DETAILED ACTION
Status
Claims 16-24 and 32-38 are pending. Claims 16, 32-33 and 37 are amended. Claims 25-31 are cancelled. Claims 33-35 remain withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues Bergua fails to teach "a first device and a second device, connected in parallel with eachother, wherein the first device allows horizontal and vertical displacement, and wherein the second device allows vertical displacement and supports the weight of the secondary structure".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of 806 and 808 comprise a first and second device, as shown in Fig 8. Further, each of 806 and 808 comprise a first and second elastic coupling. Examiner has added an annotated figure below to clarify the first and second devices. Each device 806 and 808 allows horizontal and vertical displacement and therefore, supports the weight of 802. As explicitly stated at Col 10, ln. 65 to Col 11, ln. 15 each device 806 and 808 is a spring and the “springs have been indicated to denote the elastic or viscoelastic couplings. The direction or arrangement of the springs in these examples should be understood as the principal axis of the elastic coupling, i.e. the axis of most flexibility. Even though the couplings will inherently also have a certain flexibility in other directions, these have herein been disregarded for the sake of simplicity.
In any of the previously described embodiments, the elastic coupling(s) between the damper region and the region to be damped may be configured in such a way that it (they) may have different (significant) stiffnesses in different directions. Taking this into account, a single elastic coupling could be suitably designed for damping oscillations in different directions (e.g. side-to-side and fore-aft oscillations). In this case, different direction-dependent stiffnesses may thus be chosen depending on the bending mode to be damped in each desired direction.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16-19, 21, 32, 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bergua et al. (US 10018186), hereinafter: “Bergua”.
In Regard to Claim 16
Bergua teaches:
A wind turbine(Fig 1, 8) comprising:
a wind turbine tower(100);
a nacelle(800,802, “frame”; Col 9, ln 8-14 ) including a primary frame(800, “frame”; Col 9, ln 8-14), the primary frame connected to the tower(Col 9, ln. 8-14; Col 10, ln. 35-37);
a secondary structure(802) connected to the primary frame(via 806; Col 10, ln. 49-55); and
one or more flexible couplings(806, 808; “silent-blocks” Col 7, ln. 24-31; see annotated figure below) between the primary frame and the secondary structure(Fig 8), the one or more flexible couplings configured to reduce transmission of deformations from the primary frame to the secondary structure(Col 10 , ln. 56-64).
wherein at least one of the one or more flexible couplings comprises a first device and a second device connected in parallel with each other(as shown in Fig 8, each of the flexible couplings, 806 and 808 have a first and second device 806A/806B, 808A/808B connected in parallel with eachother), wherein the first device allows horizontal and vertical displacement(Fig 8, 806A allows displacement along both horizontal and vertical axes, since each device has inherent flexibility or is designed to allow displacement in different directions; Col 10, ln. 65 to Col 11, ln. 15), and wherein the second device allows vertical displacement and supports the weight of the secondary structure(Fig 8; the second device 806B allows displacement along both horizontal and vertical axes, since each device has inherent flexibility or is designed to allow displacement in different directions, 806B also supports the weight of 802 which acts in the vertical direction; Col 10, ln. 65 to Col 11, ln. 15).
Regarding the limitations “wherein the first device allows horizontal and vertical displacement” and “the second device allows vertical displacement and supports the weight of the secondary structure”, these are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114
PNG
media_image1.png
511
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Regard to Claim 17
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), further comprising a rotor having a plurality of blades(Col 10, ln. 40-48) at a first side of the primary frame(rotor coupled to rotor shaft 804 at front side; Fig 8) and wherein the secondary structure is arranged at a second side of the primary frame, the second side being opposite to the first side(802 is arranged at the rear side of 800, which is opposite the front side of 800; Fig 8).
In Regard to Claim 18
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the primary frame comprises a base structure including a substantially horizontal plane(the bottom portion of 800, frame) configured to connect to a yaw bearing of the wind turbine tower(the bottom portion of 800 is configured to connect to a yaw bearing; Col 3, ln. 4-10 and 49-58, Col 6, ln. 59-65), and a front structure including a substantially vertical plane(front portion of 800) configured to connect to a rotor support structure(801,803, 804, 805; Col 10, ln. 40-48; rotor coupled to rotor shaft 801 at front portion of 800; Fig 8), and wherein the secondary structure is connected to the primary frame at or near the base structure and at or near the front structure(802 is connected to 800 in the vicinity of the base structure and the front structure; Fig 8).
In Regard to Claim 19
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 18(see rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the rotor support structure is a front frame or an intermediate frame(gearbox 803 is part of the rotor support structure and is a front or intermediate frame since it is a load carrying structure configured to support the rotor).
In Regard to Claim 21
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the secondary structure is configured to accommodate power conversion components and electrical or mechanical auxiliary systems(Col 10, ln. 45-48 and 56-61).
In Regard to Claim 32
Bergua teaches:
A secondary structure(802) of a wind turbine, comprising:
a plurality of structural elements(806, 808, casing walls of 802) configured to connect to a primary frame(800, “frame”; Col 9, ln 8-14 ) of the wind turbine(via 806, 808 and casing walls of 802; Fig 8; Col 9, ln. 8-14; Col 10, ln. 35-37);
at least one of the structural elements(808) comprising a first flexible coupling(808A,808B) that reduces the transmission of horizontal deformations of the primary frame to the secondary structure(808A,808B dampens oscillations along the principal (or horizontal direction of 808 between 800 and 802, as viewed in Fig 8); and
at least another one of the structural elements(806) comprising a second flexible coupling(806A,806B) configured to reduce the transmission of both horizontal and vertical deformations of the primary frame to the secondary structure(the flexible couplings 806A,806B may be configured to damp oscillations in multiple directions between the wind turbine support structure of the primary frame and the secondary structure; Col 10, ln. 65 to Col 11, ln. 14).
wherein at least one of the first flexible coupling or the second flexible coupling comprises a first device and a second device connected in parallel with each other(as shown in Fig 8, each of the flexible couplings, 806 and 808 have a first and second device 806A/806B, 808A/808B connected in parallel with eachother), wherein the first device allows horizontal and vertical displacement(Fig 8, 806A allows displacement along both horizontal and vertical axes, since each device has inherent flexibility or is designed to allow displacement in different directions; Col 10, ln. 65 to Col 11, ln. 15), and wherein the second device allows vertical displacement and supports the weight of the secondary structure(Fig 8; the second device 806B allows displacement along both horizontal and vertical axes, since each device has inherent flexibility or is designed to allow displacement in different directions, 806B also supports the weight of 802 which acts in the vertical direction; Col 10, ln. 65 to Col 11, ln. 15).
Regarding the limitations “wherein the first device allows horizontal and vertical displacement” and “the second device allows vertical displacement and supports the weight of the secondary structure”, these are construed to be functional language not structurally distinguishable over the prior art because the limitation indicates a manner of operating the device or an intended result. Furthermore, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not differ from the prior art in any physical structural manner. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114
In Regard to Claim 36
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein the one or more flexible couplings between the primary frame and the secondary structure comprise an elastomeric material(806, 808; “silent-blocks” Col 7, ln. 24-31).
In Regard to Claim 38
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein damping characteristics of each of the first and second devices are chosen so as to damp at least one of deformation or vibrations of different amplitudes and frequencies(Col 7, ln. 9-31; Col 11, ln. 48 to Col 12, ln. 67).
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergua in view of Official Notice (now Applicant Admitted Prior Art).
In Regard to Claim 20
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 18(see rejection of claim 18 above), wherein the rotor support structure is a stator structure of a generator(generator 805 is part of the rotor support structure)
Bergua does not explicitly teach a stator structure of the generator as part of the rotor support structure.
However, Official Notice is taken that a generator comprising a stator structure is an old and well established in the business of generators and is asserted to be a well-known expedient or common knowledge by those of skill in wind turbine art for their use in rotatably supporting the rotor.
Claim(s) 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergua in view of Munk-Hansen (US 11073138).
In Regard to Claim 22
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above),
Bergua fails to teach:
wherein the secondary structure is configured to support a helipad
Munk-Hansen teaches:
A wind turbine having a secondary structure(20) configured to support a helipad(1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergua to incorporate the teachings of Munk-Hansen to configure the secondary structure to support a helipad to allow personnel and material (tools, replacement parts, etc.) to be transported to the wind turbine in a quick manner(Col 1, ln. 20-36; Col 2, ln. 46-67).
In Regard to Claim 24
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above), wherein direct drive wind turbines are known(Col 1, ln. 13-22)
Bergua fails to teach:
wherein the wind turbine is a direct drive wind turbine
Munk-Hansen teaches:
A direct-drive wind turbine(Col 2, ln. 45-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergua to incorporate the teachings of Munk-Hansen to configure the wind turbine to be directly driven without the use of a gearbox to decrease the size of the nacelle required(Col 2, ln. 45-67).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergua in view of Schlangen (DE 102008046210).
In Regard to Claim 23
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 16(see rejection of claim 16 above)
Bergua fails to teach:
wherein the secondary structure comprises a trusswork structure.
Schlangen teaches:
A wind turbine having a base frame(P[0002]-P[0004]) and a secondary structure(1) having a trusswork structure(2,3,4,5,6; Fig 1; P[0017])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergua to incorporate the teachings of Schlangen to construct the secondary structure using trusswork to provide flexibility to the structure which prevents harmful stresses at connection points(P[0009]) and increase operation stability(P[0006]).
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergua in view of Ollgaard et al (US 8878377), hereinafter: “Ollgaard”.
In Regard to Claim 37
Bergua teaches:
The wind turbine of claim 36(see rejection of claim 25 above), wherein the flexible couplings comprise a silent block(Col 7, ln. 24-31).
Bergua fails to teach:
The silent block is formed by an annular cylinder of flexible material inside a rigid casing
Ollgaard teaches:
A wind turbine(1) having a silent block(20,11) formed by an annular cylinder of flexible material(11; Fig 6) inside a rigid casing(20; Fig 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bergua to incorporate the teachings of Ollgaard to construct the silent block of an annular cylinder of flexible material inside a rigid casing to dissipate energy of vibrations and reduce noise(Col 3, ln. 1-18).
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 BRIAN P WOLCOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-9837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached on 571-270-1775. 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.
/BRIAN P WOLCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745