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
Applicant’s election without traverse of A-I, B-II, C-II, and D-II in the reply filed on January 29, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 12-13, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 29, 2026.
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 20 and 23 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 20 recites, “wherein the controller is configured to control the magnet arrangement in accordance with a signal indicative of any one or more of: a generator speed; a rotor speed; a blade pitch; or a power output.” The claim is directed to a damping arrangement. The damping arrangement does not include the wind turbine itself, as the wind turbine is not positively recited. Without the wind turbine as part of the claimed system, there are no properties of generator speed, rotor speed, blade pitch, or power output. It is therefore unclear how the limitation of claim 20 limits the damping arrangement. For purposes of examination, the limitation is treated as if the wind turbine itself is required and therefore the control aspects related to properties of the wind turbine are also required.
Claim 23 recites, “a surface”, “a damping arrangement”, and “a magnet arrangement”. Each of these are recited in claim 21 upon which claim 23 depends. It is unclear if these are additional elements or the same elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 5-11, 14-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geohegan et al. (U.S Patent 4,083,433) hereinafter Geohegan.
Regarding claim 1, Geohegan discloses:
A damping arrangement for a wind turbine {The examiner finds that the damping arrangement of Geohegan may be used for a wind turbine, and the intended application of using the damping arrangement for a wind turbine is therefore met by the disclosure of Geoghegan, see MPEP 2111.02 II}, the arrangement comprising:
a base affixable to a surface of the wind turbine {Figure 2 (20) is a base that may be affixed to a wind turbine; the wind turbine itself is not positively recited and is not required}; and
a magnet arrangement, comprising:
a first magnet that is fixed relative to the base {Figure 2 (22) is fixed to (20)},
the first magnet being arranged to generate a first magnetic field {Figure 2 (22), a magnet implicitly generates a magnetic field, see MPEP 2112}; and
a second magnet that is supported by the base to be spaced from the first magnet when the base is fixed to the surface {Figure 2 (24) is an electromagnet that is spaced from the first magnet (22); Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14},
the second magnet being arranged to generate a second magnetic field that interacts with the first magnetic field to generate a magnetic force that acts between the first and second magnets {Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14 describes the force produced due to the magnetic fields};
wherein at least one of the first and second magnetic fields is variable {The second magnetic field is variable based on the driver unit; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}.
Regarding claim 2, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the base comprises the first magnet {Figure 2 (20) comprises the first magnet (22)}.
Regarding claim 3, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the first magnet comprises a permanent magnet {Figure 2 (22) is a permanent magnet; Column 2 lines 61-64}.
Regarding claim 5, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the second magnet comprises a solenoid and/or an electromagnet {Figure 2 (24) is an electromagnet / solenoid that is spaced from the first magnet (22); Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}.
Regarding claim 6, Geohegan further discloses:
a damping mass that is supported by the base for movement relative to the base {Figure 2 (26) is a damping mass supported by base (20) via spring (28) for movement relative to the base; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14},
the damping mass being fixed relative to the second magnet {Figure 2 (26) moves with and is fixed to (24); Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}; and
a spring arrangement acting between the base and the damping mass to bias the damping mass relative to the base {Figure 2, (28) is a spring acting between the base (20) and the damping mass (26) to bias the damping mass relative to the base}.
Regarding claim 7, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the damping mass and the spring arrangement together form a tuned mass damper {Figure 2, (26) and (28) form a tuned mass damper; Column 2 line 41- Column 3 line 14}.
Regarding claim 8, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the spring arrangement comprises at least one resilient member {Figure 2 (28) is a resilient member; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}.
Regarding claim 9, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the second magnet comprises the damping mass {Figure 2 second magnet (24) and damping mass (26) are connected and move together and it may be considered part of the second magnet}.
Regarding claim 10, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the second magnet comprises a solenoid arranged around the damping mass {Figure 2 the second magnet is a solenoid (24) arranged around damping mass (26); Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}.
Regarding claim 11, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the solenoid is fixed relative to the damping mass {Figure 2 (24) and (26) move together and are fixed relative to each other; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}.
Regarding claim 14, Geohegan further discloses:
comprising a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of vibration of the surface {Figure 2 sensor (S) is configured to generate a signal indicative of vibration of the surface; Column 2 lines 19-26}.
Regarding claim 15, Geohegan further discloses:
comprising a controller configured to control the magnet arrangement to vary the magnetic force {Column 1 lines 57-64; Column 2 lines 19-26; Column 3 lines 8-14}.
Regarding claim 16, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the damping arrangement further comprises a sensor configured to generate a signal indicative of vibration of the surface {Figure 2 sensor (S) is configured to generate a signal indicative of vibration of the surface; Column 2 lines 19-26}, and
wherein the controller is configured to control the magnet arrangement in accordance with the signal indicative of vibration of the surface {Column 1 lines 57-64; Column 2 lines 19-26; Column 3 lines 8-14}.
Regarding claim 17, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured to control the magnet arrangement to vary the magnetic force in anti-phase to the indicated vibration {Column 2 lines 41- Column 3 line 14, driving the vibrating body to counter the vibration in phase with the velocity measured is anti-phase because the magnitude sign (+/-) is flipped compared to the vibration}.
Regarding claim 21, Geohegan further discloses:
A damping system for a wind turbine {The examiner finds that the damping arrangement of Geohegan may be used for a wind turbine, and the intended application of using the damping arrangement for a wind turbine is therefore met by the disclosure of Geoghegan, see MPEP 2111.02 II} comprising:
a base affixable to a surface of the wind turbine {Figure 2 (20) is a base that may be affixed to a wind turbine; the wind turbine itself is not positively recited and is not required};
a damping mass supported by the base for movement relative to the base, when the base is fixed to the surface {Figure 2 (26) is a damping mass supported by base (20) via spring (28) for movement relative to the base; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14};
a spring arrangement acting between the base and the damping mass to bias the damping mass relative to the base {Figure 2, (28) is a spring acting between the base (20) and the damping mass (26) to bias the damping mass relative to the base};
a magnet arrangement that is configured to generate a variable magnetic force that acts on the damping mass {Figure 2 (22) is a first magnet and (24)/(26) is a second magnet. The second magnetic field is variable based on the driver unit and therefore causes a variable magnetic force between the second magnet and the first magnet; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}; and
a controller configured to control the magnet arrangement to generate the variable magnetic force {Column 1 lines 57-64; Column 2 lines 19-26; Column 3 lines 8-14}.
Regarding claim 22, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the magnet arrangement comprises a magnet that is fixed relative to the damping mass {Figure 2 electromagnet (24) and damping mass (26) move together and are fixed relative to each other; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}.
Regarding claim 23, Geohegan further discloses:
comprising a damping arrangement ,
the damping arrangement comprising:
a base affixable to a surface of the wind turbine {Figure 2 (20) is a base that may be affixed to a wind turbine; the wind turbine itself is not positively recited and is not required}; and
a magnet arrangement {Figure 2 (22) is a first magnet and (24)/(26) is a second magnet. The second magnetic field is variable based on the driver unit and therefore causes a variable magnetic force between the second magnet and the first magnet; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}, comprising:
a first magnet that is fixed relative to the base {Figure 2 (22) is a first magnet and that is fixed to base (20)},
the first magnet being arranged to generate a first magnetic field {Figure 2 (22), a magnet implicitly generates a magnetic field, see MPEP 2112}; and
a second magnet that is supported by the base to be spaced from the first magnet when the base is fixed to the surface {Figure 2 (24) is an electromagnet that is spaced from the first magnet (22); Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14},
the second magnet being arranged to generate a second magnetic field that interacts with the first magnetic field to generate a magnetic force that acts between the first and second magnets {Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14 describes the force produced due to the magnetic fields};
wherein at least one of the first and second magnetic fields is variable {The second magnetic field is variable based on the driver unit; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geohegan (U.S Patent 4,083,433) hereinafter Geohegan.
Regarding claim 18, Geohegan further discloses:
wherein the damping arrangement further comprises a controller configured to control the magnet arrangement to vary the magnetic force {Column 1 lines 57-64; Column 2 lines 19-26; Column 3 lines 8-14}.
Geohegan does not explicitly disclose using the inventive embodiment of the damping arrangement where the magnet is controlled to vary the magnetic force to emulate an altered spring stiffness for the spring arrangement. The inventive embodiment of Geohegan therefore does not disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to control the magnet arrangement to vary the magnetic force to emulate an altered spring stiffness for the spring arrangement
Geohegan discloses prior art systems use a displacement sensor to vary the magnetic force which emulates an altered spring stiffness for the spring arrangement {Column 1 lines 29-42, Column 2 lines 41-56}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the displacement signal to vary the magnetic force which emulates an altered spring stiffness for the spring arrangement for the system of the inventive embodiment of Geohegan based on the prior art embodiments as discussed by Geohegan. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the prior art embodiment is a substitute configuration of the controller compared to the inventive embodiment and both damp the system in known and predictable manners {Column 1 lines 29-42, Column 2 lines 41- Column 3 line 14}.
Claims 20 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geohegan (U.S Patent 4,083,433) hereinafter Geohegan in view of Gupta et al. (WO2020125893) hereinafter Gupta.
Note that citations of Gupta use Gupta et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20220065223) for convenience.
Regarding claim 20, Geohegan discloses the damping arrangement of claim 15, but does not disclose:
wherein the controller is configured to control the magnet arrangement in accordance with a signal indicative of any one or more of: a generator speed; a rotor speed; a blade pitch; or a power output.
Geohegan discloses the damping arrangement of claim 15, but is silent regarding the details of the structure that is vibrating.
Gupta pertains to wind turbine damping. Gupta teaches:
a wind turbine comprising a damping arrangement {Figure 1 wind turbine (1) comprises (20) in Figure 12; [0076]}.
Since Geohegan is silent regarding the details of the vibrating body, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose what type of device to apply the damping arrangement to. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the damping arrangement of Geohegan to a wind turbine as taught by Gupta. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as wind turbines experience vibrations and contain damping arrangements to mitigate these vibrations {Gupta [0003], [0009], [0076]}.
Gupta additionally teaches:
wherein the controller is configured to control the magnet arrangement in accordance with a signal indicative of any one or more of: a generator speed; a rotor speed; a blade pitch; or a power output {[0076], the controller controls the magnet based on rotor speed}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller of Geohegan control the magnet in accordance with a signal indicative of rotor speed as taught by Gupta. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to adjust the system away from the problematic driving frequencies {Gupta [0076]; Geohegan Column 2 lines 41-56}.
Regarding claim 24, Geohegan discloses the damping arrangement of claim 1, but is silent regarding the details of the structure that is vibrating. Geohegan is therefore silent regarding:
A wind turbine comprising the damping arrangement of claim 1.
Gupta pertains to wind turbine damping. Gupta teaches a wind turbine comprising a damping arrangement {Figure 1 wind turbine (1) comprises (20) in Figure 12; [0076]}.
Since Geohegan is silent regarding the details of the vibrating body, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose what type of device to apply the damping arrangement to. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the damping arrangement of Geohegan to a wind turbine as taught by Gupta. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as wind turbines experience vibrations and contain damping arrangements to mitigate these vibrations {Gupta [0003], [0009], [0076]}.
Regarding claim 25, Geohegan discloses:
A method of damping vibration,
the method comprising:
fixing a first magnet to a surface {Figure 2 (20) is a base that is fixed to a surface (10)},
the first magnet being arranged to generate a first magnetic field {Figure 2 (22), a magnet implicitly generates a magnetic field, see MPEP 2112};
supporting a second magnet in a position spaced from the first magnet {Figure 2 (24) is an electromagnet that is spaced from the first magnet (22) and is supported by spring (28); Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14},
the second magnet being arranged to generate a second magnetic field that interacts with the first magnetic field to generate a magnetic force that acts between the first and second magnets to damp vibration in the surface {Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14 describes the force produced due to the magnetic fields that dampens vibration of the surface}; and
varying at least one of the first and second magnetic fields to vary the magnetic force {The second magnetic field is variable based on the driver unit; Column 2 line 61- Column 3 line 14}.
Geohegan discloses the damping arrangement, but is silent regarding the details of the structure that is vibrating. Geohegan is therefore silent regarding:
The method of damping vibration is applied to a wind turbine and the first magnet is fixed to a surface of the wind turbine
Gupta pertains to wind turbine damping. Gupta teaches a wind turbine comprising a damping arrangement {Figure 1 wind turbine (1) comprises (20) in Figure 12; [0076]}.
Since Geohegan is silent regarding the details of the vibrating body, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose what type of device to apply the damping arrangement to. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the damping arrangement of Geohegan to a surface of a wind turbine as taught by Gupta. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as wind turbines experience vibrations and contain damping arrangements to mitigate these vibrations {Gupta [0003], [0009], [0076]}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rodriguez Tsouroukdissian (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20190048855) discloses a damping arrangement for a wind turbine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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 K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights