DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1 lines 3+ beginning with the limitation “.. the compartments are used ….setting parameters of water in the compartments corresponding to the tuned liquid dampers of different orders are different…” describes what the device does rather than what it is (structurally). The limitation(s) are not only not understood but represent method limitations in an otherwise structural claim. This is considered to be improper since it crosses different statutory classes of invention and becomes unclear what applicants are relying upon for patentability—the structure of the device or its method of operation.
Regarding claim 2 the limitation of “the setting parameter of water..” is not understood. Is some type of tuning parameter previously ‘set’?
Regarding claim 12 line 5 the limitation of “the compartments located on both sides are set as the first compartments…” is not understood. How are they ‘set’ ? Also this is a method limitation in a structural claim and is confusing for the reasons discussed above. The same problem exists on the last line.
Claim 13 contains the same problems.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2022/151580 A1 in view of CN 109455273 A.
Regarding claim 1, subject to the 112 rejection above (and as best understood) WO ‘580 shows a multi- compartment tuned liquid column damper, or ‘platform body’ 1, capable of multi-direction vibration reduction best seen in figures 1-3. Note the multiple compartments at 5 separated by baffles at 2,4. Note also that WO ‘580 states:
The height of the liquid column contained between every two adjacent cylindrical shells corresponds to one natural frequency, and the damper in this embodiment can adjust three different or the same natural frequency of the liquid. In the case of 3 different liquid natural vibration frequencies, the wider tuning frequency band ensures that the damper can achieve more robust vibration control in multiple directions, and can also be applied to control the multi-order mode shapes of the structure simultaneously; the same 3 In the case of the liquid natural vibration frequency of , the vibration control of a certain order mode of the structure can be efficiently achieved in multiple directions.
From these statements this device is capable of meeting the ‘setting’ limitations in applicant’s claims, as best understood.
Lacking however in WO ‘580 is the specific statement of using the liquid column damper with a ‘Floating Platform’. However note the device can be used in a wide variety of applications such as skyscrapers, TV towers and wind power towers etc.
The publication to CN ‘273 also shows an intelligent adjustable vibration damping device of the type shown by WO ‘580 and indicates in at least the abstract that the device is capable of use in floating platform applications.
Since the damping device of WO ‘580 can be used (and tuned) to a variety of applications one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to have applied it to a floating platform application, as taught by CN ‘273, to achieve mulit-directional vibration reduction under specific environmental conditions (i.e. high wind loads, earthquakes, seismic events etc.)
Regarding claim 2, as explained above, these limitations are capable of being met by WO ‘580, as modified by CN ‘273.
Regarding claim 3 in light of the structure of the column type damper of WO ‘580 as shown in figures 1-3 these limitations are capable of being met when the device is adapted for use with a floating platform body.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above, these limitations are met.
Claim(s) 4,11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘580/CN ‘273 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of EP 3048295 A.
Regarding claims 4,11 WO ‘580, as modified above, lacks specifically showing of the platform body 1 having four sides or a square/rectangular shape.
However EP ‘295 shows an adjustable square shaped vibration damper at 50 in figure 3 of a similar type to WO ‘580 using ‘slosh chambers’ that can be applied to control the vibrational damping of wind turbines.
It would have been obvious to have modified the damper of WO ‘580 into a square shape—or one having four sides—as taught by EP ‘295 simply to adapt the device of WO ‘580 to a different structure/building or application.
Regarding claim 7 note construction of the baffles at 2,4.
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, these limitations are met.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, as best understood, it is noted that different buildings and/or structures/oscillating bodies, have different natural frequencies for different bending modes. EP ‘295 states that: In a particularly preferred embodiment, a TLCD can be cross-combined with at least one other TLCD. Thus, a vibration damping for vibrations in different directions is realized.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have ‘set’ several of the compartments 5 in WO ‘580 as ‘first’ and ‘second’ compartments – or with the capability of damping out different vibrational frequencies as the structure vibrates in different directions, as indicated by at least the statements in EP ‘295 and WO ‘580.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5,6,8,9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7123. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 A.M.-7:00P.M..
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, Rob Siconolfi can be reached at 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
6/7/26
Prosecution Insights