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 .
Status
The amendments filed 3 June 2026 have overcome all rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth in the previous action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to independent claim 1, Applicant argues on page 8 of the remarks that the Benito reference does not teach the claimed limitations, in particular that Benito “never derives a directional relationship between two probe locations on the same blade.” It is noted that the claim as written does not require that the relationship between the two probe locations need be derived. Rather, the claim recites that information is derived of the relative direction of the first location and the second location based on the position data, which does not require the directions or locations to be related to or compared to one another in any way. Therefore, Benito is still deemed to read on the claim as each of the sensors derives location and direction information.
Applicant further argues that the line position determination would require sensors which are located on different blades and would not derive the relative direction between two probes mounted on the same blade as required by claim 1. It is again noted that claim does not require the relative direction between two probes as being derived. However, as seen in fig. 3, there is a scenario in Bonito where multiple probes 22 are mounted on the same blade for determining direction data, which does read on the claim language.
Continuing on page 9 of the remarks, the supposed differences between Benito and the claim 1 are detailed, however once again these arguments rely on an interpretation of the language of claim 1 which is not specifically disclosed in the claim as currently presented as it relies on the derivation of direction information between two probes to be determined. Therefore, the arguments are moot as they are not directed towards the claim itself.
Should the claim language be amended to include the argued limitations that the relative direction between the two probe locations on the same blade is determined, then the claim may overcome the Benito reference.
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 navigation system probes are arranged such that the first location and second location are within a first cross-sectional plane since the sensors are located at predetermined locations which can be defined on a single plane.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights