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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4, change: “between [[these]] the respective raceways;”
Claim 1, line 11, change: “in [[the]] an axial direction…”
Claim 1, line 15, change: “along [[the]] a circumference…”
Claim 1, line 21, change: “fastening [[means]] element of the outer ring…”
Claim 2, line 2, change: “in [[the]] a circumferential direction;”
Claim 2, line 4, change: “adapter ring is connected to [[a]] the second connecting…”
Claim 2, line 6, change: “[[the]] a running circle diameter…”
Claim 2, line 8, change: “of the first fastening means of the inner or outer ring…”
Claim 2, line 9, change: “exceeds [[the]] a diameter of…”
Claim 4, line 1, change: “[[the]] a rotor blade…”
Claim 4, line 3, change: “on [[its]] a motor shaft of the electric motor,…”
Claim 6, line 3, change: “[[the]] an inner side…”
Claim 6, line 3, change: “[[the]] an outer side…”
Claim 7, line 3, change: “such that [[their]] longitudinal axes of the rolling elements extend radially to [[the]] a longitudinal axis…”
Claim 7, line 4, change: “axis of [[the]] a rotor blade,”
Claim 7, line 4, change: “[[the]] a radial extension…”
Claim 7, line 5, change: “[[the]] a diameter/length of a rolling element…”
Claim 8, line 3, change: “on [[the]] an outside of the inner ring or on [[the]] an inside of the outer ring, [[which]] the recess…”
Claim 8, line 4, change: “corresponding approximately to [[the]] a diameter/length…”
Claim 8, line 8, change: “and [[the]] corresponding regions…”
Claim 8, line 9, change: “outer ring, there is arranged
Claim 9, line 3, change: “when the large roller bearing [[arrangement]] is assembled…”
Claim 10, line 1, change: “A wind turbine [[is]] equipped…”
Claim 10, line 3, change: “on which several rotor blades, each blade having a longitudinal axis¸ are arranged so as to be rotatable about their corresponding longitudinal axis…”
Claim 10, lines 6-8, change: “is arranged
Claim 11, line 1, change: “An adapter ring [[is]] designed...”
Claim 11, line 2, change: “in [[the]] an axial direction…”
Claim 11, line 4, change: “a first end face…”
Claim 11, line 5, change: “[[the]] a circumference…”
Claim 11, line 7, change: “second [[fasteners]] fastening means”
Claim 11, line 8, change: “a plurality of third [[fasteners]] fastening means are provided…”
Claim 11, line 12, change: “corresponding fastening element of the outer ring…”
Claim 11, line 12, change: “wherein [[the]] a diameter of the third…”
Claim 11, line 13, change: “greater than [[the]] a diameter…”
Claim 13, line 1, change: “A wind turbine [[is]] equipped…”
Claim 13, line 3, change: “on which several rotor blades, each blade having a longitudinal axis¸ are arranged so as to be rotatable about their corresponding longitudinal axis…”
Claim 13, lines 6-8, change: “is arranged .
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 14’ in line 2 of [0072]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use and do not use the word “means,” and are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 - “first fastening means” read as a means for fastening.
Claims 1, 11- “first” and “second” connecting element read as an element (means) for connecting.
Claims 1, 11 - “second” and “third” fastening means read as a means for fastening.
has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders:
Claim 1 – “means”
Claims 1,11- “element”
Claims 1,11 – “means”
coupled with functional language:
“for fastening”
“for connecting”
“for fastening”
without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Corresponding structure is found in [0073].
Corresponding structure is found in [0024].
Corresponding structure is found in [0062].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2, 4-9, and 11-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the mounting collar" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the e fastening means" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the fastening flange" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the pitch diameter" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a controlled electric motor, optionally with an intermediate gear,” in lines 2-3. The term “optionally” renders the claim indefinite because the limitation is ambiguous and unclear as to whether the intermediate gear is required by the claim or not. Therein, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Further, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language is followed by "such as" and then narrow language. The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949).
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “a controlled electric motor,” in line 2 and the claim also recites “optionally with an intermediate gear,” in lines 2-3 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a raceway for a radial bearing,” in line 6 and the claim also recites “preferably designed as the manner of a rolling bearing” in lines 6-7 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. It is recommended to omit line 7 of the claim.
In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “a first connecting element,” in line 2 and “a second connecting element” in line 3 and the claim also recites “e.g., a rotor blade” in line 3 and “e.g., a rotor hub” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
The term "approximately" in claims 6-9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "approximately" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, nor is it a term of art, and therefore the claim does not apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of its scope. It is unclear of the extent or degree of departure from a rectangular cross-section (claim 6 and 8), from a diameter/length (claim 7 and 8), and from an equal height (claim 9), that can be considered as approximately corresponding since a definition of “approximately” pertaining to a rectangular cross-section or a corresponding diameter/length is not provided by the specification. Therein, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the nose ring" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a radial bearing" in line 6. It is unclear whether the recited radial bearing corresponds to “the rolling elements” or if the radial bearing is an additional bearing with respect to the rolling elements. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarity, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the manner" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a roller bearing" in line 7. It is unclear whether the recited radial bearing corresponds to “the rolling elements” or if the roller bearing is an additional bearing with respect to the rolling elements. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarity, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "these ring bands" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the radial bearing" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear whether the recited radial bearing corresponds to “the rolling elements” or if the radial bearing is an additional bearing with respect to the rolling elements. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarity, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined, which renders the claim indefinite.
Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency of a rejected independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record. The closest prior art of record is: Bescos Grillo et al. (U.S. 11,434,867), Russ et al. (U.S. 8,282,353), and Frank (U.S. 9,739,263).
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record discloses of bearings used for a wind turbine, but each fail to disclose or suggest of an adapter ring that has a plurality of second fastening means which are arranged at intervals along the circumference of the adapter ring and form a second fastening collar, each of the second fastening means being provided and designed to be aligned with a respective fastening element of the second or first connecting element along with a plurality of third fastening means arranged at intervals along the circumference of the adapter ring and forming a third fastening collar, each of the third fastening means being provided on the first end face of the adapter ring with a respective fastening means of the outer ring or the inner ring; and the second fastening collar has a diameter and the third fastening collar has a diameter, wherein the diameter of the third fastening collar is greater than the diameter of the second fastening collar.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest a plurality of second fastening means; wherein such second fastening means are arranged along the circumference of the adapter ring at a distance from one another and form a second fastening collar; wherein each of the second fasteners is provided and designed to align with a corresponding fastening element of the first or second connecting element; along with a plurality of third fasteners provided on the first end face of the adapter ring that are arranged at intervals along the circumference of the adapter ring and form a third fastening collar; wherein each of the third fastening means on the first end face of the adapter ring is aligned with a corresponding fastening of the outer ring or the inner ring; wherein the diameter of the third fastening collar is greater than the diameter of the second fastening collar.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7928. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 5:00 pm EST alternating Fridays off.
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 (571)270-3508. 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.
/ERIC J ZAMORA ALVAREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745 08/31/2026
