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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2026 was filed is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
System Claim or a Method of Use claim
Regarding claim 1, which recites in preamble: “A mounting arrangement for mounting a stator frame of a rotating electrical machine on a stationary foundation,” However, it is unclear whether claim 1 is intended to be as a “method of use claim” or a “system claim”, as currently presented based on the following analysis herein below.
If claim 1 is intended to be “method of use claim”, existing limitations do not recite active, positive steps in proper form.
On the other hand, if claim 1 is intended to be a “system claim”, claiming a system would need to cover physical structure or machine and its components, and not actions a user takes to operate the system or components thereof, or functional language tied together with intended use features. See MPEP 2111.04 for details.
Upon careful review by examiner, it appears that a claim 1 lacks recitation of physical structural limitations, as required for a proper system claim.
As best understood by examiner, existing limitations in claim 1 include a functional language phase “adapted to” that are tied together or combined with numerous method of use steps, for example, in lines 9-10 of claim 1 which reads as follow: “to apply a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot”, for example, method step which reads “to firmly clamp the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation” in lines 10-11, and method step which reads “permitting the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation” in lines 11-12, and “wherein the predefined downward compression load is selected based on a torque density of the rotating electrical machine” in lines 13-14, and method step “the torque density being a rated machine torque in kN-m divided by a mass of the rotating electrical machine in metric tonnes” in lines 14-15 of claim 1. Please note because limitations as recited in last 7 lines of claim 1 are not directed to functional features nor structural limitations, but instead appear to be directed to limitations for performing various actions steps for mounting a stator frame on a stationary foundation.
For example, as best understood by examiner, “to apply a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot” in lines 9-10 in claim 1 is directly equivalent to a method step which reads: Step 1: applying a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot.
Meanwhile, as best understood by examiner, “to firmly clamp the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation” in lines 10-11 in claim 1 is directly equivalent to a method step which reads: Step 2: clamping firmly the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation.
Furthermore, “permitting the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation” in lines 11-12 is already in the exact form of a method step.
Meanwhile, as best understood by examiner, “wherein the predefined downward compression load is selected based on a torque density of the rotating electrical machine, the torque density being a rated machine torque in kN-m divided by a mass of the rotating electrical machine in metric tonnes” in lines 13-15 in claim 1 is directly equivalent to a method step which reads: Step 4: “selecting the predefined downward compression load based on calculating a torque density of the rotating electrical machine, the torque density being a rated machine torque in kN-m divided by a mass of the rotating electrical machine in metric tonnes”.
As a result, a system claim of a mounting arrangement system having a stator frame of a rotating electrical machine and a stationary foundation in which the stator frame of the rotating electrical machine is mounted on the stationary foundation, is currently lacking sufficient recited physical structural limitations for the system, so as to sufficient describe and enable the invention, when only multiple interpreted action steps for performing various actions steps for mounting a stator frame on a stationary foundation are recited in last 7 lines of claim 1. In other words, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to build such a claimed system, with only method steps are derived from last 7 lines of claim 1.
Meanwhile, as a reminder, according to MPEP 2173.05(p), which recites: A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also MPEP 2114 for guidance on interpreting function limitations in apparatus claims, in particular that manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art.
Furthermore, existing claim limitations in lines 9-15 in claim 1 are not in proper method of use claim form. For the sake of compact prosecution, examiner offer the following suggestions, If claim 1 were intended to be a “method of use claim”, then existing limitations of claim 1 in lines 9-15 would need to be amended to be replaced by the following:
(Step 1): applying a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot
(Step 2): clamping firmly the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation
(Step 3): “permitting the stator foot to be moving in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation”
(Step 4): “selecting the predefined downward compression load based on calculating the predefined downward compression load, in the following equation (details to be supplied by applicant) ……………” Amendment to drawing and specification are also required for showing support for changes. A new Drawing in the form of numbered text blocks showing the steps are also required.
On the other hand, if claim 1 is intended to be a system claim, then additional physical structural limitations need to be added to cover physical structure or machine and its components, and not actions a user takes to operate the system or components thereof, or having functional language tied together with intended use features. See MPEP 2111.04 for details. Upon careful review by examiner, it appears that a claim 1 lacks recitation of physical structural limitations, as required for a proper system claim.
Indefiniteness of claim limitations
Furthermore, claim 1 is further rejected under 35 USC 112(b) based on indefiniteness because of the following: (a) “wherein the mounting arrangement is further adapted to apply a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot to firmly clamp the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation while still permitting the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation” as recited in claim 1 is rejected because of lacking of reciting corresponding physical structure limitation for enabling the above claim limitation. In other words, the physical structure that allow predefined downward compression load to firmly clamp the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation while still permitting the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction, without any chance for losing clamping firmness and inadvertent fixing/locking the stator foot, remains missing.
(b) “wherein the predefined downward compression load is selected based on a torque density of the rotating electrical machine, the torque density being a rated machine torque in kN-m divided by a mass of the rotating electrical machine in metric tonnes” as recited in the claim 1 is indefinite as to what is the selected numerical value of the predefined downward compression load. In other words, the actual calculation equation that is required for determining the predefined downward compression load is missing in the claim, rendering unknown as to how and what the predefined downward compression load is calculated. Furthermore, upon review of instant specification, no such equation for selecting the predefined downward compression load is found, rendering further the confusion.
Regarding claim 14, which recites substantially the same limitations in last 8 lines thereof as that of the last 7 lines of claim 1, thereby claim 14 is rejected under the same basis as that of claim 1, and discussions are omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claims 2-13 and 15, which are dependent upon claims 1 and 14, respectively, are thereby likewise rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vitrone (EP 1655531B1, hereinafter referred to as “Vitrone”).
Regarding claim 1, Vitrone discloses a mounting arrangement ([0004] lines 1-5: mounting arrangement) for mounting a stator frame (Figs 1-2, footplate 14, title: rotary machines, [0002] steam turbines, large rotary machines, exhaust hood 10) of a rotating electrical machine (rotary machine) on a stationary foundation (Fig 2, stationary foundation 22, see also claim 1, line 2), the stator frame comprising a stator foot (Figs 1-2, footplate 14) adapted to support the stator frame on the foundation (Fig 2, to support footplate 14 on foundation 22) wherein the stator foot (14) has a lower surface that faces an upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2, surface of 14 facing surface of 22), and an upper surface (Fig 2, surface of 14 facing 54, 56), the mounting arrangement comprising a first lubricant (Fig 3, low -friction pad 48 is a lubricant, which is a substance introduced between two moving surfaces to reduce friction, heat and wear) adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot (Fig 2, 14) and the upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2, 22), and wherein the mounting arrangement is adapted to allow the stator foot to move in a lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation to accommodate thermal expansion of the stator frame in use ([0014] various fasteners are used to permit thermal expansion of the exhaust hood 10 and footplate 14 in the longitudinal directions in Fig 3 with minimum friction, see also [0002] permitting axial movement due to thermal expansion), wherein the mounting arrangement is further adapted to apply a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot to firmly clamp the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation while still permitting the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation, and wherein the predefined downward compression load is selected based on a torque density of the rotating electrical machine, the torque density being a rated machine torque in kN-m divided by a mass of the rotating electrical machine in metric tonnes (note: due to the issues as discussed above herein under 35 USC 112(b) rejection, no structural limitations nor related functional limitations can be properly construed from above limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Vitrone discloses further comprising a lower shim (Figs 2 and 3, slide-plate assemblies 16, low friction pad 48, flat plates 50, or plate 42) adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot and the upper surface of the foundation (Figs 2-3), and wherein the first lubricant is adapted to be positioned between a lower surface of the lower shim and the upper surface of the foundation and/or between an upper surface of the lower shim and the lower surface of the stator foot (Fig 3, low -friction pad 48 is a lubricant, which is a substance introduced between two moving surfaces to reduce friction, heat and wear, between upper surface of shim (42) and lower surface of stator foot (14) in Figs 2-3, note due to alternative language of “and/or” in above limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Regarding claim 4, Vitrone discloses wherein the lower shim is fixedly connectable to the stator foot or the foundation (Fig 2, low friction pad 48, flat plates 50, or plate 42 in Fig 3 is fixedly connectable to footplate 14; due to alternative language of “or” in limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Regarding claim 5, Vitrone discloses further comprising a first lower shim and a second lower shim (Figs 2 and 3, low friction pad 48, flat plates 50, or plate 42 can be lower shims, respectively) adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot and the upper surface of the foundation (Figs 2-3), and wherein the first lubricant is positioned between a lower surface of the first lower shim and an upper surface of the second lower shim (Fig 3, low -friction pad 48 is a lubricant, which is a substance introduced between two moving surfaces to reduce friction, heat and wear, between upper surface of shim (42) and lower surface of 48 or 50 (shim) in Figs 2-3, note due to alternative language of “and/or” in above limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Regarding claim 7, Vitrone discloses wherein the first lower shim is fixedly connectable to the stator foot and the second lower shim is fixedly connectable to the foundation (Fig 2, low friction pad 48 or flat plates 50, or plate 42, can be lower shim, which fixedly connectable to footplate 14, and foundation 22, respectively, in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 14, Vitrone discloses a mounting arrangement ([0004] lines 1-5: mounting arrangement) for mounting a stator frame (Figs 1-2, footplate 14, title: rotary machines, [0002] steam turbines, large rotary machines, exhaust hood 10) of a rotating electrical machine (rotary machine) on a stationary foundation (Fig 2, stationary foundation 22, see also claim 1, line 2), the stator frame comprising a stator foot (Figs 1-2, footplate 14) adapted to support the stator frame on the foundation (Fig 2, to support footplate 14 on foundation 22), wherein the stator foot (14) has a lower surface that faces an upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2, surface of 14 facing surface of 22), and an upper surface (Fig 2, surface of 14 facing 54, 56), the mounting arrangement comprising a first lubricant (Fig 3, low -friction pad 48 is a lubricant, which is a substance introduced between two moving surfaces to reduce friction, heat and wear) adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot and the upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2, 14), and wherein the mounting arrangement is adapted to allow the stator foot to move in a lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation to accommodate thermal expansion of the stator frame in use ([0014] various fasteners are used to permit thermal expansion of the exhaust hood 10 and footplate 14 in the longitudinal directions in Fig 3 with minimum friction, see also [0002] permitting axial movement due to thermal expansion), wherein the mounting arrangement further comprises: one or more studs (Fig 3, 52), each stud (52) being fixedly connectable to the foundation (Fig 2, 22) so that it projects upwardly and is adapted to pass through a respective opening (54) in the stator foot (14) with a predetermined lateral and/or axial clearance that allows the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the stud to accommodate thermal expansion in use ([0014] various fasteners are used to permit thermal expansion of the exhaust hood 10 and footplate 14 in the longitudinal directions in Fig 3 with minimum friction, see also [0002] permitting axial movement due to thermal expansion; [0014] elongated aperture 54), and one or more mechanical fixing assemblies, each mechanical fixing assembly being mechanically fixed to a respective stud and adapted to apply a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot ([0014] washers and nuts), wherein the predefined downward compression load firmly clamps the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation while still permitting the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation, and wherein the predefined downward compression load is selected based on a torque density of the rotating electrical machine, the torque density being a rated machine torque in kN-m divided by a mass of the rotating electrical machine in metric tonnes (note: due to the issues as discussed above herein under 35 USC 112(b) rejection, no structural limitations nor related functional limitations can be properly construed from above limitation).
Regarding claim 15, Vitrone discloses the mounting arrangement ([0004] lines 1-5: mounting arrangement; Figs 1-2, footplate 14, title: rotary machines, [0002] steam turbines, large rotary machines, exhaust hood 10; Fig 2, stationary foundation 22, see also claim 1, line 2) of claim 14 (for details see rejection to claim 14 above), wherein the predefined downward compression load applied by each mechanical fixing assembly.
(note: due to the issues as discussed above herein under 35 USC 112(b) rejection, no structural limitations nor related functional limitations can be properly construed from above limitation directed to the action step of applying the predefined downward compression load).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang (EP2774251B1, hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses a mounting arrangement (Fig 2, joint mounting assembly 200) for mounting a stator frame (Fig 2, equipment mount 204) of a rotating electrical machine ( electric power generator 104 is a electromechanical rotting machine) on a stationary foundation (Fig 2, base 105, skid 106, [0014] line 3, a chassis or base 105 in the form of a skid 106), the stator frame comprising a stator foot (Figs 2-4, equipment mount 204) adapted to support the stator frame on the foundation (Figs 1B and 2), wherein the stator foot (204) has a lower surface that faces an upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2, lower surface of 204 facing upper surface of base105), and an upper surface (Fig 2, surface of 204 facing 210), the mounting arrangement (200) comprising a first lubricant adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot and the upper surface of the foundation (Figs 2 and 7, see also [0018], slip joint mount 112 in the form of a shim 206, a sleeve 208, a washer 218 and a mounting aperture 220, together serving as a lubricant, which is a substance introduced between two moving surfaces to reduce friction, heat and wear), and wherein the mounting arrangement is adapted to allow the stator foot to move in a lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation to accommodate thermal expansion of the stator frame in use ([0015], [0017], [0022], [0044]), wherein the mounting arrangement is further adapted to apply a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot to firmly clamp the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation while still permitting the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation, and wherein the predefined downward compression load is selected based on a torque density of the rotating electrical machine, the torque density being a rated machine torque in kN-m divided by a mass of the rotating electrical machine in metric tonnes (note: due to the issues as discussed above herein under 35 USC 112(b) rejection, no structural limitations nor related functional limitations can be properly construed from above limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses further comprising a lower shim ([0024] shim 206 and Fig 2) adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot (204) and the upper surface of the foundation (105, Fig 2), and wherein the first lubricant is adapted to be positioned between a lower surface of the lower shim and the upper surface of the foundation and/or between an upper surface of the lower shim and the lower surface of the stator foot (Figs 2 and 7, see also [0018], slip joint mount 112 in the form of a shim 206, a sleeve 208, a washer 218 and a mounting aperture 220, together serving as a lubricant, which is a substance introduced between two moving surfaces to reduce friction, heat and wear, positioned between an upper surface of the lower shim (206) and the lower surface of the stator foot (204) via 220, 218 and 208; note due to alternative language of “and/or” in above limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Regarding claim 4, Wang discloses wherein the lower shim is fixedly connectable to the stator foot or the foundation ([0024] shim 206 and Fig 2, fixedly connectable to stator foot (204) and foundation (105); due to alternative language of “or” in limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsubishi (JPS48303U, hereinafter referred to as “Mitsubishi”).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsubishi discloses a mounting arrangement for mounting a stator frame of a rotating electrical machine on a stationary foundation ([0001] stator frame fixing device of a rotating electric machine, Fig 2, stator frame fixing device, stator frame 5, foundation 8), the stator frame (5) comprising a stator foot (Fig 2, foot plate 7) adapted to support the stator frame (5) on the foundation (8), wherein the stator foot (7) has a lower surface (Fig 2, surface of 7 facing 11) that faces an upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2, upper surface of 8), and an upper surface (Fig 2, surface of 7 facing 10), the mounting arrangement (Fig 2) comprising a first lubricant ([0001] lubricating oil groove 11, alternatively, [0002] Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease) adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot and the upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2), and wherein the mounting arrangement is adapted to allow the stator foot to move in a lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation to accommodate thermal expansion of the stator frame in use ([0002]: thermal expansion of stator frame 5, thermal stress, and claim 1: to allow thermal deformation of the stator frame in the radial direction), wherein the mounting arrangement is further adapted to apply a predefined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot to firmly clamp the stator foot toward the upper surface of the foundation while still permitting the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the foundation, and wherein the predefined downward compression load is selected based on a torque density of the rotating electrical machine, the torque density being a rated machine torque in kN-m divided by a mass of the rotating electrical machine in metric tonnes (note: due to the issues as discussed above herein under 35 USC 112(b) rejection, no structural limitations nor related functional limitations can be properly construed from above limitation).
Regarding claim 2, Mitsubishi discloses further comprising a lower shim (Fig 2, buried plate 9 or alternatively sliding seat plate 14) adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot (7) and the upper surface of the foundation (8)(Fig 2), and wherein the first lubricant is adapted to be positioned between a lower surface of the lower shim and the upper surface of the foundation and/or between an upper surface of the lower shim and the lower surface of the stator foot ([0001] lubricating oil groove 11, alternatively, [0002] Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease; positioned between upper surface of shim (9) and lower surface of stator foot (7); note due to alternative language of “and/or” in above limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Regarding claim 3, Mitsubishi disclose wherein the first lubricant is a coating applied to one or both of the lower and upper surfaces of the lower shim ([0001] lubricating oil groove 11, alternatively, [0002] Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease; Fig 2, buried plate 9 or alternatively sliding seat plate 14 can be lower shim).
Regarding claim 4, Mitsubishi discloses wherein the lower shim (Fig 2, buried plate 9 or alternatively sliding seat plate 14) is fixedly connectable to the stator foot or the foundation (Fig 2, 9 fixed connectable to foundation (8), or 14 is fixedly connectable to stator foot (7); due to alternative language of “or” in limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Regarding claim 5, Mitsubishi discloses further comprising a first lower shim and a second lower shim (Fig 2, buried plate 9 or alternatively sliding seat plate 14 can be first and second shims) adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot (7) and the upper surface of the foundation (8, Fig 2), and wherein the first lubricant is positioned between a lower surface of the first lower shim and an upper surface of the second lower shim ([0001] lubricating oil groove 11, alternatively, [0002] Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease; positioned between lower surface of shim (14) and upper surface of shim (9) in Fig 2).
Regarding claim 6, Mitsubishi discloses wherein the first lubricant is a coating applied to one or both of the lower surface of the first lower shim and the upper surface of the second lower shim ([0001] lubricating oil groove 11, alternatively, [0002] Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease; Fig 2, buried plate 9 and sliding seat plate 14 can be first and second lower shims; and lubrication can be applied to either of upper surface of 9 or surface of 14, due to alternative language of “or” in limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Regarding Claim 7, Mitsubishi discloses wherein the first lower shim is fixedly connectable to the stator foot and the second lower shim is fixedly connectable to the foundation (Fig 2, buried plate 9 or sliding seat plate 14 can be first and second shims) fixed connectable to the stator foot (7) and foundation (8) in Fig 2).
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 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) 8-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitrone (EP 1655531B1, hereinafter referred to as “Vitrone”) in view of Postma (US6224288B1, hereinafter referred to as “Postma”).
Regarding claim 8, Vitrone discloses further comprising: one or more studs (Fig 3, 52), each stud (52) being fixedly connectable to the foundation (Fig 2, 22) so that it projects upwardly and is adapted to pass through a respective opening (54) in the stator foot (14) with a predetermined lateral and/or axial clearance that allows the stator foot to move in the lateral and/or axial direction relative to the stud to accommodate thermal expansion in use ([0014] various fasteners are used to permit thermal expansion of the exhaust hood 10 and footplate 14 in the longitudinal directions in Fig 3 with minimum friction, see also [0002] permitting axial movement due to thermal expansion; [0014] elongated aperture 54), one or more mechanical fixing assemblies, each mechanical fixing assembly being mechanically fixed to a respective stud and adapted to apply the predetermined downward compression load to the upper surface of the stator foot ([0014] washers and nuts; note: due to the issues as discussed above herein under 35 USC 112(b) rejection, no structural limitations nor related functional limitations can be properly construed from above limitation).
However, Vitrone fails to sufficiently disclose a second lubricant adapted to be positioned between the upper surface of the stator foot and a facing lower surface of each mechanical fixing assembly.
However, Postma and Vitrone combined teach: a second lubricant adapted to be positioned between the upper surface of the stator foot and a facing lower surface of each mechanical fixing assembly (Postma: Col 4, lines 50-52: slider plates can be properly lubricated, enhance sliding action; Vitrone Figs 1-2, footplate 14 (stator foot)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vitrone by Postma based on the following rationale: Referring to Vitrone, which only teaches a first lubricant adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot (Fig 2, 14) and the upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2, 22), but not a second lubricant adapted to be positioned between the upper surface of the stator foot and a facing lower surface of each mechanical fixing assembly. As a result, over extend usage, friction issues would result between the contact surface of the stator foot and the mechanical fixing assembly in the mounting arrangement setup of Vitrone. However, according to MPEP 2143, one common example of rationale which may support a conclusion of obviousness that falls under “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;” is aligned with or matching with the using of known technique of multiple lubricants/slider plates properly lubricated as taught in Postma, for enhance sliding action in Col 4, lines 50-52. As a result, above discussed advantages of using the slider plates of Postma as a load bearing mechanism for disposition between two mounting plates having relative movement that may be due to thermal cycling or expansion thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Vitrone by Postma.
Regarding claim 9, Vitrone alone fails to sufficiently disclose further comprising one or more upper shims, each upper shim adapted to be positioned between the upper surface of the stator foot and the lower surface of a respective mechanical fixing assembly, and wherein the second lubricant is adapted to be positioned between an upper surface of each upper shim and the lower surface of the respective mechanical fixing assembly and/or between a lower surface of each upper shim and the upper surface of the stator foot.
However, Vitrone and Postma combined teach the following: further comprising one or more upper shims (Postma: Col 4, lines 50-52: multiple slider plates), each upper shim adapted to be positioned between the upper surface of the stator foot and the lower surface of a respective mechanical fixing assembly (Postma: Fig 2, 10c, 10d; Vitrone: footplate 14, and [0014] washers and nuts (mechanical fixing assembly)) and wherein the second lubricant is adapted to be positioned between an upper surface of each upper shim and the lower surface of the respective mechanical fixing assembly and/or between a lower surface of each upper shim and the upper surface of the stator foot (Postma: Col 4, lines 50-52: slider plates (upper shim) can be properly lubricated (second lubricant), enhance sliding action; Vitrone Figs 1-2, footplate 14 (stator foot); note due to alternative language of “and/or” in above limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vitrone by Postma based on the same rationale discussed above for claim 8, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Regarding claim 13, Vitrone fails to sufficiently discloses wherein each mechanical fixing assembly comprises at least one internally screw-threaded nut that is received on an externally screw-threaded part of the respective stud that extends above the upper surface of the stator foot, and one or both of a washer and a spreader between the at least one internally screw-threaded nut and the upper surface of the stator foot or a respective upper shim.
However, Vitrone and Postma combined teach: wherein each mechanical fixing assembly (Vitrone [0014] washers and nuts) comprises at least one internally screw-threaded nut that is received on an externally screw-threaded part (Vitrone: Figs 2 and 3) of the respective stud (52) that extends above the upper surface of the stator foot (Vitrone: Fig 2), and one or both of a washer and a spreader (Postma) between the at least one internally screw-threaded nut and the upper surface of the stator foot or a respective upper shim (Postma: Col 4, lines 50-52: multiple slider plates, Fig 2, 10c, 10d; Vitrone: ([0014] washers and nuts).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vitrone by Postma based on same rationale as previously discussed for claim 8 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitrone (EP 1655531B1, hereinafter referred to as “Vitrone”) in view of Postma (US6224288B1, hereinafter referred to as “Postma”), and further in view of Mitsubishi (JPS48303U, hereinafter referred to as “Mitsubishi”).
Regarding claim 10, Vitrone and Postma, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the second lubricant is a coating applied to one or both of the lower and upper surfaces of each upper shim.
However, Mitsubishi teaches mounting arrangement according to claim 9, wherein the second lubricant is a coating applied to one or both of the lower and upper surfaces of each upper shim ([0001] lubricating oil groove 11, alternatively, [0002] Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease; Fig 2, buried plate 9 and sliding seat plate 14 can be shims; and lubrication can be applied to either of upper surface of 9 or surface of 14, due to alternative language of “or” in limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vitrone by Mitsubish in view of Postma based on the following rationale: Referring to Vitrone, which only teaches a first (solid) lubricant adapted to be positioned between the lower surface of the stator foot (Fig 2, 14) and the upper surface of the foundation (Fig 2, 22), but not any other lubrication materials or techniques. As a result, over extend usage, friction issues would result between the contact surface of the stator foot and the mechanical fixing assembly from the mounting arrangement setup of Vitrone. On the other hand, Mitsubishi teaches in [0001] of a lubricating oil groove 11, and [0002] of a Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease; Fig 2, buried plate 9 and sliding seat plate 14 can be shims; and lubrication can be applied to either of upper surface of 9 or surface of 14. Meanwhile, according to MPEP 2143, one common example of rationale which may support a conclusion of obviousness that falls under “(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;” is consistent with or matching with the using of known technique of multiple (liquid) lubricants as taught by Mitsubishi for reducing friction. As a result, above discussed advantages of using Mitsubishi over Vitrone thereby serving as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine and modify Vitrone by Mitsubishi.
Regarding claim 11, Vitrone alone fails to sufficiently disclose further comprising one or more first upper shims and one or more second upper shims, each first and second upper shim adapted to be positioned between the upper surface of the stator foot and the lower surface of a respective mechanical fixing assembly, and wherein the second lubricant is positioned between an upper surface of each first upper shim and a lower surface of each second upper shim.
However, Vitrone and Postma combined teach further comprising one or more first upper shims and one or more second upper shims (Postma: Col 4, lines 50-52: multiple slider plates), each first and second upper shim adapted to be positioned between the upper surface of the stator foot and the lower surface of a respective mechanical fixing assembly (Postma: Fig 2, 10c, 10d).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vitrone by Postma based on the same rationale discussed above for claim 8, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
However, Vitrone and Postma fails to sufficiently disclose or teach and wherein the second lubricant is positioned between an upper surface of each first upper shim and a lower surface of each second upper shim.
However, Postma and Mitsubishi combined teach: and wherein the second lubricant is positioned between an upper surface of each first upper shim and a lower surface of each second upper shim (Mitsubishi [0001] lubricating oil groove 11, alternatively, [0002] Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease; Postma: Col 4, lines 50-52: multiple slider plates (shims)).
Regarding claim 12, Vitrone alone fails to sufficiently disclose wherein the second lubricant is a coating applied to one or both of the upper surface of each first upper shim and the lower surface of each second upper shim.
However, Mitsubishi teaches wherein the second lubricant is a coating applied to one or both of the upper surface of each first upper shim and the lower surface of each second upper shim ([0001] lubricating oil groove 11, alternatively, [0002] Q1 lubrication to reduce frictional resistance of the foot plate 7, injection hole 12 for injecting a lubricant such as grease; Fig 2, buried plate 9 and sliding seat plate 14 can be shims; and lubrication can be applied to either of upper surface of 9 or surface of 14, due to alternative language of “or” in limitation, portion of limitation is considered optional and can be omitted).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vitrone by Mitsubishi based on same rationale as previously discussed for claim 10 above, thereby omitted herein for brevity.
Response to Amendment
Please note due to the issues for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) to claims 1 and 14, as previously discussed herein above, no additional structural limitations can be properly interpreted for further distinguishing from previously cited prior art. Furthermore, intended use features carry no patentable weight for system claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jones (WO 2024223049A1) discloses a leveling support for a rotating machine. Huth (US 8616517B2) disclose a turbomachine foot unit. Wagner (US 4732519) discloses a fastener assembly with axial play. Wang (US 20150316198A1) disclose a generator set mount. Jaskowiak (US 3250565) disclose a flexible unidirectional body mount. Knealing (US 20170009931A1) discloses a mounting assembly for engine. Zarnani (US 20240401362A1) disclose a resilient slip friction joint.
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 DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights