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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-15 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 1 recites that the rail arrangement is “concavely cured.” It is unclear as to what characteristics would qualify a rail as “cured.” For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to recite “concavely curved” as consistent with previously presented claim language.
Claim 11 recites “force transmission device” in lines 6-7 of the claim. It is unclear whether the “force transmission device” in lines 6-7 of the claim is the same as or different from “a force transmission device” first defined in line 3 of the claim.
The remainder of the claims is rejected as a result of their dependency from claim 1.
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN109707777 to Li et al. (“Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a vibration absorber arrangement 100, in particular for tall slender structures, having a supporting structure 10, an absorber mass 30, which inherently comprises a center of mass, and at least one wheel 35, by means of which the absorber mass 30 is movable on a rail arrangement 20, which is concavely curved and connected to the supporting structure, from a stable central position in two opposite directions, wherein a friction damper device 40 is provided, characterized in that the friction damper device is adjustable between a first state, in which it does not interact with the absorber mass or only dampeningly (par 0063-64), and a second state, in which it controlledly brings a movement of the absorber mass to a standstill (par 0065-66).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses that between the absorber mass 30 and an end stop 13 an impact buffer 14 arrangement is provided, which comprises a force transmission device 14 connected to the supporting structure 10, wherein the impact buffer arrangement comprises in particular an impact damper 14 and the center of mass, the impact damper and the force transmission device lie in line, when the absorber mass reaches force transmission device, whereby the impact buffer arrangement preferably defines a braking distance corresponding to at least 10% of maximum deflection of the absorber mass.
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) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,019,056 to Maeda et al. (“Maeda”).
Regarding claim 9, Li does not disclose a locking device is provided, by means of which the absorber mass is securable relative to the supporting structure, in particular in several different positions.
Maeda discloses a vibration absorber comprising a locking device (Maeda 227 and 221A) by means of which an absorber mass (Maeda 221) is securable relative to the supporting structure, in particular in several different positions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration absorber of Li to have a locking device by means of which the absorber mass is securable relative to the supporting structure, in particular in several different positions as taught in Maeda with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably prevent the mass from rolling along the track for repairs.
Regarding claim 13, Li does not disclose an eddy current damper having a magnet arrangement and an electrical conductor arrangement, whereby the magnet arrangement and the conductor arrangement upon movement of the absorber mass relative to the supporting structure move relative to each other.
Maeda discloses a vibration damper comprising an eddy current damper having a magnet arrangement (Maeda 532) and an electrical conductor arrangement (Maeda 530), whereby the magnet arrangement and the conductor arrangement upon movement of the absorber mass relative to the supporting structure move relative to each other (because the magnets are attached to the absorber mass 522 which can move independently from 530).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration absorber of Li to have an eddy current damper having a magnet arrangement and an electrical conductor arrangement, whereby the magnet arrangement and the conductor arrangement upon movement of the absorber mass relative to the supporting structure move relative to each other as taught in Maeda with a reasonable expectation of success because it would predictably provide further dampening of the absorber mass in an event of a vibration.
Claim(s) 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0252287 to Mitsch et al. (“Mitsch”).
Regarding claim 12, Li does not disclose that the absorber mass is connected to the supporting structure via an auxiliary spring device.
Mitsch discloses vibration absorber in Fig. 12 wherein an absorber mass (Mitsch 60.1) is connected to a supporting structure via an auxiliary spring device (Mitsch 60.4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration absorber of Li to have the absorber mass connected to the supporting structure via an auxiliary spring device as taught in Mitsch with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allove further control of the mass’ frequency of vibration.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Li discloses that the rail arrangement is a first rail arrangement, the absorber mass is a first absorber mass wherein the first absorber mass 60.1 and the first rail arrangement are arranged in a first enclosure (formed by walls 10 and 13), but does not disclose a second absorber mass is movable on a second rail arrangement, which is concavely curved and connected to the supporting structure and aligned transversely to the first rail arrangement, from a stable central position in two opposite second directions, wherein the second absorber mass and the second rail arrangement are arranged in a second enclosure, and the first enclosure and the second enclosure are arranged one above the other in the direction of gravity and wherein the second enclosure is arranged off-center with respect to the first enclosure in the direction of the first rail arrangement and/or the first enclosure is arranged off-center with respect to the second enclosure in the direction of the second rail arrangement.
Mitsch in Figs. 11A-11B discloses a vibration absorber comprising a first (Mitsch 60.1) and a second absorber mass (Mitsch 60.2) movable on a first and a second rail arrangement respectively, which is concavely curved and connected to a supporting structure (inner side walls of tower) and wherein the second rail arrangement is aligned transversely to the first rail arrangement, from a stable central position in two opposite second directions, and the first mass absorber and its rail and the second enclosure and its rail are arranged one above the other in the direction of gravity and is arranged off-center with respect to one another in the direction of the first rail arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the vibration absorber of Li to have a vibration absorber comprising a first 60.1 and a second absorber mass 60.2 movable on a first and a second rail arrangement respectively, which is concavely curved and connected to a supporting structure (inner side walls of tower) and wherein the second rail arrangement is aligned transversely to the first rail arrangement, from a stable central position in two opposite second directions, and the first mass absorber and its rail and the second enclosure and its rail are arranged one above the other in the direction of gravity and is arranged off-center with respect to one another in the direction of the first rail arrangement as taught in Mitsch with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for increased vibration absorption for a tower structure.It has been held that a mere duplication of parts, such as the duplication of the enclosure to have a second enclosure, has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. A duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-8 and 10 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: None of the prior art, alone or in obvious combination absent hindsight, discloses applicant’s invention as defined in claims 2 and 10. In the closest prior art to Li (see rejection above), the friction damper 40 is comprised of a friction disc 42 and a magnetic absorbing piece 43 that interact with each other in order for provide added friction to plate 122. Placing a spring between disc 42 and a plate 122 would not have been obvious because doing so would negate the intended function of the disc and magnetic absorbing piece which is to increase the friction between the disc and plate 122. With respect to claim 10, there is no motivation to combine an inclination adjustment device adapted to change an inclination of the vibration absorber wherein the inclination adjustment device acts in particular on the enclosure. An inclination adjustment device 44, 48 taught in the prior art of Baker et al. (US4807840) is used in conjunction with a counter weight 20 that allows movement of the counterweight relative to a mass 40 as the counter weight oscillates. The two prior arts rely on distinct mechanisms to mitigate vibration, thus there is no motivation to modify Li in order to arrive at the structure of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE T CAJILIG whose telephone number is (571)272-8143. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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.
/CHRISTINE T CAJILIG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights