NON-FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen et al. (US 8,419,363 B2, “Madsen”) in view of Rohm (US 2018/0171975 Al).
Regarding Claim 1, Madsen teaches a wind turbine blade (fig.1) comprising: a wing (fig.1; element 1); a first pressure sensor and a second pressure sensor (fig.3; elements 10), wherein each pressure sensor is configured to measure pressure of a body of liquid within the wing at a respective measurement point at a known position within the wing (col.6; line 63 – col.7; line 6 discloses that the sensors 10 can be surface pressure devices that measure the shape of the trailing edge sub-sections 3a deflection or variations in the cavity pressures.); and a processing system configured to: receive first pressure data from the first pressure sensor (claim 21 discloses a control system that receives signals from the one or more sensors, and claim 29 discloses that the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices.); receive second pressure data from the second pressure sensor (claim 21 discloses a control system that receives signals from the one or more sensors, and claim 29 discloses that the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices.); and determine a bending state of the wing based on the first pressure data, the second pressure data, and the known positions within the wing (col.6; lines 8-16 discloses “The cavities 5 are connected to a fluid source ….. The shape of the trailing edge section 3 is varied by establishing pressure differences between the fluid in the upper and lower systems 6, 7 respectively. As an example, FIG. 2.a illustrates schematically how a higher pressure in the upper system 6 than in the lower system 7 will result in the trailing edge section 3 bending downwards….” Claim 21: “A wind turbine blade with one or more active trailing edge sections and one or more passive trailing edge sections where one or more sensors is/are placed in appropriate positions on the wind turbine blade to monitor an operational state of the wind turbine blade, and where signals from the one or more sensors are used as input to a control system sending control signals to the one or more active trailing edge sections,” Claim 29: “wherein the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices.”).
Madsen does not teach an aircraft wing, instead, Madsen teaches a wind turbine blade.
However, Rohm teaches devices and methods related to wing or blade that can be used in all aerodynamic and/or hydrodynamic objects, preferably wings or rotors of vehicles, in particular in aircraft and energy generating systems [0037] wherein pressure of the fluid/gas filling region (14) is used to identify dangerous operating states [0093]-[0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Madsen regarding testing a wind turbine blade to test an aircraft wing because both wings are structurally and functionally similar hydrodynamic objects as depicted in Rohm [0037]. Further, the modified system would provide better control of the power and load on the wing or blade and identify the deformation effectively.
Regarding Claim 2, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches wherein the known positions are spaced apart along a span of the wing (shown in fig.1).
Regarding Claim 3, the aircraft of claim is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches wherein the first and second pressure sensors are attached to a bottom skin of the wing (shown in fig.1-3 and discussed in 49-53).
Regarding Claim 4, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to determine a volume or mass of the body of liquid based on the first pressure data and the second pressure data (implicitly taught in col.7; lines 7-15 of Madsen as it teaches regarding small fluid volume variation).
Regarding Claim 8, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches wherein the processing system is configured to determine the bending state of the wing by determining a distance from each measurement point to a reference plane of the aircraft (col.7; lines 29-41).
Regarding Claim 10, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches wherein the first pressure data and the second pressure data each comprise a series of pressure readings over a time period (col.7; lines 18-28).
Regarding Claim 11, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches wherein the body of liquid is contained in a liquid tank (col.6; lines 8-9).
Regarding Claim 12, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches wherein the body of liquid is a body of fuel (col.6; lines 8-9).
Regarding Claim 13, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches further comprising: one or more further pressure sensors, wherein each further pressure sensor is configured to measure pressure of the body of liquid within the wing at a respective measurement point at a further known position within the wing, and wherein optionally the further known positions of the further pressure sensors are outboard of the known positions of the first and second pressure sensors; wherein the processing system is configured to: receive further pressure data from the further pressure sensor(s); and determine the bending state of the wing based on the further pressure data (col.6; line 63 – col.7; line 6 discloses that the sensors 10 can be surface pressure devices that measure the shape of the trailing edge sub-sections 3a deflection or variations in the cavity pressures. One of ordinary skill in the art may consider the second set of sensors in fig.3 as one or more further pressure sensors. And, claim 21 discloses a control system that receives signals from the one or more sensors, and claim 29 discloses that the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Madsen).
Regarding Claim 14, the aircraft of claim 1 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches further comprising a memory storing the known positions of each pressure sensor within the wing, wherein the processing system is configured to read the known positions of each pressure sensor within the wing to determine the bending state of the wing (col.6; lines 12-17 discloses that the dotted lines show the un-deformed shape when the pressures in the two systems 6, 7 are equal. The control system, implicitly comprising a memory, receives these reference positions.).
Regarding Claim 15, Madsen teaches a method of determining a bending state of a wing of a wind turbine, the wing containing a body of liquid (Fig.1-3, col.6; line 8 - col.7; line 6), the method comprising: obtaining first pressure data by measuring pressure of the body of liquid at a first measurement point at a first known position within the wing (col.6; line 63 – col.7; line 6 discloses that the sensors 10 can be surface pressure devices that measure the shape of the trailing edge sub-sections 3a deflection or variations in the cavity pressures. Claim 21 discloses a control system that receives signals from the one or more sensors, and claim 29 discloses that the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices.); obtaining second pressure data by measuring pressure of the body of liquid at a second measurement point at a second known position within the wing (col.6; line 63 – col.7; line 6 discloses that the sensors 10 can be surface pressure devices that measure the shape of the trailing edge sub-sections 3a deflection or variations in the cavity pressures. Claim 21 discloses a control system that receives signals from the one or more sensors, and claim 29 discloses that the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices.); and determining a bending state of the wing based on the first pressure data, the second pressure data, and the known positions within the wing (col.6; lines 8-16 discloses “The cavities 5 are connected to a fluid source ….. The shape of the trailing edge section 3 is varied by establishing pressure differences between the fluid in the upper and lower systems 6, 7 respectively. As an example, FIG. 2.a illustrates schematically how a higher pressure in the upper system 6 than in the lower system 7 will result in the trailing edge section 3 bending downwards….” Claim 21: “A wind turbine blade with one or more active trailing edge sections and one or more passive trailing edge sections where one or more sensors is/are placed in appropriate positions on the wind turbine blade to monitor an operational state of the wind turbine blade, and where signals from the one or more sensors are used as input to a control system sending control signals to the one or more active trailing edge sections,” Claim 29: “wherein the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices.”).
Madsen does not teach an aircraft wing, instead, Madsen teaches a wind turbine blade.
However, Rohm teaches devices and methods related to wing or blade that can be used in all aerodynamic and/or hydrodynamic objects, preferably wings or rotors of vehicles, in particular in aircraft and energy generating systems [0037] wherein pressure of the fluid/gas filling region (14) is used to identify dangerous operating states [0093]-[0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Madsen regarding testing a wind turbine blade to test an aircraft wing because both wings are structurally and functionally similar hydrodynamic objects as depicted in Rohm [0037]. Further, the modified method/system would provide better control of the power and load on the wing or blade and identify the deformation effectively.
Regarding Claim 19, the method of claim 15 is taught by Madsen in view of Rohm.
Madsen further teaches the method further comprising obtaining further pressure data by measuring pressure of the body of liquid at one or more further measurement points at one or more further known positions within the wing, wherein optionally the further known positions are outboard of the first and second known positions; and determining the bending state of the wing based on the further pressure data (col.6; line 63 – col.7; line 6 discloses that the sensors 10 can be surface pressure devices that measure the shape of the trailing edge sub-sections 3a deflection or variations in the cavity pressures. One of ordinary skill in the art may consider the second set of sensors in fig.3 as one or more further pressure sensors. And, claim 21 discloses a control system that receives signals from the one or more sensors, and claim 29 discloses that the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Madsen).
Regarding Claim 20, Madsen teaches a wind turbine blade monitoring arrangement (fig.1-3) comprising pressure sensors (fig.3; elements 10) configured to generate pressure data by measuring pressure of a liquid in an aircraft wing (col.6; line 63 – col.7; line 6 discloses that the sensors 10 can be surface pressure devices that measure the shape of the trailing edge sub-sections 3a deflection or variations in the cavity pressures. Claim 21 discloses a control system that receives signals from the one or more sensors, and claim 29 discloses that the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices.), and a system configured to determine a bending state of the aircraft wing based on the pressure data (col.6; lines 8-16 discloses “The cavities 5 are connected to a fluid source ….. The shape of the trailing edge section 3 is varied by establishing pressure differences between the fluid in the upper and lower systems 6, 7 respectively. As an example, FIG. 2.a illustrates schematically how a higher pressure in the upper system 6 than in the lower system 7 will result in the trailing edge section 3 bending downwards….” Claim 21: “A wind turbine blade with one or more active trailing edge sections and one or more passive trailing edge sections where one or more sensors is/are placed in appropriate positions on the wind turbine blade to monitor an operational state of the wind turbine blade, and where signals from the one or more sensors are used as input to a control system sending control signals to the one or more active trailing edge sections,” Claim 29: “wherein the one or more sensors are surface pressure devices.”).
Madsen does not teach an aircraft wing, instead, Madsen teaches a wind turbine blade.
However, Rohm teaches devices and methods related to wing or blade that can be used in all aerodynamic and/or hydrodynamic objects, preferably wings or rotors of vehicles, in particular in aircraft and energy generating systems [0037] wherein pressure of the fluid/gas filling region (14) is used to identify dangerous operating states [0093]-[0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Madsen regarding testing a wind turbine blade to test an aircraft wing because both wings are structurally and functionally similar hydrodynamic objects as depicted in Rohm [0037]. Further, the modified system would provide better control of the power and load on the wing or blade and identify the deformation effectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9, 16-18 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Limitations of the respective claims are the reasons for allowability.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pitt et al. (US 2016/0001874 A1) teaches an active strut apparatus for use with aircraft and related methods are disclosed. An example apparatus includes a first strut having a first end and a second end opposite the first end, the first end of the first strut is operatively coupled to a fuselage of an aircraft and the second end of the first strut is operatively coupled to a wing of the aircraft, and a first actuator is operatively coupled to the first strut to change an effective length of the first strut [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855