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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see filed 09/09/2026, with respect to the 103 Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 Rejections of Office Action dated 07/01/2026 has been withdrawn. However, the current rejections are now rejected under Vagthholm, arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vagtholm (US 2025/0066163).
Regarding Claim 1, Vagtholm discloses a damping system [12] for damping a movement of a tower [2] of a wind turbine [1], comprising a string [22] for being attached to the tower [2] for applying a pulling force [Each of the straps 22 are provided with attachment means or attachment 23 for attachment to the tower 2] to the tower [2] (FIG. 2-3, ¶ [0203-0205]),
wherein the damping system further comprises a pulling device [21] for providing a defined pulling force onto the string [22] and a controlling device [24] for controlling the pulling device [21] (¶ [0208]; The installation system comprises a control system indicated with a box 24),
wherein the pulling device [21] comprises a hydraulic pulling system for providing the pulling force and a winch [21] (¶ [0112]; The winch motors may be hydraulically or electrically driven).
Regarding Claim 2, Vagtholm discloses the damping system according to claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
wherein the damping system comprises a sensing device for directly 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 (¶ [0101]; the control involves that when the tower moves away from the winch, the winch motor will raise the torque, thereby attenuating the amplitude of current oscillation. ¶ [0125]; The control system comprises tension sensor means for determining the tension in the straps and spool rotation sensor means for determining the position and the operation of the spool).
Regarding Claim 3, Vagtholm discloses the damping system according to claim 2 [see rejected Claim 2],
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 (¶ [0101]; the control involves that when the tower moves away from the winch, the winch motor will raise the torque, thereby attenuating the amplitude of current oscillation. ¶ [0125]; The control system comprises tension sensor means for determining the tension in the straps and spool rotation sensor means for determining the position and the operation of the spool).
Regarding Claim 4, Vagtholm discloses the damping system according to claim 2 [see rejected Claim 2],
wherein the damping system further comprises a relay [VFDs], wherein the controlling device is configured for operating the relay with respect to the sensed movement of the tower (¶ [0113-0115]).
Regarding Claim 5, Vagtholm discloses the damping system according to claim 4 [see rejected Claim 4],
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 (¶ [0114-0115]; The encoder provides the VFD with information about the position and speed of the winch motor, allowing the winch motor torque to be precisely controlled, even at low speeds).
Regarding Claim 7, Vagtholm discloses a method for damping a movement of a tower [2] of a wind turbine [1] (FIG. 2-3), comprising:
providing the damping system according to claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
wherein the damping system comprises a sensing device for sensing a movement of the tower (¶ [0101]; the control involves that when the tower moves away from the winch, the winch motor will raise the torque, thereby attenuating the amplitude of current oscillation. ¶ [0125]; The control system comprises tension sensor means for determining the tension in the straps and spool rotation sensor means for determining the position and the operation of the spool)),
wherein the controlling device is configured for controlling the pulling device with respect to the sensed movement of the tower (¶ [0114-0115]; The encoder provides the VFD with information about the position and speed of the winch motor, allowing the winch motor torque to be precisely controlled, even at low speeds),
attaching the string [22] to the tower [2], sensing a movement of the tower by the sensing device (FIG 2-3, ¶ [0101]; the control involves that when the tower moves away from the winch, the winch motor will raise the torque, thereby attenuating the amplitude of current oscillation. ¶ [0125]; The control system comprises tension sensor means for determining the tension in the straps and spool rotation sensor means for determining the position and the operation of the spool)), and
operating the pulling device by the controlling device for providing a defined pulling force onto the string with respect to the sensed movement (FIG 2-3, ¶ [0101]; the control involves that when the tower moves away from the winch, the winch motor will raise the torque, thereby attenuating the amplitude of current oscillation. ¶ [0125]; The control system comprises tension sensor means for determining the tension in the straps and spool rotation sensor means for determining the position and the operation of the spool)).
Regarding Claim 8, Vagtholm discloses the method according to claim 7 [see rejected Claim 7],
wherein the string [22] is attached to a mid-section of the tower [2] in a way that the string is located outside the limits of a rotor blade mounted to the wind turbine [1] (FIG. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 9, Vagtholm discloses the method according to claim 7 [see rejected Claim 7],
wherein the sensing device [25] is arranged to sense the movement of a top-section of the tower [2] (FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 17 Vagtholm discloses the damping system according to Claim 1 [see rejected Claim 1],
wherein the damping system is stored inside a container [12 is a “container”] (as shown in FIG. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Vagtholm discloses the damping system according to claim 17 [see rejected Claim 17],
comprising a guiding means [where is 22 attached] arranged in a hole [where 22 is inserted] of the container, wherein the string [21] is introduced into the container through the guiding means [22] (FIG. 3).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vagtholm (US 2025/0066163) according to Claim 4 and in further view of Tanaka (US 5,529,154).
Regarding Claim 6, Vagtholm discloses the damping system according to claim 4 [see rejected Claim 4],
wherein the relay is connected to at least one 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 Vagtholm’s 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
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