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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to Claim 16 is supported by at least Figure 5 and ¶0059.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16 recites “operating the wind turbine in a normal operation mode”. The written specification support for the amendment is from ¶0059. This section of the specification does not elaborate on what “normal operation” means. The prior art will be interpreted based on whether the operations performed are considered within the bounds of “normal”.
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 16, 18, 20-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20110211955A1) in view of Spruce (US20180173215A1), further in view of Frank (EP3014117B1 – See English translation for text citations) and Tomida (US20160133488A1).
Claim 16
Eriksen teaches a method for extracting a component from a nacelle of a wind turbine (Figure 3 shows a system for removing a component from a nacelle (3). ¶0010 teaches the invention pertains to moving heavy components within a housing (interpreted as the nacelle).), the method comprising: configuring a guide system with a first guide part (11) within the nacelle (3) and a second guide part (16) extending through an opening (13) in the nacelle (3) and beyond a first end of the nacelle (See Figure 3): connecting the component to a cart (Figure 2 shows an example of a component (15) being connected to the cart (12). Item 12 of Eriksen is described in the specification as a “means for lifting and/or transporting”. The “transporting” part of this means is interpreted as the analogous cart.) wherein connecting the component to the cart comprises suspending the component from the cart (Figure 2 shows the component (15) is suspended from the cart (12).); operating the wind turbine in a normal operation mode with the transformer suspended from the cart (Figures 2-3 show a normal maintenance or repair operation mode of the wind turbine where the component (15) is being removed. The component is suspended from the cart (12) during this operation.); when the transformer is to be extracted from the nacelle, moving the cart along the first guide part with the transformer suspended from the cart (¶0030 teaches that the component (15) is moved along the rail system by the means for lifting and/or transporting.); and subsequently moving the cart along the second guide part to position the transformer outside of the nacelle. (Figure 3 shows the rail system extends outside the wind turbine. ¶0030 teaches that the component (15) is moved along the rail system by the means for lifting and/or transporting.)
Eriksen does not explicitly disclose that the component is a transformer. Eriksen does disclose the lifting of heavy components using the system (¶0012) and that there is a portion that holds a generator portion of the wind turbine assembly (¶0027).
However, Spruce teaches the replacement of a transformer as part of the maintenance schedule for a wind turbine. (¶0026 teaches the transformer is replaced according to a schedule. ¶0100 or ¶0181 teaches the replacement of a transformer.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known transformer replacement technique of Spruce to the wind turbine maintenance method of Eriksen in order to replace a major component (¶0181 of Spruce) in order to prolong the overall service life of the turbine.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known known transformer replacement technique of Spruce to the wind turbine maintenance method of Eriksen because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is Eriksen will use its lifting and moving technique on a transformer.
Eriksen in view of Spruce does not explicitly disclose the guide system having one or more locking elements, the one or more locking elements having an unlocked configuration and a locked configuration; the one or more locking elements connected to the cart; configuring the one or more locking elements in the unlocked configuration allow movement of the cart along the first guide part; and configuring the one or more locking elements in the locked configuration by connecting the one or more locking elements to a longitudinal rail of the guide system in addition to the cart, thereby preventing the cart from moving along the longitudinal rail.
However, Frank teaches the guide system having one or more locking elements (Figure 4 teaches locking elements (54) that are connected to the carriage (5).), the one or more locking elements having an unlocked configuration and a locked configuration (¶0037 teaches the locking (fixing) device holds the guide carriages immovably on the rail. This is the locked configuration. ¶0038 teaches the locking device is released and allows the movement of the guide carriage. This is the unlocked configuration.); the one or more locking elements connected to the cart (Figure 4 shows the locking elements (54) are connected to the carriage (5). The carriage is an analogous cart.); configuring the one or more locking elements in the unlocked configuration allow movement of the cart along the first guide part (¶0038 teaches the locking device is released and allows the movement of the guide carriage. This is the unlocked configuration. Figure 1 shows the guide carriage (5) moves along a rail (1).); and configuring the one or more locking elements in the locked configuration by connecting the one or more locking elements to a longitudinal rail of the guide system in addition to the cart, thereby preventing the cart from moving along the longitudinal rail. (¶0037 teaches the locking (fixing) device holes the guide carriages immovably on the rail. This is the locked configuration. ¶0031 teaches that the locking device fixes the carriage to the rail, and Figure 4 shows the locking device (54) is connected to the rail (1).)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the locking elements of Frank to the guide carriage/cart of Eriksen in view of Spruce in order to lock the carriage in position when loading and unloading the load (Frank ¶0031, ¶0037, ¶0038) and also to fix the carriage to the rail (Frank ¶0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to combine the known locking elements of Frank to the guide carriage/cart of Eriksen in view of Spruce because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to combine prior art structures according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Eriksen in view of Spruce and Frank does not explicitly disclose connecting the transformer to a cart via one or more silent blocks, the one or more silent blocks configured to absorb vibrations and damp energy transmitted through the one or more silent blocks.
However, Tomida (Figure 3) teaches connecting a load (6) to a cart (transport portion, 16) via one or more silent blocks (The analogous structure(s) in Tomida that can be interpreted as “silent blocks” as claimed are either: the entire support mechanism (23) that is an intermediate structure between the cart (16) and the load (6) and has damper elements (36); or each of the damper elements (36) that are part of the connection between the load (6) and cart (16).), the one or more silent blocks configured to absorb vibrations and damp energy transmitted through the one or more silent blocks. (¶0037 and ¶0048 teach the damper elements reduce vibrations transmitted to the article support portions.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the intermediate damper element technique of Tomida to the means for lifting and transporting device in Eriksen in order to add an element that reduces vibrations transmitted to the load during movement of the cart and/or hoisting of the load. (See ¶0048 of Tomida)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to apply the known intermediate damper element technique of Tomida to the means for lifting and transporting device in Eriksen because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
The predictable result is that the means for lifting and transporting in Eriksen will have an intermediate structure of a damper element in between the load and the means.
Claim 18
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the first end of the nacelle is a rear end of the nacelle. (Eriksen Figure 3 shows the opening (13) is located at the rear end of the nacelle (3).)
Claim 20
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the guide system is a telescopic guide system (Eriksen, ¶0035 teaches the system is a telescopic system.), the method comprising moving the
Claim 21
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida teaches the method of claim 16, further comprising attaching the second guide part to the first guide part. (Eriksen Figure 3 shows the second guide part (16) is attached to the first (11).)
Claim 23
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the guide system includes a hoist, and wherein the method further comprises lifting the transformer off a floor of the nacelle to the cart with the hoist. (Eriksen, ¶0021 teaches the means for lifting and/or transporting can include a hoist. Figure 2 shows the component being held by the means (12) up off of the floor of the nacelle, and up against the cart (12). It is asserted that the means (12) of Eriksen includes both a cart (12) that moves along the rails, and a hoist as described in ¶0021.)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20110211955A1) in view of Spruce (US20180173215A1), Frank (EP3014117B1) and Tomida (US20160133488A1), as applied in Claim 16, further in view of Fujioka (EP2871357B1).
Claim 19
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the component is moved out of the nacelle. (Eriksen Figures 2-3)
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida does not disclose moving elements within the nacelle out of a trajectory of the transformer along the first guide part within the nacelle.
However, Fujioka teaches when moving components out of a nacelle using a lifting device, to move components out of the trajectory of the desired component. (¶0061 teaches that when another component is in the way of the intended component to be removed (in this case the hydraulic motor is being moved), to first move the obstructing component.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the known technique of clearing any obstructions from Fujioka to the component movement method of Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida in order to eliminate obstacles from the path and perform the movement of the desired component efficiently (See Fujioka ¶0061)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known technique of clearing any obstructions from Fujioka to the component movement method of Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20110211955A1) in view of Spruce (US20180173215A1), Frank (EP3014117B1) and Tomida (US20160133488A1), as applied in Claim 21, further in view of Cingolani (US20200182223A1).
Claim 22
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida teaches the method of claim 21, comprising attaching the second guide part to the first guide part. (Eriksen Figure 3 shows the second guide part (16) is attached to the first (11).)
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida does not disclose how the second guide part is placed into position. As such, Eriksen does not disclose hoisting the second guide part to the nacelle with a crane.
However, Cingolani teaches a rail system (6, 13, 14) that are used to move a component within a nacelle (¶0007-0009). The rail modules are moved into position using a crane (onboard crane, 8) from the ground and into the nacelle (See Figure 1-2 and ¶0074)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known crane lifting technique of Cingolani to the second guide part arrangement method of Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida in order to pass the rail module through a normal service hatch during installation and move the rail into position inside the nacelle. (Cingolani ¶0023) This also means that the rail parts can be removed via a crane after the movement of the component is completed, thereby saving space within the nacelle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known crane lifting technique of Cingolani to the second guide part arrangement method of Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eriksen (US20110211955A1) in view of Spruce (US20180173215A1), Frank (EP3014117B1) and Tomida (US20160133488A1), as applied in Claim 16, further in view of Bitsch (US20140017047A1).
Claim 24
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the component is moved outside the nacelle (Eriksen, Figure 3 teaches the rail (16) that the cart (12) moves along extends outside of the nacelle.) and that an additional crane can be attached to the rail system (¶0036).
Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida does not explicitly disclose lifting the transformer with a crane after moving the transformer outside of the nacelle, the crane attached to the second guide part.
However, Bitsch teaches the lifting the component up with a crane (Figure 2 teaches a second drive arrangement (11) that is part of a crane (¶0078) and is used to lover the component (7) between the nacelle and the ground (¶0078).) after moving the component to the end of the rail system (Figure 2 shows the crane (11) is located at one end of the rail system.), the crane attached to the second guide part. (Figure 2 shows the crane (11) is attached to the nacelle, similar to the disclosure in Eriksen Figure 4, Item 18. Eriksen states that this crane (18) is attached to the rail system in ¶0036. Alternatively, the crane in Bitsch is attached the nacelle and the rail system is also connected to the nacelle. Therefore, the crane is connected to the rail system.)
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to apply the known second drive component technique of Bitsch to the system of Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida in order to facilitate that movement of components by allowing the first drive component to pick up another component while the second drive component moves the first component to the ground level (Bitsch ¶0014) The use of separate drive arrangements allows each one to be optimized for its specific duty (Bitsch ¶0015)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to apply the known second drive component technique of Bitsch to the system of Eriksen in view of Spruce, Frank and Tomida because it has been held to be prima facie obvious to apply a known technique to a known method/apparatus to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 03/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive at this time.
Applicant essentially argues that the combined invention as presented in the prior office action does not teach the new amendments, specifically “operating the wind turbine in a normal operation mode with the transformer suspended from the cart”.
It is respectfully asserted that “normal operation mode” is not defined in the claim as to pertain to a specific circumstance. As such, the maintenance/repair method in Eriksen can be considered a “normal operation” since maintenance of wind turbine components within the nacelle is a common occurrence that can be considered within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “normal”.
Applicant may further define the term “normal operation” to mean a specific circumstance not found in Eriksen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found on the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited Form.
Document
Date
Description of Relevant Subject Matter
US20150316024A1
2013-11-28
Figure 5F shows the transformer (154) remains suspended after being replaced.
US20140186183A1
2011-11-25
Figure 1 teaches a wind turbine nacelle (53) that houses components (1,2,3,57). Figure 2 shows a carrier/transport assembly (402) that interacts with a rail (401) to move the component along the nacelle. ¶0032-0033 teach that the carrier and drive system can be installed with the component during manufacturing (permanently installed).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the known permanent carrier and transport system of Mogensen to another wind turbine system in order to provide a permanent installation that can installed during manufacturing and eliminate an extra step of installation when repairs/replacement of turbine components are necessary.
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 Michael W Hotchkiss whose telephone number is (571)272-3854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 0800-1600.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached on 571-272-3460. 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.
/MICHAEL W HOTCHKISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights