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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/7/26.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the two groups of claims are directed to unrelated subject matter. Group I is directed to a damping device. Group II is directed to a method of lifting a tower with a lifting device. The searches for the two different groups minimally overlap. The special technical features of Group I (e.g. a liquid damper having a single liquid tank, damping for first and second frequencies) are not present in Group II, and the special technical features of Group II (e.g. gripping the tower by gripper means) are not present in Group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 6 and 7 are 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.
Claim 6 recites “the one or more ribs” lacking antecedent basis. It appears that claim 6 was intended to depend from claim 5 rather than claim 4, as claim 5 introduces one or more elongated ribs. The claim has been examined as such.
Claim 7, line 2 recites “the liquid damping device”. Parent claim 1 recites “a damping device” in the preamble of the claim and “a liquid damper” in line 4 of the claim. It is unclear if “the liquid damping device” is referring to the damping device or the liquid damper. Claim terms should be consistent throughout the claims for clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahba, US 2021/0062503.
Regarding claim 1:
Wahba discloses a damping device (220) configured to be mountable on an upper opening of a tower (para. 0055 – the system may be located on the tower at any suitable location including proximal a top end) and it is configured to provide vibration damping during vertical storage and/or vertical transport of the tower (it is usable for these purposes), wherein the damping device comprises:
a liquid damper comprising a single liquid tank (the damper is a single tank with multiple chambers as shown in Figs. 5A and 5B reproduced below);
PNG
media_image1.png
440
1103
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a mounting interface (Fig. 5C) configured to mounting the liquid damper on the upper opening of the tower (210), wherein the mounting interface comprises one or more load transfer elements configured to transfer vibrations between the tower and the liquid damper; and
PNG
media_image2.png
373
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more damping parameters are configured such that the liquid damper damps vibrations at least at a first frequency and at a second frequency, the second frequency being different from the first frequency (para. 0086 and 0087 – first natural frequency and a second natural frequency).
Regarding claim 2:
Wahba does not specify that the first and second frequencies correspond to vortex vibrations and galloping vibrations. However, as claimed, the one or more damping parameters are configured to correspond to vortex and gallop induced vibrations at different frequencies. Wahba specifies adjustability to different frequencies such that the examiner finds the Wahba is configured to provide damping for vibrations corresponding to vortex and damping frequencies.
Regarding claim 14:
Wahba discloses a method of providing a damping device (220) configured to be mountable on an upper opening of a tower and configured to provide vibration damping during vertical storage and/or vertical transport of the tower, wherein the damping device comprises a liquid damper comprising a single liquid tank (as set forth above), wherein the method comprises:
determining one or more damping parameters of the liquid damper (para. 0014 – determining one or more natural frequencies of the tower and structural damping thereof) that are tunable (varying liquid volume) to provide the vibration damping at predetermined frequencies such that the liquid damper damps vibrations at least at a first frequency and at a second frequency, the second frequency different from the first frequency, and
providing the liquid damper (220) in accordance with the one or more determined parameters (the natural frequencies).
Regarding claim 3:
Wahba discloses wherein the damping parameters include a volume of the liquid in the liquid tank (para. 0082, volume is varied based on the frequency being dampened).
Regarding claim 4:
Wahba discloses wherein the liquid tank is a volume comprising a vertical through hole (224), wherein the volume comprises an inner wall (refer to Fig. 5B) enclosing the through hole and an outer wall enclosing the inner wall, and wherein the volume is defined between the inner wall and the outer wall, wherein both walls are cylindrical.
Regarding claim 11:
Wahba discloses wherein the damping device comprises a tower cover configured to cover an upper opening of the tower, wherein the tower cover is attached to the liquid damper.
PNG
media_image3.png
199
599
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahba, US 2021/0062503 in view of Mortensen et al., US 2020/0332548.
Regarding claim 7:
Wahba does not expressly disclose wherein the damping device is mounted inside the tower.
Mortensen discloses a damping device that is a liquid damper (100) wherein the mounting interface is configured to mount the liquid damping device onto an upper opening of a tower such that the liquid damper is arranged inside the tower (clamps 106-108 shown in Fig. 1 of Mortensen).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to substitute the mounting interface of Mortensen for that of Wahba in order to provide an additional tuning means (para. 0013 of Mortensen).
Regarding claim 13:
Wahba discloses determining one or more damping parameters of the liquid damper that are tunable to provide vibration damping at predetermined frequencies for a first and a second frequency but Wahba does not expressly disclose wherein the tower is a wind turbine tower.
Mortensen discloses wherein a dampened tower is a wind turbine tower (para. 0056).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to use the damper of Wahba in a wind turbine tower as suggested by Mortensen in order to attenuate wind tower vibrations. Wahba modified in view of Mortensen reasonably suggests internal mounting of the damper as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above.
damp
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahba, US 2021/0062503 in view of Mortensen et al., US 2020/0332548 further in view of Ollgaard et al., US 2016/0252079
Regarding claim 8:
Wahba in view of Mortensen suggests interior placement of a liquid damper as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above. Mortensen appears to disclose bolt openings within the clamps but does not expressly disclose adjustment bolts.
Ollgaard discloses an interior mounted damper wherein load transfer elements comprise a plurality of adjustment bolts (refer to Fig. 4, bolts in bracket 22), wherein an adjustment bolt extends between the mounting interface and an interior of the tower.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to mount the load transfer elements of Wahba in view of Mortensen with adjustment bolts extending between the mounting interface and an interior of the tower as suggested by Ollgaard in order to tightly secure the damper to the tower.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the most relevant prior art to Wahba, US 2021/0062503 discloses dividing walls but does not disclose one or more ribs as claimed. There is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to provide ribs to a surface of the walls of Wahba. Further, the dividing walls of Wahba appear to obviate the use of ribs.
Regarding claims 9-10, Wahba discloses wherein the damper is centered on the tower but does not disclose a guide system. There is no indication in Wahba nor the prior art of record that a guide system is required or desirable for centering of the damper. Providing a guide system to Wahba as claimed would require improper hindsight reasoning and reconstruction.
Regarding claim 12, Wahba does not suggest a gap between an inner wall of the tower and an outer dimension of the liquid damper configured to allow gripping means of a lifting device to grip the inner wall of the tower through two or more hatches comprised by the tower cover in order to lift the tower together with the damping device mounted on the tower. While the examiner finds that it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to mount the damper within the tower as suggested by Mortensen, it is not obvious based on the teachings of the prior art of record to provide for gripping means as claimed in claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT W HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-3661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6:00p 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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/BRENT W HERRING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights