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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: at the end of line 2, the word “or” should be changed to “of.”
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim appears to recite several alternative operational states which should include “or an” before “emergency stop.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-5 and 7-15 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 2, the claim recites three alternatives for deviations as being less than 1/10 or 1/20 or 1/50 of a longitude extent of the rotor blade, however it is not clear as to which is required to satisfy the claim. For the purposes of examination, the larger of the values (1/10) will be assumed. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the recites the broad recitation of less than 1/10, and the claim also recites less than 1/50 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the limitation that the first location and the second location “substantially are arranged within a first cross sectional plane” however it is not clear as to how the locations themselves are “arranged” rather than the probes which are located at the locations.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation of “the first cross-sectional plane” which lacks antecedent basis. Since a first cross-sectional plane was previously disclosed in claim 3, it is not clear if the claim should depend from claim 1 as written or from claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “in particular” is indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations which follow are required or not for the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites that the third location and fourth location “have a distance smaller than between 10m and 0.5m from a second cross-sectional plane.” It is unclear as to how the distance can be smaller than between two values since it would seemingly be within those values.
The phrase “in particular” is indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations which follow are required or not for the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the claim refers to the “second cross-sectional plane” which lacks antecedent basis. Since a second cross-sectional plane was previously disclosed in claim 7, it is unclear if the claim should depend from claim 1 as written or from claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “in particular” is indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations which follow are required or not for the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the claim refers to the third and fourth probes which lack antecedent basis since the claim depends from claim 1. It is therefore not clear if the claim should depend from claim 1 as written or from claim 7 which previously discloses such probes. Additionally, the phrase “in particular” is indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations which follow are required or not for the claim.
Regarding claim 11, the claim refers to the third and fourth probes which lack antecedent basis since the claim depends from claim 1. It is therefore not clear if the claim should depend from claim 1 as written or from claim 7 or claim 10 which previously disclose such probes.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear as to what is meant by “further position data” in claim and how it would be determined.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase “in particular” is indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations which follow are required or not for the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Benito et al. US 2010/0140936.
Regarding claim 1, Benito teaches a wind turbine with blade monitoring means as seen in fig. 3 and a method of performing deformation and/or orientation analysis thereof comprising:
acquiring first position data of a first navigation system probe (sensor 22) mounted to the blade to provide position data at a first location,
acquiring second position data of a second navigation system probe (another of sensors 22) mounted to the blade to provide position data at a second location, and
deriving first direction information at least regarding a relative direction of the first location and the second location based on the first position data and the second position data (paragraph 0022-0023 teach determining a relative direction such as the yaw bearing of the wind turbine or the line position of the wind turbine using the position data).
Regarding claim 3, the first and second location substantially are arranged within a first cross-sectional plane or substantially at a predefined first radial position since the sensors are located at predetermined locations.
Regarding claim 4, Benito teaches deriving first information regarding a three-dimensional orientation of a first cross sectional plane based on the first position data and second position data or the relative direction of the first location and the second location (paragraph 0016 teaches the sensors as being global positioning sensors for determining the position in three-dimensional space).
Regarding claim 5, the first and second probes are defined as global position sensors (paragraph 0016) which would include and antenna or processing circuitry as claimed. Benito further teaches the sensors 22 as being arranged on the blade (paragraph 0015) and therefore the antennas would protrude from the suction side or pressure side surface of the blade as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, the first and/or second position data of Benito is determined by a GPS and therefore would include an absolute geographical position, a three-dimensional position of a reference frame fixed to the earth, or a geoposition related to a geostationary coordinate frame as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Benito teaches using third and fourth sensors 22 (each blade may have its own sensors, paragraph 0015) for determining a second orientation which would correspond to a second cross-sectional plane based on third and fourth position data and/or the relative direction of the third location and fourth location since the sensors would be at different locations than the first and second.
Regarding claim 11, the sensors of Benito are GPS sensors which would receive radio signals from one or more satellites including a time stamp as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, the sensing system of Benito performs the method while the turbine is in normal operation as claimed (paragraph 0018 teaches sensing during operation).
Regarding claim 13, Benito teaches in paragraph 0018 controlling the operation of the turbine based on the position data and a controller 16.
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) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benito.
Regarding claim 2, Benito teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the first and second location in the claimed arrangement. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the probes at any desired location along the turbine blade for detection of deformation or orientation to ensure the blade is consistently monitored for damage during operation since it would not affect the method of operation claimed and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Benito teaches using third and fourth probes 22 (each blade may have its own sensors, paragraph 0015) for determining a third and fourth position and direction data. Although Benito does not explicitly teach the location of the third and fourth probes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have placed the probes at any desired location along the turbine blade for detection of deformation or orientation to ensure the blade is consistently monitored for damage during operation since it would not affect the method of operation claimed and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cotrell et al. US 2011/0041617.
Regarding claim 9, Benito discloses deriving deformation and/or orientation characteristics of the wind turbine rotor blade. Benito does not explicitly teach the method as being performed on a wind turbine blade not connected to a hub of a wind turbine as claimed. Cotrell teaches a test system for a turbine blade which takes place while the turbine blade is not mounted to a hub of a wind turbine, but rather to a test stand 110. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Cotrell with those of Benito in order to provide the testing during manufacture or prior to installation of the turbine blade to preemptively detect any issues therein.
Claim(s) 10, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Olesen et al. US 2011/0184665.
Regarding claim 10, Benito teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the probes as being reversibly mounted at the blade as claimed. Olesen teaches a system for monitoring a wind turbine blade in which sensors are mounted to the blades by mounting brackets (paragraph 0036) for monitoring the blade during operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Olesen with those of Benito in order to provide mounting means to securely attach the sensors to the turbine blades.
Regarding claim 14, Benito teaches a device for performing deformation and/or orientation analysis of a wind turbine comprising a first navigation system probe (sensor 22) mounted to the blade to provide position data at a first location, a second navigation system probe (another of sensors 22) mounted to the blade to provide position data at a second location, wherein the first navigation system probe provides position a first location and the second navigation system probe provides a position at a second location (paragraph 0022-0023 teach determining a relative direction such as the yaw bearing of the wind turbine or the line position of the wind turbine). Benito does not explicitly teach the mounting frame as claimed. Olesen teaches a system for monitoring a wind turbine blade in which sensors are mounted to the blades by mounting brackets (paragraph 0036) for monitoring the blade during operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have combined the teachings of Olesen with those of Benito in order to provide mounting means to securely attach the sensors to the turbine blades.
Regarding claim 15, in combination, the device of claim 14 is mounted to a rotor blade as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark A. Shabman whose telephone number is (571)272-8589. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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.
/MARK A SHABMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855