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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processor configured to derive a favorable orientation based on information regarding a sea wave direction” in claim 27.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The structure for the function above can be found in para. 0018 which describes input from strain sensors and para. 0021 which calculates the desired angle based on sea wave loading direction detected by the strain sensors.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 15-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHOLTE-WASSNIK et al. US 2012/0133134 A1 in view of Jakobsson et al. US 2020/0300220 A1.
Jakobsson teaches:
15. (New) A method of controlling an offshore wind turbine subjected to a sea wave for damping at least one mechanical vibration, the method comprising:
defining a predetermined angle range(Au) relative to a sea wave direction and/or a main loading direction, [para. 0011, “Preferably, an alignment relative to and/or in the wind direction, and/or an angle or angle range between the rotor axis and the wind direction, is taken as a basis for a setpoint position of the nacelle.”]
wherein in the predetermined angle range (Au) the fatigue load is considerably smaller than in other nacelle orientations outside the predetermined angle range(Au), [para. 0009, “Damping serves to allow a freely rotating nacelle to be aligned in a stable manner and, at the same time, to enable it to yield to wind forces, caused by alteration of the angle of attack, for the purpose of rotating the nacelle.”]
defining a favorable orientation (u) comprised within the predetermined angle range (Au), [para. 0013, setpoint position determined]
Jakobsson does not teach the following limitation, however, SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
yawing a nacelle of the wind turbine to the favorable orientation (u) derived based on information regarding a sea wave direction, [para. 0060, “Thus, damping in the direction and frequencies of waves and water currents is advantageous.”]
in order to improve damping of the vibration. [this limitation recites the intended result or outcome and has no weight]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of SCHOLTE-WASSNIK with those of Jakobsson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches that for off shore wind energy systems, damping in the direction of sea waves can reduce vibrations and thereby extend lifespan of the system. (See para. 0060).
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
16. (New) The method according to claim 15, wherein the predetermined angle range is configured by any one of: wind turbine design, wind turbine mechanical layout, and/or magnitude or amplitude of the sea wave. [para. 0064]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
17. (New) The method according to claim 16, wherein the main loading direction is a long term main loading direction or an actual main loading direction. [para. 0064]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
18. (New) The method according to claim 15, wherein the nacelle is set into the favorable orientation when an angle (u) between the rotation axis of the rotor and the sea wave direction and/or the main loading direction is within the predetermined angle range (Au). [para. 0064]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
19. (New) The method according claim 15, wherein the predetermined angle range (Au) spans between 600 and 1200 between 80° and 1000 or a negative of the preceding ranges. [para. 0064]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
20. (New) The method according to claim 15, wherein the sea wave direction is based on a predetermined long term, season and/or location dependent, wave direction and/or a long term main loading direction. [para. 0065]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
21. (New) The method according to claim 15, wherein the main loading direction is based on a predetermined long term, season and/or location dependent, main loading direction. [para. 0028; main loading direction 28 derived from wind]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
22. (New) The method according to claim 15, wherein the sea wave direction and/or the main loading direction is based on an actual sea wave direction and/or an actual main loading direction. [para. 0042, sensors detect actual loading direction]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
23. (New) The method according to claim 15, further comprising obtaining the actual sea wave direction and/or the actual main loading direction using at least one sensor including at least one of:at least one accelerometer; at least one strain sensor; at least one strain gauge; at least one other load measuring device, wherein the sensor is located in or at at least one of:a tower top, a tower bottom, the nacelle. [para. 0042, strain sensors measure vibrations at tower top]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
24. (New) The method according to claim 23, wherein the sea wave direction comprises or is derived based on main loading direction and/or the wind direction. [para. 0042, 0044]
SCHOLTE-WASSNIK teaches:
26. (New) The method according to claim 15, wherein the vibration includes a vibration of at least one of:
a tower; a fixed foundation; a floating platform; a support structure; a monopile; a tower-foundation system; a tower-floating platform system; [para. 0044] and/or
the offshore wind turbine is a fixed foundation wind turbine or a floating wind turbine, and/or the method further comprising: obtaining wind turbine operational state information, wherein the favorable orientation is derived further based on the wind turbine operational state.
Regarding apparatus claims 27 and 28, these claims recite the functions for executing the method steps recited above in method claims 15-26 and are rejected on the same grounds and rationale as corresponding claims above.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHOLTE-WASSNIK et al. US 2012/0133134 A1 in view of Jakobsson et al. US 2020/0300220 A1 and further in view of Moroz US 2006/0002791 A1.
The combination of SCHOLTE-WASSNIK and Jakobsson does not teach the following limitations, however, Moroz teaches:
25. (New) The method according to claim 15, wherein the method is performed, while the wind turbine is idling, idling including at least one of:no electrical power is produced by the wind turbine and/or output to the grid; the wind turbine is electrically disconnected from the grid; at least one rotor blade is pitched to minimize lift, further pitched to feather; a rotation of the rotor is stopped or is rotating less than 5% or nominal speed; active speed control of the rotor is not possible or is not performed; a rotor shaft brake is applied; the wind turbine is in a state after completion of construction before grid connection. [para. 0005, 0023, shutdown procedure controls yaw position to minimize loading]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Moroz with those of SCHOLTE-WASSNIK and Jakobsson. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings because Moroz teaches that during a shutdown or idling mode, it is preferable to minimize the loads, thereby reducing vibrations]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 1-930PM 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, 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.
/GARY COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights