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 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.
Claims 1, 3-13, & 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (Korean Patent Application Publication # KR101134503B1) in view of Liu et al. (Chinese Patent Application Publication # CN111755970A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hong discloses a switchgear assembly (i.e. high or low voltage switchgear) comprising:
an electric switchgear (i.e. high or low voltage switchgear w/ distribution panel (A)/switchboard/electrical equipment), and
a support structure (i.e. upper base (4) & lower base (5)) supporting the electric switchgear, wherein the support structure comprises a damping device (i.e. wire rope spring (1), a wire fixing member (2), a polyurethane spring (3)) for damping mechanical impacts due to vibrations during operation of mechanical parts;
wherein the switchgear assembly comprises a further damping device (i.e. another one of the wire rope spring (1), a wire fixing member (2), a polyurethane spring (3) as shown in Fig. 4). (Fig. 1-5; Abstract; Paragraphs 0001, 0031-0045).
Hong does not explicitly disclose that the switchgear assembly is for a wind turbine, the mechanical parts are of a wind turbine, the vibrations during operation are in a frequency range between 40 Hz and 200 Hz, the damping device is configured for damping vibrations in a frequency range between 40 Hz and 200 Hz, and the further damping device being configured for damping frequencies below 40 Hz and damping vibrations of higher amplitudes than the damping device.
Liu teaches that the switchgear assembly is for a wind turbine (i.e. vibration-damping switchgear for wind power generation), the mechanical parts are of a wind turbine (Fig. 1-4; Abstract; Paragraphs 0001-0007, 0039-0062).
Liu teaches that it is well known in the art to use a damping device for a switchgear like the one disclosed by Hong in a wind turbine in order to protect the internal mechanical and electrical parts from the irregular vibrations present in a wind farm. Although Hong discloses that the apparatus helps protect a switchgear/switchboard from external shocks such as earthquakes, Liu shows that a similar apparatus can be applicable and suitable to protect a switchgear/switchboard in a wind power turbine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use the apparatus of Hong in a wind turbine, as taught by Liu, in order to protect the switchgear from the vibrations in a wind farm.
Hong in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose that the vibrations during operation are in a frequency range between 40 Hz and 200 Hz, the damping device is configured for damping vibrations in a frequency range between 40 Hz and 200 Hz, and the further damping device being configured for damping frequencies below 40 Hz and damping vibrations of higher amplitudes than the damping device.
Hong and Liu are silent on the specific range of vibration frequencies for which the damping device is tuned, configured, or made for, but it is well known that coil springs like the ones used in Hong can be designed for a particular frequency range by selecting an optimal spring rate for a particular application such as the environment and vibration frequencies to which the coil spring will be subjected. Hong also clearly teaches different types of springs such as the wire rope springs and the polyurethane springs which act as auxiliary stabilizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have that the vibrations during operation are in a frequency range between 40 Hz and 200 Hz, the damping device is configured for damping vibrations in a frequency range between 40 Hz and 200 Hz, and the further damping device being configured for damping frequencies below 40 Hz and damping vibrations of higher amplitudes than the damping device, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One skilled in the art would select an optimal spring rate for the springs in the device of Hong in view of Liu.
Claims 15-22 include the limitations of Claims 1 & 3-13 (the method of manufacturing the switchgear assembly) and are analyzed as such with respect to those claims.
Regarding Claim 3, Hong in view of Liu discloses the switchgear assembly of claim 1, being configured for an offshore wind turbine (Liu: Fig. 1-4; Abstract; Paragraphs 0001-0007, 0039-0062). The device of Hong in view of Liu is applicable to an offshore wind turbine.
Regarding Claim 4, Hong discloses that the damping device comprises at least one helical coil (i.e. spiral cylindrical coil shape) (Fig. 1-5; Paragraphs 0033, 0036, 0037, 0048-0049, 0066).
Regarding Claim 5, Hong discloses that a longitudinal axis of the at least one helical coil extends parallel to a mounting surface of the support structure (Fig. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 6, Hong discloses that the damping device comprises at least one stabilizer (i.e. upper wire fixing member (21) & lower wire fixing member (22)) through which the at least one helical coil is led (Fig. 1-5; Paragraphs 0033-0051).
Regarding Claim 7, Hong discloses four helical coils located at four corners of the support structure (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 8, Hong discloses that the stabilizer provides a plane surface for homogenously distributing the weight of the switchgear on the helical coil (Fig. 1-5; Paragraphs 0007-0008, 0033-0051).
Regarding Claim 9, Hong discloses that the damping device
Regarding Claim 10, Hong discloses a further damping device (i.e. wire rope spring (1), a wire fixing member (2), a polyurethane spring (3)) for damping shocks occurring due to outer impacts, wherein the damping device and the further damping device have different damping characteristic (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0045). Fig. 4 shows that multiple spring devices are used for the distribution panel. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to design or adjust each spring device and its damping characteristics according to the needs and requirements of the environment in which the switchgear/switchboard is installed. One such damping characteristic is the spring rate as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11, Hong discloses that the further damping device is configured for damping vibrations of a lower frequency than the damping device (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0045). Fig. 4 shows that multiple spring devices are used for the distribution panel. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to design or adjust each spring device and its damping characteristics according to the needs and requirements of the environment in which the switchgear/switchboard is installed. One such damping characteristic is the spring rate, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, which can be selected according the frequencies for which protection is needed.
Regarding Claim 12, Hong discloses that the further damping device is configured for damping vibrations of a larger amplitude than the damping device (Fig. 4; Paragraph 0045). Fig. 4 shows that multiple spring devices are used for the distribution panel. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to design or adjust each spring device and its damping characteristics according to the needs and requirements of the environment in which the switchgear/switchboard is installed. One such damping characteristic is the spring rate, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, which can be selected according the vibration amplitudes for which protection is needed.
Regarding Claim 13, Hong in view of Liu discloses a wind turbine comprising the switchgear assembly of claim 1 (Liu: Fig. 1-4; Abstract; Paragraphs 0001-0007, 0039-0062). The device of Hong in view of Liu is applicable to a wind turbine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the combination of Liu and Hong fails to teach or suggest the specific frequency-dependent damping architecture recited in amended independent claims 1 and 15, particularly the limitations requiring a primary damping device configured for "vibrations in a frequency range between 40 Hz and 200 Hz" and a further damping device configured for "frequencies below 40 Hz" and for higher-amplitude vibrations than the primary device. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has addressed the amended claims above. The Applicant’s invention is meant to protect equipment from vibrations caused by earthquakes. Hong modified by Liu is clearly directed at providing stability and damping during earthquakes. Determining which frequencies the designer has to design the springs to dampen is a necessary aspect of applying such a structure to equipment that has to be protected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RHADAMES J ALONZO MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7829. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6pm 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, Timothy Thompson can be reached at (571) 272-2342. 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.
/RJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2847
/TIMOTHY J THOMPSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2847