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 .
Claims 1-12, 14 and 16-22 have been presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claim 22 is directed to a program, i.e., software, that is not stored on a statutory computer-readable medium.
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 1-12, 14 and 16-22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the associated components of the load signal in the intermediate coordinate frame”, "the first component" and “the second component” in lines 20-21, 24 and 26 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the blade load signal” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear which blade load signal is being referred to.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the associated components of the load signal in the intermediate coordinate frame”, "the first component" and “the second component” in lines 16-17, 20 and 22 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the blade load signal” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear which blade load signal is being referred to.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the associated components of the load signal in the intermediate coordinate frame”, "the first component" and “the second component” in lines 26-27, 30 and 32 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the blade load signal” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear which blade load signal is being referred to.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the associated components of the load signal in the intermediate coordinate frame”, "the first component" and “the second component” in lines 21-22, 25 and 27 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 14, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps would include the determination of the pitch modification signals. Currently, the claims simply state that a generic “control action” to the first and second signal components is performed and then the pitch modification signals are applied. While the claims do provide substantial steps for evaluating and performing operations on the blade load signals and their respective components, etc., the claims ultimately do not specifically link the determination of the pitch modification signals to the steps performed in the claims. In other words, the claims are unclear when/how the pitch modification signals are determined. Instead, it is just assumed that the pitch modification signals have already been determined in the applying step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 14 and 16-21 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.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
PGPUB 2022/0220936 to Thomsen teaches transforming a load signal to a first and second reference [0011].
PGPUB 2020/0284242 to Caponetti teaches generating an estimated blade load signal [abstract].
PGPUB 2017/0138348 to Bonding teaches passing blade load signals through a high-pass filter [0022].
PGPUB 2016/0186722 to Olsen teaches
PGPUB 2013/0103202 to Bowyer teaches determining loading components on turbine blades [0029].
PGPUB 2012/0061962 to Nagasaki teaches converting blade load measurements to a different coordinate system [0051].
ES2408246 to Acciona Windpower1 (AW), identified as a X reference in the written opinion provided by applicant, is directed to controlling blade pitch [0025] while also estimating loads in one or more blades whose sensors have been damaged [abstract, 0010]. AW further teaches that missing load signals can be estimated by averaging load signals delayed by different times [0026], experience a transformation [0046] and compared against threshold values [0050]. AW does not appear to teach constructing combined load signals through filtering the blade load signals via high-pass filter, transforming the blade load signals to a different intermediate coordinate frame whose components are orthogonal to each other and rotating intermediate components as claimed.
The prior art of record does not teach or suggest either individually or in combination, determining pitch modification signals when one of the blade load signals is unavailable by constructing the combined load signals as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A CONNOLLY whose telephone number is (571)272-3666. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at 571-272-2279. 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 CONNOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 2/20/26
1 As presented by applicant