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 .
NOTICE
Claims 10-15 are newly added, however, they are indicated as “Original” in the Claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 3
Page 3, Lines 12-14 recite the language “said protrusion protruding along an axial direction or a radial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis”, while Page 3, Lines 20-21 recite the language “said protrusion protruding along the radial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis”. The claim language should be amended for clarification and simplification. Page 3, Lines 12-14 should be amended such that it reads –said protrusion protruding along
Regarding Claim 11
Line 2 recites the language “said ring segments”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claim, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said plurality of ring segments—
Regarding Claim 12
Lines 1-2 recite the language “said further protrusions”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claim, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said two further protrusions—
Line 3 recites the language “said further protrusions”. To maintain consistency and clarity within the claim, the claim language should be amended such that it reads –said two further protrusions—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 7-12 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.
Regarding Claim 7
Line 3 recites the limitation “said protrusion protrudes along the axial direction” and line 7 recites the limitation “said protrusion protrudes into said opening along the axial direction”. However, claim 1 (from which claim 7 depends) recites that “said protrusion protruding along a radial direction” and that “the protrusion is inserted into said opening along a direction in which the protrusion protrudes”. Therefore, the protrusion cannot protrude along the axial direction and along the radial direction. It is unclear how the limitations of claims 1 and 7 can be true.
Regarding Claims 8-12
Claims 8-12 are rejected insofar as they are dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 2 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 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.
Claims 1-6 and 13-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the gearbox support arrangement of claim 1, the inclusion of:
“said torque support arrangement including a protrusion of one of said rotor bearing support structure and said gearbox housing, said protrusion protruding along a radial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis;
said torque support arrangement defining an opening at the other one of said rotor bearing support structure and said gearbox housing;
said protrusion being at least partially arranged inside said opening; and,
said torque support arrangement being configured such that the protrusion is inserted into said opening along a direction in which the protrusion protrudes” was not found.
The closest prior art to teaching the claimed limitation(s) is Eusterbarkey (US 2019/0186467). Eusterbarkey discloses a gearbox support arrangement for a wind turbine (Eusterbarkey, Figure 1). However, Eusterbarkey does not disclose the protrusion protruding along a radial direction and being at least partially arranged inside the opening, where the protrusion is inserted into said opening along a direction in which the protrusion protrudes.
In the gearbox support arrangement of claim 3, the inclusion of:
“said protrusion protruding along the radial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis;
said torque support arrangement including a flange at the other one of said gearbox housing and said rotor bearing support structure;
said torque support arrangement including a support frame, which is fixed to said flange along the axial direction; and,
said support frame including said opening” was not found.
The closest prior art to teaching the claimed limitation(s) is Eusterbarkey (US 2019/0186467). Eusterbarkey discloses a flange and a support frame (40) (Eusterbarkey, Figure 1). However, Eusterbarkey does not disclose that the support frame includes said opening (the opening defined in the torque support arrangement, wherein the protrusion is arranged inside the opening and inserted into the opening along a direction in which the protrusion protrudes).
In the wind turbine of claim 15, the inclusion of:
“said torque support arrangement including a protrusion of one of said rotor bearing support structure and said gearbox housing, said protrusion protruding along a radial direction with respect to the longitudinal axis;
said torque support arrangement defining an opening at the other one of said rotor bearing support structure and said gearbox housing;
said protrusion being at least partially arranged inside said opening; and,
said torque support arrangement being configured such that the protrusion is inserted into said opening along a direction in which the protrusion protrudes” was not found.
The closest prior art to teaching the claimed limitation(s) is Eusterbarkey (US 2019/0186467). Eusterbarkey discloses a gearbox support arrangement for a wind turbine (Eusterbarkey, Figure 1). However, Eusterbarkey does not disclose the protrusion protruding along a radial direction and being at least partially arranged inside the opening, where the protrusion is inserted into said opening along a direction in which the protrusion protrudes.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights