DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 02/16/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-7 and 9-20 are currently pending. Claims 12-16 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 4 and 8 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10 have been amended and claims 17-20 new.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/10/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the response, filed 02/16/2026, with respect to objections to the specification, objections to the drawings, objections to the claims and 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the specification, objections to the drawings, objections to the claims and 112(b) rejections of 11/21/2025 have been withdrawn in light of amendments to the specification and claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/16/2026, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner agrees that the prior art Daniels does not teach all the limitations as amended in claim 1. While it is argued that “Daniel is required to disclose that the connection element is connected to the yaw drive” examiner contends that the claims are directed to a device usable with a yaw drive. Examiner notes, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
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) 1-3, 6-7, 9-11 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,224,363 to Veronesi et al. (Veronesi) in view of US Patent 5,129,136 to Richardson (Richardson) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0111665 to Daniels (Daniels) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0377218 to Trede et al. (Trede).
In Reference to Claim 1
Veronesi discloses a moving device (Fig. 2, 32 for instance) for moving a yaw drive of a wind turbine within the wind turbine (intended use, see note below) but to move a motor drive (12 for instance),
wherein the moving device (32) includes a connection element (portion of 32 at 28 for instance, not labeled), an elongated moving element (top threaded portion as seen in figure 3 for instance, see also figure 6, 66), and an end element (system of 30 for instance, not labeled),
wherein the connection element (of 32 at 28 for instance, see also col 3, ll 41-42) is configured for enabling the moving device (32) to be fixable (as secured to for instance) to the motor drive (12 for instance, and as an intended use of a moving device) such that the connection element (of 32 at 28 for instance) is connected to the motor drive (12 with 24 connected to 32 for instance, and as an intended use of a moving device),
wherein the elongated moving element (Fig. 6, 66) has a form of a threaded rod that is in a screw connection with the connection element (screw connection with system of 32 for instance) and includes a guide (74 for instance) configured to block a movement of the connection element outside of a predefined path relative to the elongated moving element (maintaining of vertical movement for instance), and
wherein the end element (30 for instance) is configured for being placed on a bed frame, or on a mainframe of the system (on 14 for instance, and as an intended use of moving device).
Veronesi does not teach “... the moving device to be fixable to the yaw drive ...,” “... the connection element is connected to the yaw drive by using N connectors, each connector being a screw or bolt that is already part of the yaw drive, N being at least 1 ...,” or “... wherein the end element is configured for being placed on the wind turbine, on a bed frame, or on a mainframe of the wind turbine ....”
Richardson is related to moving device systems (see abstract), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein a connection element (Figs. 1-2, 36 for instance, of a moving device) is connected to a flange (20 and component to be moved for instance) using N connectors (Fig. 1, connectors connecting 36 to 20 for instance, not labeled), each connector being a screw or bolt (as seen in figure 1 for instance), N being at least 1 (plurality of bolts relative to bolt holes 26 for instance, see also figure 2).
Daniels is related to a moving device (abstract, system for moving for instance), as the claimed invention, the system for moving a yaw drive for instance (abstract), and teaches wherein the yaw drive is secured using bolting and may be unbolted and the yaw drive moved for instance (¶ [0032] and [0034]).
Trede is related to a yaw drive for a wind turbine (abstract, rotating unit for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the yaw drive (Fig. 4, 22 for instance) in mounted within a wind turbine and to a wind turbine frame (32 for instance and via a flange 28) using N connectors (Figs. 3-5, 30 for instance), each connector being a screw or bolt that is a part of the yaw drive (30 as used to connect yaw drive for instance), N being at least 1 (a plurality of 30 for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Veronesi wherein the moving device (of Veronesi) is for moving a yaw drive of a wind turbine within a wind turbine (as capable of for instance, yaw drive as taught by Daniels and Trede), the moving device (of Veronesi) is fixable to the yaw drive (as capable of and the yaw drive as taught by Daniels and Trede) such that the connection element (as taught by Richardson) is connected to the yaw drive (as capable of, such as fixing a connection element of a moving device to a flange as taught by Richardson and that flange being to a yaw drive as taught by Trede) by using N connectors (as taught by Richardson), each connector being a screw or bolt that is already part of the yaw drive (as capable of, as taught by Daniels and Trede, the known bolting systems of yaw drives), N being at least 1 (as taught by Richardson), and wherein the end element (of Veronesi) is configured for being placed on the wind turbine, on a bed frame, or on a mainframe of the wind turbine (as capable of, the use of moving devices and to move yaw drives as taught by Daniels for instance), so as to predictably and capably move a yaw drive (including using moving devices with a connection element connectable to a device to be moved for instance, and using existing bolts of a system as taught by Richardson, and the capability of connecting such connection element, as taught by Richardson, to yaw drives using existing bolts that mount the yaw drives in a wind turbine as taught by Daniels and Trede), and using an art known technique (of a moving devices used to move flanged connected components as taught by Veronesi and Richardson for instance).
Examiner notes that it has been held that ‘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); MPEP 2114(II). Because the combination of the prior art teaches all the structural limitations of a moving device the recitations of the moving device to be used in a manner to move a yaw drive is intended use.
In Reference to Claim 2
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the moving device according to claim 1, wherein the connection element (Veronesi, 32 for instance) comprises: a flat element (Veronesi, of 32 as flat at top and bottom for instance, also flat element as taught by Richardson) having a first opening (Veronesi Fig. 6, through 32 for instance) through which the elongated moving element passes (Veronesi, 66 for instance) and N additional openings (as taught by Richardson, openings 62 for instance and in addition to a first opening of 118 in 116 for instance), wherein the N connectors are respectively disposed within the N additional openings (as taught by Richardson, bolts in openings 62 for instance) and connect the connection element (as taught by Richardson, 36 for instance) to the yaw drive (as capable of as taught by Daniels and Trede).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Veronesi wherein the connection element (of Veronesi, as modified for instance) comprises a flat element (as taught by Richardson) having a first opening (of Veronesi) through which the elongated moving element passes (of Veronesi) and N additional openings (as taught by Richardson), wherein the N connectors are respectively disposed within the N additional openings (as taught by Richardson) and connect the connection element (as taught by Richardson) to the yaw drive (as capable of as taught by Daniels and Trede), so as to use an art known technique (of having a connection element configured to be connectable to devices using bolts as taught by Richardson) into the system of Veronesi (in modifying the connection element to have a flat connectable portion) and predictably connect the moving device to components to be moved including capability of moving yaw drives (see claim 1).
In Reference to Claim 3
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the moving device according to claim 1, wherein the guide (Veronesi, 74 for instance) has an opening (Veronesi, opening in 74 for instance) through which the elongated moving element (Veronesi, 66 for instance) passes.
In Reference to Claim 6
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the moving device according to claim 1, except explicitly, “... wherein the elongated moving element has a length between 30cm and 200cm and a diameter between 10mm and 50mm ....”
Daniels further teach that yaw drives can be really heavy and the moving of yaw drives require sufficient moving devices (¶ [0011], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Veronesi wherein the elongated moving element has at least a length and diameter that is sufficient to move weighty yaw drives (as further taught by Daniels), so use an art know technique (of a moving device of sufficient strength to move a yaw drive) into the system of Veronesi and predictably and safely move the yaw drives in the system.
Regarding the claimed limitations “... a length between 30cm and 200cm and a diameter between 10mm and 50mm ...”, to the extent that the claimed invention produces the claimed desired results, the applied prior art structure being the same, does the same (i.e. the moving devices having sufficient strength, including sufficient length and diameter, to lift a yaw drive). In addition, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II.
In Reference to Claim 7
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses a system for moving a yaw drive in a wind turbine (as taught by Daniels, intended use see claim 1), wherein the system comprises at least three moving devices (Veronesi, having four jacking devices for instance, see col 4, ll 8-10).
In Reference to Claim 9
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the system according to claim 7, further comprising a yaw drive (as taught by Daniels and Trede), wherein the at least three moving drives (the use of screw jacks to move components in wind turbine as taught by Volmer and the screw jack system as taught by Veronesi) are mounted to the yaw drive (mounted to motor drive as taught by Veronesi as capable as being used with the yaw drive as taught by Daniels and Trede).
In Reference to Claim 10
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the system according to claim 9, except explicitly, “... wherein a maximum diameter of the system to a diameter of the yaw drive is less than 1.5 ....”
Daniels further teach that yaw drives can really heavy and the moving of yaw drives require sufficient moving devices (¶ [0011], [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Daniels wherein the size of the moving device system compared to the size of a yaw drive is sufficient to move the weighty yaw drive (as further taught by Daniels), so use an art know technique (of a moving device of sufficient size and strength to move a yaw drive) into the system of Daniels and predictably and safely move the yaw drives in the system.
Regarding the claimed limitations “... wherein a maximum diameter of the system to a diameter of the yaw drive is less than 1.5 ...”, to the extent that the claimed invention produces the claimed desired results, the applied prior art structure being the same, does the same (i.e. the size of the system of moving the yaw drive compared to the size of the yaw drive of Daniels is of sufficient strength). In addition, it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II.
In Reference to Claim 11
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses a wind turbine for generating electrical energy (as taught by Daniels, see ¶ [0003]), wherein the wind turbine comprises a nacelle having a generator (Daniels, 102 for instance), a rotor having at least one rotor blade (Daniels, 108 for instance), the rotor being configured for rotating a generator of the nacelle, and at least one system (to move to the yaw drive for instance as taught by Daniels and using additional moving device systems as taught by Volmer and Veronesi) according to claim 7.
In Reference to Claim 17
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the moving device according to claim 1, wherein the connection element (Veronesi Fig. 1, 32 for instance) is disposed between a first portion of the elongated moving element and a second portion of the elongated moving element (Veronesi, 32 in the middle portion of 66 for instance, see also figure 6).
In Reference to Claim 18
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the moving device according to claim 17, wherein the connection element (Veronesi Fig. 1, 32 for instance) is disposed between the first portion of the elongated moving element and the guide (Veronesi, bottom portion of 32 disposed between 66 and 74 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 19
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the moving device according to claim 1, wherein the connection element (Veronesi Fig. 1, 32 for instance) is in direct mechanical contact with the guide (Veronesi Fig. 6, 74 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 20
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the moving device according to claim 1, wherein N is at least 2 (as taught by Richardson, see 62 in figure 2 for instance).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 4,224,363 to Veronesi et al. (Veronesi) in view of US Patent 5,129,136 to Richardson (Richardson) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2010/0111665 to Daniels (Daniels) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0377218 to Trede et al. (Trede) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 2,548,944 to Chapman (Chapman).
In Reference to Claim 5
Veronesi, as modified by Richardson, Daniels and Trede, discloses the moving device according to claim 1, except, "... wherein the elongated moving element comprises an end piece having a diameter that is larger than a bore in the end element and the end piece is surrounded by the end element such that the end element is movable or rotatable relative to the elongated moving element ....”
Chapman is related to a moving device (Fig. 1, 3 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein an elongated element (2 for instance) comprising an end piece (5 for instance) having a diameter that is larger than (a middle portion of the ball portion 5 for instance) a bore in an end element (socket top portion of B for instance) and the end piece (ball of the ball and socket system for instance, see col 1, ll 52-54) is surrounded by the end element (socket of the ball and socket portion) such that the end element is movable or rotatable relative to the elongated moving element (predictably of a ball and socket joint for instance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Veronesi wherein the elongated moving element (of Veronesi) to comprise an end piece having a diameter that is larger than a bore in the end element and the end piece is surrounded by the end element such that the end element is movable or rotatable relative to the elongated moving element (as taught by Chapman), so as to use am art known technique (of using a moveable end element as taught by Chapman) into the system of Veronesi and predictably provide movement using the moving device.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show yaw drive systems in wind turbine systems, the use of jack devices to move components and moving devices.
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights