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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings depicting figures 3 – 5 were not submitted in black and white (i.e. drawings were filed in color or grayscale). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “step 3)” on p. 2 line 6 should apparently read “step 5)” as it is ambiguous with “step 3)” on p. 1 line 23. In addition, items 3.1 – 3.5 that follow in the claim should likely be items 5.1 – 5.5. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record De Bot, Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0213870 (“De Bot”) generally teaches estimating a wind speed that is subsequently used for controlling pitch, etc. on a wind turbine (cf. e.g. paragraphs 0110 – 0120).
However, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest specific limitations such as:
step 1) constructing a three-dimensional (3D) model of the turbine blade by using a 3D modeling software, and obtaining the position coordinate of an equivalent loading point of force applied to the blade via a 3D simulation analysis, and calculating a distance between the equivalent loading point and the rotor center;
step 2) transmitting the measured flow velocity signal, rotation speed signal, and pitch angle signal to the computer respectively via the incoming flow velocity measurement module, the generator rotation speed measurement module, and the pitch angle measurement module;
in addition to several other limitations as recited in claim 1, in combination with the remaining features and elements of the claimed invention.
The remaining claim contains allowable subject matter because it depends on allowable independent claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 2 are directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 1:
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Claim 1 recites: An online indirect measurement method for pitching and yawing moments of wind or tidal current turbine; claim 1 is directed to a process. Step 1: yes.
Per step 2A prong 1, “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Claim 1 further recites the following limitations:
calculating a distance between the equivalent loading point and the rotor center; (mathematical concept)
step 3) performing a filtering processing on the received flow velocity signal, rotation speed signal, and pitch angle signal via the computer to remove noise interferences; and (mental process, evaluation)
calculating the pitching moment and the yawing moment of the wind or tidal current turbine in real time according to the distance between the equivalent loading point and the rotor center obtained by the simulation in step 1), and according to filtered data of the flow velocity, generator rotation speed, and the pitch angle of each blade; (mathematical concept)
step 3) is specifically: 3.1) performing integration the generator rotation speed ω and adding it to the initial azimuth angle θi' of each blade to obtain the current blade azimuth angle θi of each blade, where i=1, 2~N, and N is the total number of the blades, and a specific formula is: where n is the gearbox ratio of the turbine, and t is the system operating time; (mathematical concept)
3.2) calculating the flow velocity vi of each blade at the equivalent point of force applied to the blade based on the flow shear formula, according to the flow velocity vs of the rotor center, the current azimuth angle θi of each blade, and the distance rc between the equivalent point and the rotor center, specifically: where vi is the flow velocity at the equivalent loading point, zh is a vertical distance of the equivalent loading point from a ground or a seabed level, zs is a vertical distance of the rotor center from the ground or the seabed level, vs is the flow velocity of the rotor center, and α is a shear coefficient; (mathematical concept)
3.3) calculating a blade tip speed ratio λ according to the generator rotation speed ω and the flow velocity vs of the rotor center, and a specific formula is: where R is a distance between a blade tip and the rotor center; (mathematical concept)
calculating a rotor thrust coefficient CT via a blade element-momentum theory according to the blade tip speed ratio λ and a pitch angle βi of each blade measured by the pitch angle measurement module; and (mathematical concept)
calculating a rotor thrust T according to the rotor thrust coefficient CT and the flow velocity vs of the rotor center, and a specific calculation formula is: wherein in the formula, ρ is an air density or a seawater density, and s is a rotor sweep area; (mathematical concept)
3.4) calculating a non-axial moment Myi of each blade, and a specific calculation formula is: 3.5) decomposing the non-axial moments Myi of all blades along a pitch direction and a yaw direction and summing them separately to obtain a pitching moment Mtilt and a yawing moment Myaw of the rotor, and a specific calculation formula is: Mtilt=∑i=1NMyisinθiMyaw=∑i=1NMyicosθi. (mathematical concept)
Thus, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A: prong 1: yes.
Per step 2A prong 2, “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”, the following elements of claim 1 are directed to additional elements:
wherein the online indirect measurement method adopts an online indirect measurement system for the pitching and yawing moments of the wind or tidal current turbine, the system comprises an incoming flow velocity measurement module, a generator rotation speed measurement module, a pitch angle measurement module, and a computer; the incoming flow velocity measurement module is used to measure a flow velocity at a center of the turbine rotor, the generator rotation speed measurement module is used to measure a rotation speed of the turbine generator, and the pitch angle measurement module is used to measure a pitch angle of each blade of the rotor, and the incoming flow velocity measurement module, the generator rotation speed measurement module, and the pitch angle measurement module all implement a serial communication connection with the computer via communication cables to respectively transmit signals of the flow velocity, the rotation speed, and the pitch angle to the computer, (Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP §2106.05(f) The Examiner notes that an “online indirect measurement system” implies that the various system components are implemented in software on an otherwise generic computer).
wherein the method comprises the following steps: step 1) constructing a three-dimensional (3D) model of the turbine blade by using a 3D modeling software, and obtaining the position coordinate of an equivalent loading point of force applied to the blade via a 3D simulation analysis, and (Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer using generic “3D modeling software”, see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
step 2) transmitting the measured flow velocity signal, rotation speed signal, and pitch angle signal to the computer respectively via the incoming flow velocity measurement module, the generator rotation speed measurement module, and the pitch angle measurement module; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering or output, see MPEP §2106.05(g)).
step 4) displaying the data of flow velocity, the generator rotation speed, and the pitch angle of each blade measured in step 2), and the calculated pitching moment and yawing moment in step 3) in real time via a monitoring interface and storing all of the above via the computer; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering or output, see MPEP §2106.05(g)).
Step 2A prong 2: no.
Per step 2B, “Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the claimed inventions simply append well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry (see analysis under prong 2), both when viewed independently and as an ordered combination, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, (e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry). Step 2B: no.
Regarding claim 2:
Per step 2A prong 1, “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Claim 2 “ in step 3.1), a two-dimensional coordinate system with a turbine hub as an origin is constructed, wherein an x-axis and a y-axis are both located on a rotor rotation plane, the x-axis represents a horizontal axis on the rotor rotation plane, and the y-axis is a vertical axis on the rotor rotation plane; a blade azimuth angle refers to the rotation angle of the blade relative to the x-axis” further modifies the abstract idea “step 3.1” noted in claim 1 as a mathematical concept. Thus claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A: prong 1: yes.
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 1 and 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recite(s) the limitation “a specific formula is” in p. 2 line 9 and in p. 2 line 22. Thus it is unclear which formula indicated in the claim is the specific formula. In similar fashion, “a specific calculation formula” in p. 3 line 4 and p. 3 line 12 is ambiguous.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J. HUNTLEY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4307 and email address is michael.huntley@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm MT.
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 director, David Wiley, can be reached at (571) 272-4150. 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.
/MICHAEL J HUNTLEY/
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2129
Prosecution Insights