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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/28/26, with respect to the Drawing Objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Drawing Objection has been withdrawn.
The applicant states, “Changing from the magnetorheological damper to a system using a hydraulic pulling system would change the entire principle of operation of Gou. There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so, except for the purpose of recreating Applicant's claimed embodiments.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The motivation was to combine both systems and not change one with the other as stated by the applicant.
The applicant states, “Further, instead of providing any such teaching, suggestion, or motivation, the additional reference to Tabatabai actually disparages hydraulic systems.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Perhaps Tabatabai disparages hydraulic systems, However, Tabatabai is silent to incorporate both systems into one. Therefore, the rejection is sustained.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gou (CN 111,827,508) in view of Tabatabai (US 6,292,967).
Regarding Claim 1, Guo discloses a damping system [damping adjustment system] for damping a movement of a tower [3] of a wind turbine [1], comprising a string [2] for being attached to the tower [3] for applying a pulling force to the tower [3], wherein the damping system further comprises a pulling device [5] for providing a defined pulling force onto the string [2] and a controlling device [7] for controlling the pulling device [5] (FIG. 1, Abstract; is invention discloses a damping adjustment system for flexible wind turbine towers and a wind turbine, belonging to the field of wind turbines. It includes a tower-mounted cable fixing device, several damping adjustment units, and a control module),
Guo does not disclose wherein the pulling device comprises a hydraulic pulling system for providing the pulling force.
Tabatabai teaches “wherein the pulling device comprises a hydraulic pulling system for providing the pulling force (Column, 1, Lines 50-60; In general, a number of different types of cable vibration control measures have been utilized in cable-stayed bridges. These vibration-control measures include neoprene washers (also known as neoprene rings), cross cables (also known as cross ties or cable ties), hydraulic dampers (also known as external mechanical viscous dampers), and modified polyethylene sheathing)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tabatabai’s teachings into Guo’s damping system. One would be motivated to control stay-cable vibration by reducing induced oscillation from the hybrid configuration.
Regarding Claim 2, Guo in view of Tabatabai discloses the damping system according to Claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
Guo discloses wherein the damping system comprises a sensing device for sensing a movement of the tower, wherein the controlling device is configured for controlling the pulling device with respect to the sensed movement of the tower (Claim 2-3; wherein the damping adjustment unit further comprises a sensor connected to the damping adjustment device, and the sensor is a tension pressure sensor or a displacement sensor. The sensor is also connected to the control module, and the control module controls the damping adjustment device according to the data collected by the sensor).
Regarding Claim 3, Guo in view of Tabatabai discloses the damping system according to Claim 2 [see rejected Claim 2],
Tabatabai discloses wherein the sensing device is configured for sensing an acceleration of the tower, wherein the controlling device is configured for controlling the pulling device with respect to the sensed acceleration of the tower (Column 5, Lines 25-47; An accelerometer was attached to the cable at about mid-length. The cable was deflected at mid-span using a weight hung from the cable by a string, and then suddenly cutting the string to excite the first mode vibration of the cable. The initial and subsequent cable vibrations, in terms of accelerometer output (volts) versus time, were recorded using a high-speed data acquisition system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tabatabai’s teachings into Guo’s damping system. One would be motivated to provide the cables controllable damping and by implementing data from an accelerometer.
Regarding Claim 4, Guo in view of Tabatabai disclose the damping system according to Claim 2 [see rejected Claim 2];
Guo discloses wherein the damping system further comprises a relay [72], wherein the controlling device [7] is configured for operating the relay with respect to the sensed movement of the tower (FIG. 8, Claim 9; wherein the control module comprises a control box, a microcontroller and a signal conditioner arranged in the control box, a power supply, switching elements and control and power cables, the microcontroller is used for receiving signals and sending control instructions).
Regarding Claim 5, Guo in view of Tabatabai disclose the damping system according to Claim 4 [see rejected Claim 4],
Guo discloses wherein the controlling device is configured for operating the relay with respect to a predicted movement of the tower based on the sensed movement of the tower (FIG. 8, Claim 9; The damping adjustment system for a flexible wind turbine tower according to any one of claims 1 to 8 , wherein the control module comprises a control box, a microcontroller and a signal conditioner arranged in the control box, a power supply , switching elements and control and power cables, the microcontroller is used for receiving signals and sending control instructions).
Regarding Claim 7, Guo discloses a method for damping a movement of a tower [3] of a wind turbine [1] (FIG. 1), comprising:
-providing a damping system claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
wherein the damping system comprises a sensing device for sensing a movement of the tower, wherein the controlling device is configured for controlling the pulling device with respect to the sensed movement of the tower (see rejected Claim 2),
-attaching the string [2] to the tower [3] (FIG. 1),
-sensing a movement of the tower by the sensing device (Claim 2-3; wherein the damping adjustment unit further comprises a sensor connected to the damping adjustment device, and the sensor is a tension pressure sensor or a displacement sensor. The sensor is also connected to the control module, and the control module controls the damping adjustment device according to the data collected by the sensor), and
-operating the pulling device [5] by the controlling device for providing a defined pulling force onto the string [2] with respect to the sensed movement (Claim 1; Several of the damping adjustment devices are connected with a control module, and the control module jointly controls a plurality of stay cables and the damping adjustment device).
Regarding Claim 8, Guo in view of Tabatabai disclose the method according to Claim 7 [see rejected Claim 7],
Guo discloses the string [2] is attached to a mid-section of the tower [3] in a way that the string [3] is located outside the limits of a rotor blade mounted to the wind turbine [1] (as shown in FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Guo in view of Tabatabai disclose the method according to claim 7 [see rejected Claim 7],
Guo discloses wherein the sensing device is arranged to sense the movement of a top-section of the tower (Claim 2-3; The damping adjustment system of the flexible wind turbine tower according to claim 1, wherein the damping adjustment unit further comprises a sensor connected to the damping adjustment device, and the sensor is a tension pressure sensor or a displacement sensor. The sensor is also connected to the control module, and the control module controls the damping adjustment device according to the data collected by the sensor).
Regarding Claim 17, Guo in view of Tabatabai discloses the damping system according to Claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
Guo discloses wherein the damping system is stored inside a container (as shown in FIG. 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Guo in view of Tabatabai discloses the damping system according to claim 17 [see rejected Claim 17],
Guo discloses further comprising a guiding means [22] arranged in a hole [where 21 is inserted] of the container, wherein the string [21] is introduced into the container through the guiding means [22] (FIG. 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 111,827,508) in view of Tabatabai (US 6,292,967) according to Claim 1 and in further view of Tanaka (US 5,529,154).
Regarding Claim 6, Guo in view of Tabatabai disclose the damping system (1) according to Claim 1,
Guo discloses the relay [72] (see rejected Claim 4).
Tabatabai discloses the hydraulic pulling system (see rejected Claim 1).
Guo in view of Tabatabai disclose a relay for operating the hydraulic pulling system (see rejected Claim 4).
Guo in view of Tabatabai does not disclose wherein the relay is connected to a valve for operating the hydraulic pulling system.
Tanaka teaches a valve [valve assembly] for operating a hydraulic pulling system [hydraulic damper] (Claim 17; valve assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tanaka’s teachings into Guo in view of Tabatabai damping system. One would be motivated to provide additional control damping force in the hydraulic system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 & 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH ORTEGA whose telephone number is (469)295-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, TULSIDAS C. PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/JOSEPH ORTEGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights