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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is over 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 recites, “or inside of the hollow interior of the root or the hub”, and the Examiner notes that wind turbine blades often have hollow interiors and a bolt circle creating a hollow interior for the root; it is not implicit that these structures are hollow, and should likely read, “or inside a hollow interior of the root or hub of the wind-turbine blade”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, lines 3-4 recite, “within a wind-turbine blade” and creates a double antecedent issue as there is already positively recited, “a wind-turbine blade” in claim 1, line 4; and should read, “or within the wind-turbine blade” and renders the claim unclear as there is intended to be the same wind turbine blade or a different turbine blade than the first instance.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schlüter et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0140409 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Schlüter et al. discloses an integrated wind-turbine (100)
An integrated wind-turbine monitoring electronic device (140, 150, 160, 120, 110), comprising:
a disconnect device configured to selectively electrically couple ([0053], “at least one coupling point”) to a lightning- protection cable (130) in a wind-turbine blade (170); and
a measurement device (160, Fig. 1), electrically coupled to the disconnect device (through the hub side connection point), configured to perform, when the disconnect device is selectively electrically coupled to the lightning-protection cable, time-domain reflectometry measurements of lightning-protection cable by performing operations comprising: (i) providing an electrical signal to the lightning- protection cable ([0030], “Dirac impulse”); and (ii) measure reflected electrical signals from the lightning-protection cable ([0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 3, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the measurement device is configured to measure an amplitude of the reflected electrical signals ([0029]-[0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the measurement device is further configured to analyze the measured reflected electrical signals to detect whether there is potential damage to the lightning-protection cable ([0031], “functional or not”).
Regarding claim 5, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 4 as above, wherein the analysis is based on at least in part on a predetermined signature of the lightning-protection cable ([0037]).
Regarding claim 6, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 4 as above, wherein the analysis is performed using a pretrained predictive model ([0036], “a comparison of the waveform and/or travel time represented by the impulse response information with at least one reference information.”).
Regarding claim 7, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 4 as above, wherein the analysis is based at least in part on: a previous measurement perform on the wind-turbine blade; a previous measurement performed on a second wind-turbine blade in a wind turbine that comprises the wind-turbine blade and the second wind turbine blade; or a previous measurement performed on a third wind-turbine blade in a different wind turbine than the wind turbine ([0038], “The at least one reference information may, for example, represent or comprise identification information indicative of a kind, type and/or at least one property uniquely characterizing the lightning conductor (e.g. length, number of coupling points or the like, to only name a few non-limiting examples) or a corresponding identification information.”).
Regarding claim 8, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 4 as above, wherein the analysis determined as type of potential damage ([0030], “This may be caused, for example, in particular by external disturbances to which the introduced impulse may be subject to during reflection until the response signal is detected. These may be, for example, disturbance variables such as open and/or (un-)shielded conductors, atmospheric coupling, or the like, to name a few non-limiting examples.”)
Regarding claim 11, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the electronic device comprises a communication device ([0072]) configured to communicate the measurements to a master electronic device (110, “server”) or remotely located computer (the Examiner notes that the server is both of these cases).
Regarding claim 13, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the disconnect device is configured to electrically couple to the lightning-protection cable for a range of orientation angles of the wind-turbine blade (Fig. 1 shows the connection point being in the hub of the wind turbine, which rotates with the blades and is therefore accessible from any angle).
Regarding claim 14, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 13 as above, wherein the range of orientation angles are below a horizontal orientation of the wind-turbine blade (Fig. 1 shows the connection point being in the hub of the wind turbine, which rotates with the blades and is therefore accessible from any angle).
Regarding claim 15, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above, wherein the electronic device is mounted at or proximate to a root or hub of a wind turbine blade (Fig. 1),
wherein the electronic device further comprises a generator ([0034]) configured to provide power to the electronic device created at least in part as a result of motion of the wind turbine blade ([0034]).
Regarding claim 16, Schlüter et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (320) for use with an electronic device (160), the computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions ([0077]), wherein when executed by the electronic device, the program instructions cause the electronic device to perform time-domain reflectometry measurements ([0071], 150) on a lightning-protection cable (130) in a wind-turbine blade (170).
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schlüter et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0140409 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 112963318 A).
Regarding claim 2, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above.
However, Schlüter et al. does not disclose, “wherein the electronic comprises control logic configured to selectively provide a control signal to the disconnect device to change a state of the disconnect device from connected to disconnected and vice versa”
Zhang et al. discloses, in the field of lightning-protection for wind turbine blades, a protective component (6) including a heat conducting cylinder (62) filled with mercury (63) that pushes a piston (64) that moves two electric contact blocks (68, 610) into contact with each other to cause the controller (611) to close a breaker (13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrical device of Schlüter et al. to have a protection device that is reactive to excessive lightning current as taught by Zhang et al., and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “In the invention, when the blade is subjected to excessive lightning current, the temperature of the blade is increased; the heat is transmitted to the mounting head; the heat on the mounting head is transmitted to the mercury through the heat conducting sheet and the heat conducting cylinder; the mercury is heated to expand; the mercury pushes the piston to move; the piston drives the insulating plate to move through the sliding rod; the second spring is compressed; the contact electric contact and the second electric contact, the controller is electrified and started; the controller controls the breaker to close; the breaker controls the generator to not work; the generator is prevented from being damaged, and the safety is high. [0022]”
Regarding claim 12, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above.
However, Schlüter et al. does not disclose, “wherein the disconnect device comprises a mechanical with a liquid conductor configured to selectively electrically couple to the lightning-protection cable for a range of orientation angles of the wind-turbine blade”
Zhang et al. discloses, in the field of lightning-protection for wind turbine blades, a protective component (6) including a heat conducting cylinder (62) filled with mercury (63) that pushes a piston (64) that moves two electric contact blocks (68, 610) into contact with each other to cause the controller (611) to close a breaker (13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the electrical device of Schlüter et al. to have a protection device that is reactive to excessive lightning current as taught by Zhang et al., and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “In the invention, when the blade is subjected to excessive lightning current, the temperature of the blade is increased; the heat is transmitted to the mounting head; the heat on the mounting head is transmitted to the mercury through the heat conducting sheet and the heat conducting cylinder; the mercury is heated to expand; the mercury pushes the piston to move; the piston drives the insulating plate to move through the sliding rod; the second spring is compressed; the contact electric contact and the second electric contact, the controller is electrified and started; the controller controls the breaker to close; the breaker controls the generator to not work; the generator is prevented from being damaged, and the safety is high. [0022]”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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.
Regarding claim 9, Schlüter et al. discloses all of claim 1 as above.
However, Schlüter et al. nor any of the prior art of record teach or suggest, “wherein the electronic device further comprises an orientation sensor electrically connected to the disconnect device, wherein the orientation sensor is configured to provide the electronic device data on position and/or orientation, and/or speed of rotation of the wind turbine.”
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 3503331 B1 discloses a method for remotely monitoring failed surge arrester disconnectors and energy harvester for autonomous power supply of monitoring devices installed on surge arresters.
CN 112502913 A discloses an intelligent wind turbine blade with an active component including a lightning protection system.
JP 2021025859 A discloses a disconnection inspection method.
WO 2018135940 A2 discloses a wind power system with low electromagnetic interference.
US PGPUB 2018/0048136 A1 discloses controlling a lightning protection system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745