Patent Application 18865347 - SPRING-MOUNTED GEARBOX HOUSING - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 18865347 - SPRING-MOUNTED GEARBOX HOUSING
Title: SPRING-MOUNTED GEARBOX HOUSING
Application Information
- Invention Title: SPRING-MOUNTED GEARBOX HOUSING
- Application Number: 18865347
- Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2024-11-13T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2024-11-13T00:00:00.000Z
- Examiner Employee Number: 88108
- Art Unit: 3745
- Tech Center: 3700
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 1
- 103 Rejections: 1
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted January 29, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. â 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 âmeansâ or âstepâ or a term used as a substitute for âmeansâ 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 âmeansâ or âstepâ or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word âforâ (e.g., âmeans forâ) or another linking word or phrase, such as âconfigured toâ or âso thatâ; and (C) the term âmeansâ or âstepâ or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word âmeansâ (or âstepâ) 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 âmeansâ (or âstepâ) 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 âmeansâ (or âstepâ) 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 âmeansâ (or âstepâ) 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. The following limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f): âhousing fixing meansâ in claim 1 and ânacelle fixing meansâ in claim 1. 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. A âmeansâ is defined by the function of fixing the housing and is not defined by the structure which performs the function, and therefore meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the applicantâs specification, paragraph 14 defines a housing-fixing means as a means that is fixedly connected to the housing, i.e. without the possibility of relative movement. Paragraph 43 states a machine carrier 105 has a plate 107, and this plate 107 with housing-fixed support foot 109, counter-holder 110 and three elastomers 111, 113, 115 forms a gearbox mounting 101. Paragraph 45 states the support foot 109 and counter holder 110 fix the housing in the first direction. Figure 1 shows the gearbox mounting 101 connected to the housing-fixed support foot 109 and counter-holder 110. Accordingly, the âhousing fixing meansâ is interpreted as a gearbox mounting, housing-fixed support foot, and counter holder, and equivalents thereof. The examiner notes claim 5 adds structure (a first part and a second part) to the housing fixing means, which obviates the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). For claims 5-11, the housing fixing means is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. A âmeansâ is defined by the function of fixing the nacelle, and is not defined by the structure capable of performing that function, and therefore meets the requirements of 35 USC 112(f). Upon inspection of the applicantâs specification, paragraph 14 defines a nacelle-fixing means as a means that is fixedly connected to the nacelle. Paragraph 42 states âhousing 103â is fixed to a ânacelle-fixed machine carrier 105â. Paragraph 43 states the machine carrier 105 has a plate 107. Accordingly, the ânacelle fixing meansâ is interpreted as a machine carrier and plate, and equivalents thereof. The examiner notes claim 6 adds structure to the nacelle fixing means (a recess), which obviates the interpretation under 35 USC 112(f). For claims 6 and 7, the nacelle fixing means is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. 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.âThe 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. Claim 10 is 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 10, lines 5-6 recite âa second spring deviceâ however, claim 10 depends from claim 5 which previously introduced âa second spring deviceâ and it is unclear whether claim 10 is introducing an additional âsecond spring deviceâ or is referring to the previously introduced feature. For the purpose of examination, claim 10 will be treated as referring to âthe second spring deviceâ. Any and all claims rejected above under 35 USC 112(b), if rejected with art below under sections 35 USC 102 and/or 103, is/are rejected as best understood. 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 â (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. Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 9,523,356 to Michalski. In Reference to Claim 1# Michalski teaches: An arrangement for fixing a housing (âhousing of the gear mechanismâ, see column 5, line 19) of a wind turbine gearbox (gear mechanism 140) in a nacelle (gondola of wind power plant, column 5, lines 28-29), comprising: a housing fixing means (arm 104, shoulder 106, connection piece 112, intermediate piece 120); a nacelle fixing means (profile 126, machine carrier 150); at least two spring devices (both 124, see Figure 3); wherein the spring devices support the housing fixing means against the nacelle fixing means in opposite directions along a support axis (up and down in Figure 3), and wherein the spring devices are arranged on different sides of a plane (plane extending through 126) extending parallel to an axis of rotation (axis of rotation in middle of gearbox) of an input shaft (driveshaft, column 5, line 23) of the wind turbine gearbox (see column 5, line 10 through column 6, line 48 and Figures 2 and 3). In Reference to Claim 2# Michalski teaches: The arrangement of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least two spring devices is rotationally symmetrical with respect to the support axis. The springs are rotationally symmetrical. In Reference to Claim 3# Michalski teaches: The arrangement of claim 1, wherein the spring devise are mirror-symmetrical to one another with respect to the plane. The two springs are symmetrical about the plane extending through the profile 126. In Reference to Claim 4# Michalski teaches: The arrangement of claim 1, wherein the plane intersects the housing fixing means and the nacelle fixing means. The plane extends through both a portion of the housing fixing means (120) and a portion of the nacelle fixing means (126). In Reference to Claim 5# Michalski teaches: The arrangement of claim 1, wherein a portion (126) of the nacelle fixing means is arranged between the spring devices and between a first part (112) and a second part (bottom of 120 beneath lower spring 124) of the housing fixing means, wherein a first spring device (upper spring 124) of the spring devices is arranged between the first part of the housing fixing means and the portion of the nacelle fixing means arranged between the spring devices, and wherein a second spring device (lower spring 124) of the spring devices is arranged between the second part of the housing fixing means and the portion of the nacelle fixing means (see Figure 3). In Reference to Claim 10# Michalski teaches: The arrangement of claim 5, wherein the first part and the second part of the housing fixing means are configured as physically separate pieces joined together, and wherein the first spring device supports the first part and the second spring device supports the second part against the nacelle fixing means (see Figure 3). The first part (112) is physically separate and screwed (via screws 114) to connect to the second part (bottom of 120). 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(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,523,356 to Michalski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 9,366,330 to Trede. In Reference to Claim 12 Michalski teaches: A wind turbine (wind power plant) with a gearbox (gear mechanism) and a nacelle (gondola), comprising two arrangements according to claim 1, wherein a housing (âhousing of the gear mechanismâ, column 5, line 19) of the wind turbine gearbox with the arrangements is fixed in the nacelle. Michalski fails to teach: There are a total of three or four of the arrangements. Trede teaches: A wind turbine (1) comprising a gearbox (15) and a nacelle (3), comprising a total of four arrangements (frames 50 having elastomer bodies 41) for fixing the gearbox to the nacelle, wherein a housing (not numbered, the casing of 15 which protects the gears) of the wind turbine gearbox with the arrangements is fixed in the nacelle (see and Figure 12). Figure 12 shows a support (90) having two arrangements having spring devices. Since the gearbox has two supports (a second support on the opposite side of the gearbox), the wind turbine has a total of four arrangements. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had the technological capability to modify the wind turbine of Michalski by adding and organizing the arrangements to have a total of four arrangements as taught by Trede as both references are directed to supports for wind turbine gearboxes, and for the purpose of providing additional support for the gearbox. In Reference to Claim 13# Michalski as modified by Trede teaches: The wind turbine of claim 12, wherein a first spring device (upper spring 124 of Michalski) of the spring devices and a second spring device (lower spring 124 of Michalski) of the spring devices of the four arrangements are each arranged on different sides of the same plane (plane extending through 126 of Michalski) extending parallel to the axis of rotation of the input shaft of the wind turbine gearbox. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-9 and 11 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to teach the housing fixing means has a connector which extends through a recess of the nacelle fixing means as recited in claim 6. Michalski teaches a connector (side walls of 120) which connects the first and second parts of the housing fixing means, however Michalski does not teach a recess for the nacelle fixing means or the connector extending through the recess. Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and contains its limitations and therefore would be allowable for the same reason. The prior art of record fails to teach the first spring device and/or the second spring device have the shape of a hollow truncated cone as recited in claim 8. Michalski shows the spring devices are cylindrical. Trede shows spring devices which are rectangular. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and contains its limitations, and therefore would be allowable for the same reason. The prior art of record fails to teach the second spring device supports the housing fixing means against a second nacelle-fixing part as recited in claim 11. Michalski teaches the nacelle fixing means comprises first and second nacelle fixing parts (126 and 150), however if the first spring device supports the first nacelle fixing part (126), then the second spring device would not support the second nacelle fixing part. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 9,347,543 to Trede teaches a wind turbine comprising an arrangement having spring devices. US 11,255,313 to Wertz teaches a wind turbine comprising a gearbox and spring devices which support the gearbox. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00. 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 examinerâs supervisor, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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. /JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745 /NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715