DETAILED ACTION
This is a first action on the merits of application 18563830.
Claims 1-24 are pending.
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 4-5, 9, 15 and 21 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.
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, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein the sensor is mounted on or at or within the, in particular”, and the claim also recites “floating offshore wind turbine and/or on or at or within a floating platform and/or on or at or within a vessel carrying the wind turbine. “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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the tower". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the frequency domain". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the generated electrical output". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim 21, it is unclear if “the tower” is the same as “the wind turbine tower”.
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)(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) 1-9, 12-13, 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by SCHOLTE US 20110204636.
Claim 1 and 17, Scholte discloses a method of estimating a wave spectrum [0042], an offshore wind turbine [10] has been subjected to, the method comprising: estimating a previously estimated wave spectrum [0042] of the sea; deriving at least one calculated response spectrum [0042] based on the previously estimated wave spectrum; measuring at least one response quantity [0038] responding to the wave spectrum, using at least one sensor [301-305] associated with the offshore wind turbine [10]; processing the response quantity to derive a measured response spectrum; deriving an error between the measured response spectrum and the calculated response spectrum [fig. 6]; adjusting the previously estimated wave spectrum based on the error, in order to derive an adjusted estimated wave spectrum. See figs. 1-6 [0041-0045], [0029].
Claim 2, Scholte discloses iteratively adjusting the estimated wave spectrum, until the error satisfies a convergence criterium. [0042].
Claim 3, Scholte discloses wherein the offshore wind turbine [10] is a floating offshore wind turbine [10] having a floating substructure [14] which floats above a seafloor. See fig. 3 [0023]
Claim 4, Scholte discloses wherein the sensor [301-305] is mounted on or at or within the, in particular, floating offshore wind turbine [10] and/or on or at or within a floating platform [14] and/or on or at or within a vessel carrying the wind turbine. See fig. 3
Claim 5, Scholte discloses wherein the at least one sensor [301-305] includes at least one of: an acceleration sensor; a blade root strain/load sensor; an inclination sensor; a gyroscope; a strain gauge sensor, mounted along the tower [12]; a GPS tracking device. See fig. 3 [0037]
Claim 6, Scholte discloses wherein the adjusted estimated wave spectrum specifies power and/or amplitude of a plurality of wave portions depending on a frequency of the wave portion and/or direction of the wave portion. See [0042].
Claim 7, Scholte discloses wherein deriving the calculated response spectrum based on the previously estimated wave spectrum involves: applying a linear transfer function and/or a response amplitude operator to the previously estimated wave spectrum. See [0041]
Claim 8, Scholte discloses wherein the linear transfer function and/or Response Amplitude Operator implicitly describes how the surface elevation of the sea state characterized by the respective wave spectrum is transferred into vessel motion and/or wind turbine motion, wherein it is assumed that the wave spectrum and the associated responses represent an ergodic, homogenous random process. [0042]
Claim 9, Scholte discloses wherein the method applies a frequency domain approach, wherein the measured and the estimated wave spectrum and/or the response quantity and/or the error is given or derived in the frequency domain. [0041]
Claim 12-13, Scholte discloses wherein the estimated wave spectrum is modelled according to a parametric approach, wherein the estimated wave spectrum is represented by definition of one or more wave parameters of one or more predetermined wave spectra, wherein the adjusted estimated wave spectrum is represented by optimized wave parameters, and the wave parameters include at least one of: wave height, peak period, mean propagation angle, wave spreading parameter See fig. 3 [0025, 0037-0039, 0041-0042] He is using vibrations to correspond to the wave parameter above.
Claim 15, Scholte discloses operating the offshore wind turbine [10] based on the adjusted estimated wave spectrum such that vibrations due to waves are reduced, such that the generated electrical power output of the offshore wind turbine [10] is reduced with respect to a rated power of the offshore wind turbine [10], and/or such that a lifetime of the offshore wind turbine [10] is prolonged. See fig. 3 [0042]
Claim 16, Scholte discloses generating, by the offshore wind turbine [10], electrical power; transmitting at least a part of the electrical power to an electrical receiving arrangement positioned not in international waters, positioned on land or onshore; supplying at least a part of the electrical power to a utility grid. See fig. 3 This is inherent to wind turbine to provide power to substation grids this is their whole purpose, known as clean energy.
Claim 18, Scholte discloses wherein the processor [40] is adapted for iteratively adjusting the estimated wave spectrum, until the error satisfies a convergence criterium. [0028, 0042]
Claim 19, Scholte discloses wherein the processor [40] is adapted for modelling the estimated wave spectrum according to a non-parametric approach, wherein the adjusted estimated wave spectrum is represented as set of energy states discretized having different frequencies and directions. [0028, 0042]
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) 10-11, 14 and 20-24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholte et al.
Claims 10-11, Scholte discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not explicitly disclose wherein the estimated wave spectrum is modelled according to a non-parametric approach, wherein the adjusted estimated wave spectrum is represented as set of energy states discretized having different frequencies and directions and the non-parametric approach applies Bayesian statistic which introduces the combination of prior information of the wave spectrum and some likelihood that some parameters given a data distribution is true and is applied to model a posterior distribution. In [0042] most of the limitations are disclosed in the wave spectrum model and frequencies and directions via sensors, Bayesian statistics is a way of calculating probability that updates as new information comes in which is obvious to one of ordinary skill to see the expected result when modelling the parameters. Thus, it 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 to use said method steps for a specified design choice of expected results for the desired data distribution.
Claims 14, Scholte discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not explicitly disclose the method steps of the claim wherein the method applies the following equation: b = Af(x) +w, to derive the measured response spectrum based on the estimated wave spectrum, wherein Af is the estimated response spectrum, b is the measured response spectrum, A is the system matrix transfer function, f is the estimated wave spectrum, x represents wave parameter values, w is measurement noise; the method further comprising at least one of: continuously monitoring/logging the sea state; estimating fatigue damage of at least one component of the wind turbine; (providing an alert regarding maintenance and/or redesign and/or upgrade and/or replacement and/or repair of at least one component of the wind turbine and/or regarding shut down and/or curtailment [which is inherent]). However, he does disclose everything except for the equation in [0038] the equation is obvious to one of ordinary skill when the steps are disclosed in the prior art that are equivalent to the symbols above in the art. Thus, it 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 to use said method steps to devise an equation to calculate the measured response because it is an expected result.
Claims 20, Scholte discloses the aforementioned limitations of claim 1, he does not explicitly disclose wherein the estimated wave spectrum is modelled according to a non-parametric approach, wherein the adjusted estimated wave spectrum is represented as set of energy states discretized having different frequencies and directions and the non-parametric approach applies Bayesian statistic which introduces the combination of prior information of the wave spectrum and some likelihood that some parameters given a data distribution is true and is applied to model a posterior distribution. In [0042] most of the limitations are disclosed in the wave spectrum model and frequencies and directions via sensors, Bayesian statistics is a way of calculating probability that updates as new information comes in which is obvious to one of ordinary skill to see the expected result when modelling the parameters. Thus, it 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 to use said method steps for a specified design choice of expected results for the desired data distribution.
Claim 21, Scholte discloses Offshore wind turbine system [10], comprising: a wind turbine tower [10] that is not erected on the vessel; a nacelle [16] mounted on top of the tower [12]; and the arrangement [fig. 3] according to claim 15. See [0019, 0023] He does not disclose a vessel [he discloses 14 floating platform wherein it is also well known to have wind turbines on vessels, they are normally transported in this manner]; or it being erected on a vessel. Thus, it 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 to have modified Scholte with placing the wind turbine on a vessel since this is how they are normally transported to a desired position in a body of water.
Claim 22, Scholte discloses wherein the offshore wind turbine [10] is a floating offshore wind turbine [10] having a floating substructure [14] which floats above a seafloor. See fig. 3
Claim 23, Scholte discloses wherein the at least one sensor [301-305] is mounted on or at or within the floating offshore wind turbine [10] and/or on or at or within a floating platform [14] and/or on or at or within a vessel carrying the wind turbine. See fig. 3
Claim 24, Scholte discloses wherein the at least one sensor [301-305] includes at least one of: an acceleration sensor; a blade root strain/load sensor; an inclination sensor; a gyroscope; a strain gauge sensor, mounted along the tower [12]; a GPS tracking device. See fig. 3 [0037]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Because they are wind turbine related in a body of water.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOVON E HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-3115. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm M-F.
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, MARC JIMENEZ can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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.
/JOVON E HAYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights