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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 2 of page 8 through paragraph 2 of page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the limitations of amended claim 1, particularly directed to that:
Jeppesen fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a current level of hydraulic pressure available in the hydraulic pitch system. Applicant points to specific variables within Jeppesen’s Equation 1 in the argument.
The arguments are not persuasive because Jeppesen clearly states in his disclosure that his system accounts for the hydraulic pressure at a current level, e.g., middle of Jeppesen page 9: discussion regarding “adjust the flow gain in response to changing chamber pressure” and Jeppesen abstract: “the control system described herein can account for changes in pressure which affect the flow gain”.
Jeppesen fails to disclose, teach, or suggest a gain directly proportional to the current level of hydraulic.
The arguments are not persuasive because: The term “directly proportional” appears only on page 9 paragraph 2 of the specification, without a specific or special definition associated. Because Applicant’s disclosure has not provided a special definition of the term “directly proportional”, a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “directly proportional” is assumed (see MPEP 2173.01). A BRI of “directly proportional” may be, for example, “related by direct variation” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/directly%20proportional. This does not require, for example, two quantities related by a single constant, such as a relationship of y=c*x, which is a narrow or strictly-mathematical relationship, as identified by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) and/or https://mathworld.wolfram.com/DirectlyProportional.html. Applicant’s Figures 4-6 and page 9 para 2 appear to support the BRI, rather than a narrow interpretation, as they identify that the gain can have various relationships with the hydraulic pressure: linear at portions, non-linear, have a “constant gradient” or “a different shape may be defined as appropriate”, quadratic.
Furthermore, it is also noted that Applicant’s page 9 para 2 and Figs 4-6 identify that the gain can have various relationships with the hydraulic pressure: linear at portions, non-linear, have a “constant gradient” or “a different shape may be defined as appropriate”, quadratic, which indicates that a particular or specific relationship is not critical.
Applicant further argues at the bottom of page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks that claims 14 and 16 are allowable because they have been amended in the same way as amended claim 1. The argument is not persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above.
Regarding the new claims 20-24, please see the action below for any relevant details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 23 identifies “the minimum hydraulic pressure value is greater than a minimum achievable pressure value of the hydraulic pitch system, and wherein the maximum hydraulic pressure value is less than a maximum achievable pressure value of the hydraulic pitch system” whereas the original disclosure does not identify such. Note that Applicant’s graphs merely show some values and do not specify that any values shown are minimum achievable or maximum achievable.
There is no support in the original disclosure for the limitation(s) as claimed.
Therefore, the limitation(s) add(s) new matter and fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement wherein it appears this invention has not been described with sufficient particularity in the original disclosure such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 24 is/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 24 recites the limitation “the determined gain factor has a non-linear relationship with the current level of hydraulic pressure” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how something can have a non-linear relationship with current level of pressure, wherein a current level of pressure is a single value.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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) 1, 4-5, 13, 20, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3805556 A1 (hereinafter Alberts) in view of WO 2019238188 A1 (Jeppesen).
Regarding claim 1, Alberts discloses:
A method of controlling blade pitch in a wind turbine (abstract),
the wind turbine comprising
a plurality of rotor blades (4; Fig 1) and a hydraulic pitch system for adjusting a pitch of each of the rotor blades (paragraph 0009),
the method comprising:
obtaining a measurement indicative of a current level of hydraulic pressure available in the hydraulic pitch system (paragraph 0009 “detecting a current hydraulic pressure”);
determining, based on the obtained measurement, an adaptive pitch reference rate indicative of a rate at which the pitch of the rotor blades is to be adjusted by the hydraulic system (paragraph 0037 “the pitch adjustment speed dependent on the current hydraulic pressure”);
and, controlling the hydraulic pitch system to adjust the pitch of the rotor blades in accordance with the determined adaptive pitch reference rate (paragraph 0037 “the adapting of the pitch adjustment speed”).
Alberts may not explicitly disclose:
wherein determining the adaptive pitch reference rate comprises:
determining a gain factor that is directly proportional to the current level of hydraulic pressure,
wherein the determined gain factor is greater than or equal to one;
and applying the determined gain factor to a predetermined constant pitch reference rate to obtain the adaptive pitch reference rate,
However, Jeppesen, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
wherein determining the adaptive pitch reference rate comprises:
determining a gain factor (Jeppesen page 9 line 8-16 identifies at block 425 determining a dynamic flow gain for a pitch hydraulic cylinder in response to changing chamber/cylinder pressure; e.g., page 9 line 17: “the active gain control 520 can adjust the flow gain in response to changing chamber pressure”) that is directly proportional to the current level of hydraulic pressure (Jeppesen abstract: “the control system described herein can account for changes in pressure which affect the flow gain”. Also, a broadest reasonable interpretation of “proportional” may be “corresponding in size, degree, or intensity” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proportional, thus, the limitation as currently written requires that the gain factor have only some connection regarding size/degree/intensity to the hydraulic pressure, wherein “corresponding” identifies some connection, e.g. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/corresponding. Jeppesen clearly teaches that his gain factor corresponds in size, degree, or intensity with regard to the hydraulic pressure (e.g. middle of page 9: discussion regarding “adjust the flow gain in response to changing chamber pressure”).
Also, the term “directly proportional” appears only on page 9 paragraph 2 of the specification, without a specific or special definition associated. Because Applicant’s disclosure has not provided a special definition of the term “directly proportional”, a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of “directly proportional” is assumed (see MPEP 2173.01). A BRI of “directly proportional” may be, for example, “related by direct variation” per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/directly%20proportional. This does not require, for example, two quantities related by a single constant, such as a relationship of y=c*x, which is a narrow or strictly-mathematical relationship, as identified by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics) and/or https://mathworld.wolfram.com/DirectlyProportional.html. Applicant’s Figures 4-6 and page 9 para 2 appear to support the BRI, rather than a narrow interpretation, as they identify that the gain can have various relationships with the hydraulic pressure: linear at portions, non-linear, have a “constant gradient” or “a different shape may be defined as appropriate”, quadratic.
Furthermore, it is also noted that Applicant’s page 9 para 2 and Figs 4-6 identify that the gain can have various relationships with the hydraulic pressure: linear at portions, non-linear, have a “constant gradient” or “a different shape may be defined as appropriate”, quadratic, which indicates that a particular or specific relationship is not critical.
Thus, Jeppesen teaches the limitation.),
and applying the determined gain factor to a predetermined constant pitch reference rate to obtain the adaptive pitch reference rate,
(Jeppesen Page 1 lines 18-28 identifies a reference velocity or a reference acceleration of the hydraulic cylinder which performs pitch, determining the dynamic flow gain, and then controlling the cylinder using the dynamic flow gain. In other details, page 12 line 22 – page 13 line 22 identifies that the pitch rate is controlled by the gain. Particularly, page 12 line 23 identifies at block 430 “gain control 520 provides the gain... to the pitch controller 530”; page 13 line 16 identifies at block 435 “the control system controls the hydraulic cylinder using the setting… generated by the pitch controller 530”.)
(Throughout the disclosure, Jeppesen identifies:
that a dynamic flow gain is determined. E.g. page 9 line 8: "the control system 500 generates a dynamic flow gain using the reference velocity".
a reference velocity or a reference acceleration (identified, for example, page 1 lines 18-28; also see for example page 3 line 23: “e.g., the velocity associated with a hydraulic cylinder or the piston rod in the cylinder”) of the hydraulic cylinder which performs pitch of the wind turbine blade. This reference velocity or reference acceleration corresponds to Applicant's predetermined constant pitch reference rate.
that the determined gain is then applied to the pitch system (e.g., page 4 line 4: "In this manner, a dynamic flow gain (rather than a predefined or constant flow gain) can be used to control a hydraulic pitch system"; also page 3 line 25: "The dynamic flow gain is then used by a pitch controller to generate a setting for the hydraulic cylinder").
The disclosure clearly indicates that the dynamic gain is applied (to the cylinder) to generate an adaptive pitch reference rate (of the cylinder).)
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the determined gain factor is greater than or equal to one”:
Jeppesen’s disclosure is entirely directed towards determining a dynamic flow gain for the hydraulic cylinder, as identified in the abstract for example; Jeppesen does not identify a single value for this and the determined dynamic flow gain can be any appropriate positive or negative value based on the dependent variables, to include a value which is greater than or equal to one.
Insofar as Jeppesen might not explicitly disclose that his dynamic flow gain is a specific value, for example a value greater than or equal to one, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine a flow gain for the hydraulic cylinder (abstract) which is greater than or equal to one by optimizing the flow characteristics of the cylinder, in order to control a hydraulic pitch system, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Jeppesen page 9 lines 8-20, for example, discusses dynamically determining the flow gain parameter Kγ , shown in various of equations 1-11, as a result of variable pressure which fluctuates as a result of loading on the wind turbine cause by, e.g., changes in wind speed. The fluctuating wind speed is a variable which effects the resultant dynamic flow gain variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Alberts to include Jeppesen’s teachings as described above, having Alberts’s method include Jeppesen’s elements of a gain factor, in order to account for changes in pressure in the pitch control system (abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Alberts, as modified above, further discloses:
wherein the hydraulic pitch system comprises a plurality of hydraulic pumps (Alberts paragraph 0005, 0055),
and wherein the predetermined constant pitch reference rate corresponds to a pitch reference rate achievable when using only one of the hydraulic pumps (Jeppesen paragraph 0083: “at least one hydraulic pump” for example).
Regarding claim 5, Alberts, as modified above, further discloses:
the adaptive pitch rate reference is determined to vary linearly with the measured hydraulic pressure (Alberts paragraph 0039: linearly or exponentially, dependent on the current hydraulic pressure).
Regarding claim 13, Alberts, as modified above, further discloses:
the current level of hydraulic pressure available in the hydraulic pitch system corresponds to a combined pressure in one or more accumulators of the hydraulic pitch system (Alberts paragraph 0049: a hydraulic pressure of at least one accumulator).
Regarding claim 20, Alberts, as modified above, further discloses:
applying the determined gain factor to the predetermined constant pitch reference rate comprises: multiplying the determined gain factor with the predetermined constant pitch reference rate to obtain the adaptive pitch reference rate (Jeppesen’s gain is shown as Kγ (e.g. page 9 line 23), and his reference velocity which corresponds to Applicant's predetermined constant pitch reference rate is shown as xS (e.g. page 9 line 22) through his various equations. Equation 1 on page 9 shows that these variables are multiplied.).
Regarding claim 24, Alberts, as modified above, further discloses:
the determined gain factor has a non-linear relationship with the current level of hydraulic pressure (Jeppesen’s gain is shown as Kγ (e.g. page 9 line 23), and his pressure of the chamber in the hydraulic cylinder is shown as PA (e.g. page 10 line 4), and his equation 1, when solved for the gain, shows the gain relates to the pressure by an exponent, which is a nonlinear relationship).
Claim(s) 21, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US 9593669 B2 (hereinafter Lindholdt).
Regarding claim 21,
The claim scope is directed to that the gain factor increases linearly.
While Jeppesen may not explicitly write out or show via charts that his gain increases linearly, courts have established that a change in form or proportions will not sustain a patent and is not inventive, rather a form of routine optimization which would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In this case, having the gain increase linearly or not linearly is a matter of increasing the gain according to certain proportions with respect to the hydraulic pressure, and any difference between how Jeppesen’s gain is increased versus the claimed linear increase is held to be obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Also, Lindholdt, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches that gain can be scheduled for each controller based on a variety of factors (col 11 lines 37-42) in order to optimize results for various conditions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Alberts as modified above to include Lindholdt’s teachings as described above, having the gain scheduled for each controller based on a variety of factors in order to optimize results for various conditions (col 11 lines 37-42) wherein the scheduling may take a variety of forms/proportions including linear. Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Furthermore, it is also noted that Applicant’s page 9 para 2 and Figs 4-6 identify that the gain can have various relationships with the hydraulic pressure: linear at portions, non-linear, have a “constant gradient” or “a different shape may be defined as appropriate”, quadratic, which indicates that a particular or specific relationship is not critical.
These same reasons for rejection apply to claim 22 wherein, regarding claim 22, the claim scope is directed to that the gain factor is constant for certain values of the hydraulic pressure.
Regarding claim 23, the claim scope is directed to further defining the values of the hydraulic pressure recited in claim 22. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected by virtue of the reasons of the claim 22 rejection directly above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745