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 listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
The information disclosure statement filed March 21, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically NPL item 1 is said to be a 6 page international office action, however what appears to have been filed in its place is a 9 page German action, this is not an international office action nor do the page numbers in the citation match.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a guide element (claim 7, this feature is discussed in the specification but does not appear to be illustrated) and a wind turbine with one radial plain bearing and a main rotor bearing (clm 11, see rejection under 35 USC 112 below) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, 10 and 11, line 1, should begin with - -A- - and claims 2-7 and 9 should begin with - -The- -.
Claim 1, line 3-4, “which is connected to the Sliding surface” should be - -which contacts the sliding surface- - and the term “interacts” in line 4 should be deleted.
Claim 3, the double period at the end of the claim should be a single period.
Claim 8, “and / or” should be - -and/or- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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.
Claims 1 and 8 lack a clear transitional phrase, such as “comprising” which renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear since it cannot be determined what is background information and what Applicant is actually seeking coverage for. These claims should be redrafted in a manner as suggested by 37 CFR 1.75(i) so that there is clear preamble and the body of the claim clearly sets forth the inventive feature of the application.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the side”, "the shaft" and “the sliding surface of the shaft” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1, recites the limitation "the direction of the axis" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, the metes and bounds of the phrase “predetermined by the shaft diameter” are unclear. What diameters does this limit the claim to? Are all diameters predetermined regards of the specifics of the shaft or is this meant to require that the diameters are equal or different? Simply stating that something is predetermined does not define any particular feature and thus it is unclear what the relationship between the parts is that Applicant is seeking protection for.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the direction of the shaft" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this referencing the axial direction of the shaft or the circumferential direction? If this is in reference to the axial direction of the shaft is this different from “the direction of the axis” recited at the end of claim 1?
The term “few” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “few” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What number of micrometers are considered a “few” and what is a “few” 1/100 millimeters?
Regarding claims 6, 7, 8 and 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. In this case, “preferably” is functioning the same as “for example”, see MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 is further unclear with regards to what the recitation after the first occurrence of “preferably” actually means. The claim is attempting to define a nondefinitive number of segments “based on its own size”, “its diameter” and “the size of the shaft” and “and/or its diameter”, however what the “its” is actually referencing back to is unclear. It would first appear that “its” references back to the segment but then in the last recitation “and/or its diameter” it would appear that this might be in reference to the shaft. For clarity purposes the use of “its” should be avoided.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear how many bearings/bearing elements are being positively required by the claim. The claim first recites “at least one sliding segment” which based on the disclosure is part of the bearing arrangement but then the claim states “including at least one radial plain bearing and a main rotor bearing” and it is unclear if Applicant is attempting to claim a wind turbine with a bearing comprising one of the segments and the bearing is radial plain bearing or a main rotor bearing or if the intent is to have a segment and then two additional bearing assemblies as the claim appears to be stating. How many bearings are being positively required by the claim?
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schuelke, DE102020208821.
Regarding claim 1, Schuelke discloses a sliding segment (1, specifically the embodiment in figure 13), which can be connected to a bearing housing (59), the sliding segment (1) having a sliding layer (1 indicates a sliding layer) on the side facing the shaft (4) which forms a sliding surface (at 76) which is connected to the sliding surface of the shaft interacts (contacts the sliding surface of the shaft 4), the sliding layer (1) also having a crowning in the direction of the axis (the curved surface of 1 at 76 forms a crowning, see attached translation, page 6).
Regarding claim 2, Schuelke discloses that the sliding surface (76) of the sliding segment in the direction of rotation of the shaft has a segment diameter predetermined by the shaft diameter (see figures 1-4, 7 and 10-12 which all show that the segment further curves around the shaft).
Regarding claim 3, Schuelke discloses that the crowning is a uniaxially convex curved surface in the direction of the shaft (the crowning aspect of the segment as shown in figure 13 is only in one direction of the pad, that being the axial direction of the shaft just like figure 5 of the instant application).
Regarding claim 7, Schuelke discloses a spring element (6, made of three springs 11/12/13) is attached between the sliding segment (1) and a support structure (the springs run between attachment points on the segments 1 to the support structure web at 26/27/28), which is held by a guide element which encloses the spring element (5, the cage element as disclosed forms a larger overall guide element which encloses the spring element(s) in the axial direction as shown in figure 13), wherein the guide element is attached to the sliding segment and the support structure (5 as a whole contacts 1 in figure 13 and also is attached to the web elements 26-28) and a gap is preferably arranged between the spring element and the guide element (there is a gap between the axial end of 6 and 5 in figure 13).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Schuelke discloses a radial plain bearing (the arrangement illustrated is a radial tilt pad plain bearing), which has a plurality of sliding segments according to claim 1 (see figure 1 showing 3 segments/pads) within a bearing housing (59), each sliding segment (1) being connected to the bearing housing on one side via a support structure (5) and on the opposite side is in contact with the shaft (4) through its crowned sliding surface (see figure 13), preferably with several sliding bearing segments being arranged in a circle around the shaft and the number of sliding segments around the shaft, depending on its own size, its diameter and the size of the shaft and/or its diameter, preferably wherein the sliding segments are arranged symmetrically around the shaft (the segments are sized so multiple segments can fit within the assembly, the three pads are identical creating a symmetrical arrangement of the pads around the assembly).
Regarding claim 9, Schuelke discloses that the sliding surface (at 76) of at least one sliding segment (1) and the sliding surface of the shaft (4) are spaced apart from one another by a gap (best shown by 68, the disclosed bearing is a gas lubricated tilt pad bearing which operates on thin film of gas between the pad and the shaft, the thin film creates a gap between the elements) and preferably the gap filled with a lubricating liquid, preferably oil, grease and/or a fluid, is filled (these requirements don’t appear to be positively recited based on the use of “preferably”, see rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, however see the “state of the art” portion of the attached translation that discloses oil and grease are known mediums).
Regarding claim 10, Schuelke discloses a main rotor bearing comprising at least one sliding segment according to claim 1 (“main rotor bearing” is not structurally limiting, any shaft can be considered a main rotor of a device, if this is an attempt to limit the claim to a wind turbine this is covered in claim 11).
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuelke, DE102020208821.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Schuelke, while disclosing a similar bearing element, does not disclose that the crowning is only a few micrometres (µm) up to a few 1/100 mm high (clm 4) or that the crowning of the sliding layer of the sliding segment to form the sliding layer has a height in the range of 5 µm to 200 µm (clm 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Schuelke and set the degree of crowning to any desired rate or height, including a few micrometres to a few 1/100 mm or a height range of 5 to 200 micrometres, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (a crowned tilt pad type bearing), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USP 233. Furthermore, adjusting the degree of crowning provides the predictable result of adjusting a total tilt range of the pad (the pad can only tilt by an amount defined by the gap between the pad and the shaft, this is limited at the ends of the pad by the degree of crowning) and the height of the crowning also acts to control this spacing and overall tilt, the higher the crowning the less gap is present between the parts.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuelke, DE102020208821, in view of Matsuhisa, USP 9,506,004.
Regarding claim 6, Schuelke discloses the use of plastic (see page 4 of the translation), however Schuelke does not disclose that the sliding layer is a fibre-reinforced plastic as the sliding material, preferably wherein the sliding layer comprises a fibre-reinforced poly- ether-ether-ketone as the sliding material.
Matsuhisa discloses that in a sliding bearing the sliding layer can be made from polyetheretherketone with a reinforcement fiber (see column 2, line 66-column 3, line 6) for the purpose of providing a sliding layer with seizure resistance, wear resistance and mechanical strength properties (see column 2, line 66-column 3, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Schuelke and make the sliding layer out of any previously known material, including a fibre reinforced poly-ether-ether-ketone, as taught by Matsuhisa, for the purpose of providing a sliding layer with seizure resistance, wear resistance and mechanical strength properties and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuelke, DE102020208821, in view of Eriksen, USP 10,260,484.
Regarding claim 11, Schuelke, while disclosing the sliding segment according to claim 1, does not disclose a wind turbine comprising the sliding segment and including at least one radial plain bearing and a main rotor bearing.
Eriksen discloses that sliding segments can be part of a wind turbine assembly (see figure 2) with at least one radial plain bearing and a main rotor bearing (both sets of pads in figure 4, at 231 and 232, are radial bearings and support the main rotor 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Schuelke and use the bearing segment disclosed therein in any device known to use a similar style of bearing, including a wind turbine assembly with a radial plain bearing and a main rotor bearing, as taught by Eriksen, since placing known tilt or pivot pads in a device that already uses tilt/pivot pads provides the same predictable result of rotatably supporting the rotor element of the assembly relative to the stator element.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES PILKINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-5052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7-3.
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, John Olszewski can be reached at 571-272-2706. 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.
/JAMES PILKINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617