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 .
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 1-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harms et al (11480066) in view of Genevrier et al (9002616) and Matsumoto et al (2022/0290606) in view of Fentaye et al “Sensor fault/failure correction and missing sensor replacement for enhanced real-time gas turbine diagnostics” and optionally in view of Muramatsu (2007/0005219)1. Harms et al teach A control device 60 comprising: one or more processors 66 that execute computer-executable instructions stored in a memory 64, wherein the one or more processors execute the computer-executable instructions to cause the control device to: acquire a first rotational speed ωT, which is a rotational speed of a first rotation shaft 26A provided in a gas turbine engine 12, based on a signal supplied from a sensor configured to detect the first rotational speed; and; acquire a second rotational speed ωG, which is a rotational speed of a second rotation shaft 26B provided in a power generator 16, based on a signal supplied from a rotation angle sensor 29B configured to detect the second rotational speed 29B, the power generator being rotated by the gas turbine engine 12; compare the first rotational speed ωT that has been acquired, with the second rotational speed ωG that has been acquired; and select, a target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine; wherein the first rotation shaft 26A provided in the gas turbine engine and the second rotation shaft 26B provided in the power generator 16 are connected in a manner so that the rotation speed of the first rotation shaft and the rotational speed of the second rotation shaft are equal [when clutch 28 is engaged]. (3) wherein the one or more processors cause the control device to: control the gas turbine engine so as to achieve a target rotational speed acquired based on a required electric power that is a power output required by the power generator; and control the power generator so as to achieve a target torque value acquired based on the required electric power [to grid, col. 7, lines 34+]. (7) A control method performed by one or more processors comprising the steps of: acquiring a first rotational speed ωT, which is a rotational speed of a first rotation shaft 26A provided in a gas turbine engine 12, based on a signal supplied from a sensor configured to detect the first rotational speed; and; acquiring a second rotational speed ωG, which is a rotational speed of a second rotation shaft 26B provided in a power generator, based on a signal supplied from a rotation angle sensor configured to detect the second rotational speed 29B; comparing the first rotational speed with the second rotational speed; and selecting, a target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine; wherein the first rotation shaft 26A provided in the gas turbine engine and the second rotation shaft 26B provided in the power generator 16 are connected in a manner so that the rotation speed of the first rotation shaft and the rotational speed of the second rotation shaft are equal [when clutch 28 is engaged].
Harms et al do not teach an electromagnetic pickup as the sensor configured to detect the first rotational speed nor a resolver as the rotation angle sensor 29B configured to detect the second rotational speed 29B. Note that using an [electro]magnetic pickup is taught as one of the speed sensor options, see col. 6, lines 49-57]. Matsumoto teaches using a resolver 18 in order to detect the second speed of the generator 13 shaft [¶ 0057] is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a resolver to detect the second speed of the generator, as a typical speed sensor used in the art. Genevrier et al teach an electromagnetic pickup 14 or 16 configured to detect the first rotational speed S1 or S2, respectively [see col. 4, lines 5-11]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an electromagnetic pickup, as taught by Genevrier et al, as the type of speed sensor used to detect the first rotational speed of the turbine engine, as a typical sensor type utilized in the art. Harms do not teach selecting, as a target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine, a lower one of the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed and controlling the gas turbine engine and the power generator based on the selected target rotational speed. Genevrier et al also teaches to compare the first rotational speed S1 that has been acquired, with the second rotational speed S2 that has been acquired; and select, as a target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine, [one of] a lower one of the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed and control the gas turbine engine and the power generator based on the selected target rotational speed, Genevrier teaches the first speed S1 is measured by 14 and by 40 in control unit 32; second speed S2 is measured by 16 and by 42 in control unit 34. These two control units are used to determine whether the speed sensed data from 14 and 16 agree or disagree and declare one of the sensors 14, 16 with respective control units faulty 32, 34 [col. 4, line 53-col. 5, line 14; col. 7, lines 5-43] and thus select / switch to the data from the correctly operating sensor. Applicant admits there is a situation where the speed sensor of either sensor fails by reading too high of a value [see ¶ 0066 of applicant’s spec.], then by Genevrier et al, the faulty sensed speed when reading too high would result in the lower speed value being selected as the correct control speed. Compare also with Fentaye et al, which teaches Fig. 2, with the frozen and bias curves, that the faulty sensed data is too high compared with the actual data and that the sensor data includes shaft speeds [see Table 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select, as a target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine, a lower one of the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed and control the gas turbine engine and the power generator based on the selected target rotational speed, when the lower speed is determined to be the accurate or correct speed, as taught by Genevrier et al and Fentaye et al or by applicant’s admission that the failed sensor may fail by having too high of a speed reading. Harms further teach in a different context that (2) wherein in a case where a difference 114 between the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed is equal to or greater than a rotational speed difference threshold 116 ΔT, the one or more processors cause the control device to select, a target rotational speed for the gas turbine engine, and control the gas turbine engine and the power generator based on the selected target rotational speed but do not necessarily teach [as analogously from claim 1] select, as a target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine, a lower one of the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed and control the gas turbine engine and the power generator based on the selected target rotational speed. Genevrier et al further teach (2) wherein in a case where a difference between the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed is equal to or greater than a rotational speed difference threshold [see col. 6, lines 52+, where defined thresholds are used for the inequalities that determine correct operation], the one or more processors cause the control device to select, as the target rotational speed for the gas turbine engine, the lower one of the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed and control the gas turbine engine and the power generator based on the selected target rotational speed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a difference between the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed is equal to or greater than a rotational speed difference threshold , and select, as a target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine, a lower one of the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed and control the gas turbine engine and the power generator based on the selected target rotational speed, when the lower speed is determined to be the accurate or correct speed, as taught by Genevrier et al and Fentaye et al or by applicant’s admission that the failed sensor may fail by having too high of a speed reading. As for (4) wherein the one or more processors cause the control device to estimate the first rotational speed based on the signal supplied from the resolver in a case where an abnormality occurs in the electromagnetic pickup, it is noted that the resolver of Matsumoto provides a second speed measurement, and in the case it is less accurate than the electromagnetic pickup / phonic wheel measurement of Genevrier et al or because they are on a different shafts when combined with Harms, it is deemed to be an estimate. In Harms, “estimates the first rotational speed” is done by the second speed sensor being of less precision than the “first electromagnetic pickup” for first speed or by the fact they are clutched together and may have slight differences in speed due to e.g. losses in the clutch. Muramatsu teaches wherein the one or more processors cause the control device 24 to estimate the first rotational speed N1S [estimated] based on the signal supplied from the rotation angle sensor 11 in a case where an abnormality occurs in the rotational speed sensor [measures N1]. Muramatsu teaches that using the estimated speed allows for continuing operation of the gas turbine engine when the rotational speed sensor fails. Accordingly, in combination, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a less accurate resolver than the electromagnetic pickup / phonic wheel measurement of Genevrier et al or to use the estimated speed by the speed sensors being on different shafts, to produce the estimated speed, where Muramatsu is applied as a teaching reference to use estimated speeds to determine proper sensor speed function. Harms et al do not teach A moving object comprising the control device. Muramatsu teaches a moving object [aircraft used for flight, ¶ 0002] is a typical application of gas turbine engines. Similarly, Matsumoto teaches a moving object [aircraft used for flight, ¶ 0002] is a typical application of gas turbine engines It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ a moving object comprising the control device, as taught by either Muramatsu or Matsumoto, as a typical application of gas turbine engines.
The prior art in combination teach (5) wherein the one or more processors cause the control device to: control the gas turbine engine by setting the lower one of the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed as the target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine but do not teach (5) control the power generator by setting a torque value corresponding to the target rotational speed as a target torque value of the power generator. Matsumoto et al control the power generator 13 by setting a torque value [Figs. 3, 4 shows torque vs speed] corresponding to the target rotational speed as a target torque value of the power generator. Note that the target lower speed as the lower speed was already set forth and its use to determine the torque value - as torque and rotational speed have the defined relationship between these two variables in Figs. 3, 4, which allows for stable operation and/or prevents damage [see ¶ 0003-0005]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control the power generator by setting a control the power generator by setting a torque value corresponding to the target rotational speed [lower speed] as a target torque value of the power generator, as taught by Matsumoto et al as promoting stable operation and/or prevents damage. Harms et al also appear to teach from (3) control the power generator so as to achieve a target torque value acquired based on the required electric power [to grid, col. 7, lines 34+]. Alternately, to treat the target torque value acquired based on the required electric power, Matsumoto et al [¶ 0017, 0094, 0113] may be applied. It would have been obvious to control the power generator so as to achieve a target torque value acquired based on the required electric power, as taught by Matsumoto et al, as using a target torque value allows controlling the electric generator output and allows for stable operation and/or prevents damage.
As for (9) wherein the control device determines whether the [first speed] electromagnetic pickup is normal or abnormal, and in a case where the control device determines that the electromagnetic pickup is normal, the control device uses, as the first rotational speed, a rotational speed indicated by a signal supplied from the electromagnetic pickup, when the Genevrier et al would teach when the first (9) wherein the control device determines whether the electromagnetic pickup 14 is normal or abnormal, and in a case where the control device determines that the electromagnetic pickup 14 is normal, the control device uses, as the first rotational speed, a rotational speed S1 indicated by a signal supplied from the electromagnetic pickup 14.
Claim(s) 4, 8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harms combination in view of Ether et al (7578185). In Harms, “estimates the first rotational speed” is done by the second speed sensor being of less precision than the “first electromagnetic pickup” for first speed or by the fact they are clutched together and may have slight differences in speed due to e.g. losses in the clutch. For an alternate approach to claim 4, Ether et al teach (4) wherein the one or more processors cause the control device to estimate the first rotational speed based on the signal supplied from the resolver [e.g. analog speed signal of resolver is lower resolution than the digital speed signal] in a case where an abnormality occurs in the other speed sensor. Note Ether et al teach that the different speeds [from analog and digital outputs] are compared periodically and in the event of a difference, one or the other signal, including the analog or digital signal may be used when a difference in speeds is detected between the two sensing methods [col 4, line 38-col. 5, line 2]. Accordingly, when combined with Genevrier et al, who teaches determining which of the sensors are faulty and using the correct measurement, i.e. the lower speed, when the faulty sensor reads too high [e.g. Fentaye et al] and it is noted that the first speed of Harms et al is an estimated value when using the second speed as the correct value. Harms combination teach the resolver but do not teach (8) wherein the signal supplied from the resolver is an analog signal, the analog signal supplied from the resolver is converted into a digital signal by an analog-digital conversion device, and the control device estimates the first rotational speed based on the second rotational speed indicated by the digital signal supplied from the analog-digital conversion device; (10) wherein the signal supplied from the resolver is an analog signal, the analog signal supplied from the resolver is converted into a digital signal by an analog-digital conversion device, and in a case where the control device determines that the electromagnetic pickup is normal, the control device estimates the first rotational speed, based on the second rotational speed indicated by the digital signal supplied from the analog- digital conversion device; (11) wherein the control device determines whether the analog-digital conversion device is normal or abnormal, and in a case where the control device determines that the analog-digital conversion device is abnormal, the control device estimates the first rotational speed, based on the second rotational speed indicated by the analog signal from the resolver. Ether et al teach (8) wherein the signal supplied from the resolver 8 is an analog signal, the analog signal 22, 24 supplied from the resolver is converted into a digital signal 32 by an analog-digital conversion device [RDC] 34, and the control device estimates the first rotational speed [estimation by the reduced precision of the resolver] based on the second rotational speed 12 indicated by the digital signal supplied from the analog-digital conversion device; (10) wherein the signal supplied from the resolver 12 is an analog signal 22, 24 , the analog signal supplied from the resolver 12 is converted into a digital signal by an analog-digital conversion device, and in a case where the control device determines that the electromagnetic pickup is normal, the control device 34 estimates the first rotational speed, based on the second rotational speed indicated by the digital signal 32 supplied from the analog- digital conversion device 34; (11) wherein the control device determines whether the analog-digital conversion 34 device is normal or abnormal, and in a case where the control device determines that the analog-digital conversion device 34 is abnormal, the control device estimates the first rotational speed, based on the second rotational speed indicated by the analog signal 34 from the resolver 12. Note Ether et al teach that the different speeds [from analog and digital outputs] are compared periodically and in the event of a difference, one or the other signal, including the analog or digital signal may be used when a difference in speeds is detected between the two sensing methods [col 4, line 38-col. 5, line 2]. Accordingly, when combined with Genevrier et al, who teaches determining which of the sensors are faulty and using the correct measurement, i.e. the lower speed, when the faulty sensor reads too high [e.g. Fentaye et al] and it is noted that the first speed of Harms et al is an estimated value when using the second speed as the correct value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ (8) wherein the signal supplied from the resolver is an analog signal, the analog signal supplied from the resolver is converted into a digital signal by an analog-digital conversion device, and the control device estimates the first rotational speed based on the second rotational speed indicated by the digital signal supplied from the analog-digital conversion device; (10) wherein the signal supplied from the resolver is an analog signal, the analog signal supplied from the resolver is converted into a digital signal by an analog-digital conversion device, and in a case where the control device determines that the electromagnetic pickup is normal, the control device estimates the first rotational speed, based on the second rotational speed indicated by the digital signal supplied from the analog- digital conversion device; (11) wherein the control device determines whether the analog-digital conversion device is normal or abnormal, and in a case where the control device determines that the analog-digital conversion device is abnormal, the control device estimates the first rotational speed, based on the second rotational speed indicated by the analog signal from the resolver, as taught by Ether et al, as typically done in the art with a resolver to determine the speed of the rotating shaft, where Harms already teach when the clutch is coupled, the first rotational speed and second rotational speed, knowledge of the second speed estimates the first speed and Ether may be used to teach the different speed signals are compared periodically and in the event of a difference, one or the other signal, including the analog or digital signal may be used when a difference in speeds is detected between the two sensing methods, and/or which provides redundancy and assurance of an accurate speed measurement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art do not teach the amended claim limitations, especially, selecting a lower one of the first and second rotational speeds. Genevrier is now applied specifically to teach the first speed S1 is measured by 14 and by 40 in control unit 32; second speed S2 is measured by 16 and by 42 in control unit 34. These two control unit are used to determine whether the speed sensed data from 14 and 16 agree or disagree and declared one of the sensors 14, 16 with respective control units faulty 32, 34 [col. 4, line 53-col. 5, line 14; col. 7, lines 5-43] and switch to the data from the correctly operating sensor. Applicant admits there is a situation where the speed sensor of either sensor fails by reading too high of a value [see ¶ 0066 of applicant’s spec.], then by Genevrier et al, the faulty sensed speed would read too high and the lower value used as the correct control speed. Compare also with Fentaye et al, which teaches Fig. 2, with the frozen and bias curves, that the faulty sensed data is too high compared with the actual data and that the sensor data includes shaft speeds [see Table 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select, as a target rotational speed of the gas turbine engine, a lower one of the first rotational speed and the second rotational speed and control the gas turbine engine and the power generator based on the selected target rotational speed, when the lower speed is determined to be the accurate or correct speed, as taught by Genevrier et al and Fentaye et al or by applicant’s admission that the failed sensor may fail by having too high of a speed reading.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TED KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-4829. The Examiner can be reached on regular business hours before 5:00 pm, Monday to Thursday and every other Friday.
The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devon Kramer, can be reached at 571-272-7118 Alternate inquiries to Technology Center 3700 can be made via 571-272-3700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions on Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). General inquiries can also be directed to the Inventors Assistance Center whose telephone number is 800-786-9199. Furthermore, a variety of online resources are available at https://www.uspto.gov/patent
/Ted Kim/
Telephone
571-272-4829
Primary Examiner
Fax
571-273-8300
June 9, 2026
1 Harms combination
Prosecution Insights