without merit and the combination is, therefore, proper.
For the foregoing reasons, all pending claims remain rejected as detailed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 VISHAL R SAHNI whose telephone number is (571)270-3838. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3pm PST.
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, Robert Siconolfi can be reached on 571-272-7124. 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.
VISHAL SAHNI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/VISHAL R SAHNI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657 January 5, 2026