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 Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 3 refer to “that material”; for consistency, the examiner recommends replacing “that material” with “the insulating material”.
Claim 11 refers to “the measured climate parameters”. This may introduce confusion, since the “one or more climate parameters” have been referred to as simply “the climate parameters” in other claims. Applicant should drop “measured” from the above for consistency.
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 3, 5-10, and 12-15 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.
Claim 3 refers to “a climate parameter”; it is unclear whether this is meant to refer to one of the one or more climate parameters recited in claim 1, or whether this may refer to another climate parameter not previously referenced. While the reference characters
(
ϕ
t
,
T
a
i
r
,
T
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
may imply that the above is meant to refer to the set of climate parameters defined in claim 1, use of reference characters does not generally affect the scope of the claim (MPEP § 608.01(m): “Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.”). The examiner recommends replacing “a climate parameter” with “one of the one or more climate parameters” to avoid confusion and will interpret claim 3 this way for examination purposes.
Claim 5 refers to initiating “a dry-out procedure”; is this meant to be the same dry-out procedure as recited in claim 1, or to some different procedure? For examination purposes, it will be assumed that the above should be replaced with “the dry-out procedure”.
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 but seems to be written to depend from claim 5. Does Applicant intend claim 6 to depend from claim 5? The examiner will assume claim 6 depends from claim 5 for examination purposes.
Claim 7 recites a data-logging means to record “climate parameters”. This is confusing; must these climate parameters come from the set of “one or more climate parameters” from claim 1? If so, does the data-logging means record all of the climate parameters, or only a subset? For examination purposes it will be assumed that the data-logging means records “the one or more climate parameters”.
Claim 7 also refers to “the electrical machine”. Again, while the reference characters imply that this is the same element as the “electrical component” recited in claim 1, the examiner believes that the reference characters should not be relied on to draw that conclusion. For examination purposes, the examiner will replace any reference to the “electrical component” with “electrical machine” for consistency.
Claim 8 depends from claim 7, therefore it inherits the issues of claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 9 refers to a “subsequent mode of operation”, however no precedent mode of operation was previously referred to. For examination purposes, the word “subsequent” will be dropped.
Claim 10 refers to “a dry-out procedure”, which is confusing for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 5 and will be interpreted the same way for examination purposes.
Claim 12 refers to “a wind turbine”, “an electrical machine”, “a quantity of insulating material”, “one or more climate parameters”, “an interior”, and “a dry-out procedure”, all of which are recited in claim 1, therefore it is unclear whether these are meant to refer to the same elements, respectively, or to different elements. Claim 12 seems to be written as though it were an independent claim; for example, claim 1 recites a method, while claim 12 recites a machine which performs a method. The examiner recommends that Applicant rewrite claim 12 as an independent claim, for example in the following way (omitting reference characters):
A wind turbine comprising:
an electrical machine in which a quantity of insulating material is deployed; and
a monitoring arrangement comprising:
a sensor arrangement configured to measure one or more climate parameters in an interior of the wind turbine;
a data analysis model configured to estimate the electrical resistance of the insulating material on the basis of the climate parameters measured by the sensor arrangement; and
a dry-out evaluation module configured to evaluate the need for a dry-out procedure on the basis of the estimated resistance.
This will be the interpretation used for examination purposes.
Claim 13 refers to “the generator” which has no antecedent basis; for examination purposes “a generator” will be assumed.
Claim 14 depends from claim 12, therefore it inherits the issues of claim 12 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 refers to “a wind turbine” which is confusing because it is unclear whether this is intended to refer to the same wind turbine recited in claim 1. See also 112(d) and 101 rejections below. For examination purposes, it will be assumed that claim 15 should be written as (omitting reference characters):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program that is directly loadable into a memory of a monitoring arrangement of the wind turbine, wherein the computer program comprises program elements which, when executed by the monitoring arrangement, performs the method of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “performing steps of the method according to claim 1” when a program is executed. This is problematic because one could infringe claim 15 without infringing claim 1, therefore claim 15 does not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Note
In what follows, the examiner will omit reference characters from the claim language, since they do not affect the scope of the claims (MPEP § 608.01(m)).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, claims 1-14 are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 is rejected in response to the following analysis:
At Step 2A Prong One, the judicial exceptions are bolded in the copy of claim 1 below:
A method of controlling a wind turbine, which method comprises steps of
measuring one or more climate parameters in an interior of the wind turbine;
estimating, on the basis of the climate parameters, the electrical resistance of an insulating material deployed in an electrical machine of the wind turbine;
evaluating the need for a dry-out procedure on the basis of the estimated resistance.
Estimating an electrical resistance from data encompasses a mathematical process while evaluating the need for a dry-out procedure based on an estimated resistance encompasses the mental process of making a judgment.
At Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements include measuring climate parameters in the interior of a wind turbine, where the wind turbine has an electrical machine in which is insulating material. The measuring of climate parameters is recited generally and is necessary for any application of the judicial exception, therefore this represents necessary data-gathering. A wind turbine with an electrical machine with insulating material is understood to describe a general electricity-generating wind turbine, which seems to serve mainly to establish a field of use.
When considered as a whole, claim 1 recites measuring climate parameters in a wind turbine, using this to estimate the electrical resistance of an insulating material in an electrical machine in the turbine, and evaluating a need for a dry-out procedure based on the estimated resistance. The parameters measured are left general, the way they are used to estimate electrical resistance is not described, the object of estimation (insulating material in an electrical machine) could encompass a number of components, and no result or action taken from a result of the evaluation is given. For these reasons, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions for the reasons given above.
Claims 2-3 provide further detail about the estimation, however these are further judicial exceptions and do not address the other issues in the rejection of claim 1, therefore these claims are also rejected.
Claim 4 recites that a progression of the resistance is evaluated, which effectively encompasses repeating some of the steps of claim 1 over time. This does not address the issues addressed in the rejection of claim 1, therefore claim 4 is rejected.
Claim 5 recites that the dry-out procedure is initiated when the resistance does not exceed a threshold. While this indicates a result and action taken from the evaluation in claim 1, the other issues raised in the rejection of claim 1 remain, therefore claim 5 is also rejected.
Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 7 recites recording the parameters via data-logging means, recording an initial electrical resistance, and that the steps are performed after the electrical machine is assembled. These limitations do not address the issues in the rejection of claim 1. Recording over time is a conventional form of data-gathering, and if electrical resistance is to be estimated over time, the first value may be termed an initial electrical resistance. Finally, that the steps are performed after the electrical machine is assembled seems to already be implied by claim 1 because the electrical machine is in the wind turbine. Claim 7 is therefore also rejected.
Claim 8 recites clearing a dry-out flag; this is encompassed by generally clearing a variable and does not address the issues in the rejection of claim 1, therefore claim 8 is also rejected.
Claim 9 recites that the climate parameters are evaluated during any mode of operation; this does not address the issues in claim 1,therefore claim 9 is also rejected.
Claim 10 recites that the dry-out procedure is performed during an on-grid mode of operation. This does not necessarily recite an action taken, since this can be interpreted as modifying the manner of dry-out procedure to be performed, though not positively reciting a result of the evaluation. Nevertheless, this does not address the other issues given in the rejection of claim 1, therefore claim 10 is also rejected.
Claim 11 limits the climate parameters to relative humidity, air temperature, or surface temperature. While this addresses one of the issues given in the rejection of claim 1, the other issues remain, therefore claim 11 is rejected.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, noting that the sensor arrangement and data analysis and dry-out evaluation modules encompass any form of sensors and generic computing components.
Claim 13 limits the electrical machine to a generator and the insulating material to material deployed about the generator windings; however, the other issues outlined in the rejection of claim 1 remain, therefore claim 13 is also rejected.
Claim 14 is also rejected; see rejection of claim 7 for discussion regarding a data-logging means.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, noting that the other elements encompass applying the method of claim 1 using a general-purpose computer. Note further that claim 15 is not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (see below).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to software per se (see MPEP § 2106.03(I)). To address this issue, the examiner recommends rewriting claim 1 to recite “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a computer program product” as shown in the suggested rewrite of claim 15 above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (KR 101724895) in view of Kraus (US 4532568 A).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a method of controlling a wind turbine (¶1: "The present invention relates to a direct drive permanent magnet wind power generator system and its sealing synergy dry control method, and belongs to the field of wind power generation technology."), which method comprises steps of
measuring one or more climate parameters in an interior of the wind turbine (¶22: "An embodiment of the present invention…is performed near the insulation of the groove of the wind power generator and/or detecting the humidity of the core lamination gap position or detecting the insulation resistance value of the wind generator winding;");
determining the electrical resistance of an insulating material (¶22: insulation on windings, see above quote) deployed in an electrical machine (¶22: generator, see above quote) of the wind turbine; and
evaluating the need for a dry-out procedure on the basis of the resistance (¶23: "If the humidity exceeds a preset humidity threshold or the insulation resistance value is less than the insulation resistance standard value…[the invention turns] on the power transmission switch and [operates] the air system").
Ma does not explicitly disclose estimating, on the basis of the climate parameters, the electrical resistance; or that evaluating the need for a dry-out procedure is on the basis of the estimated resistance.
Kraus teaches that resistance is a function of moisture content for many types of insulators, and that too high moisture may cause a breakdown (Column 1, line 53 – Column 2, line 8: "It is found that any small leakage developed in any phase of a system as, for example, in the winding of a motor, tends to become greater as time progresses, eventually producing a condition in which there may be a complete breakdown of insulation. The resistance of many types of insulators is a function of the moisture content, the resistance being decreased as the moisture content is increased… as the moisture content increases, the current also increases… the insulation may break down completely, producing very high short-circuit currents"). Furthermore, Ma teaches that only the humidity sensor may be present (¶118: “the humidity sensor and the insulation resistance value measuring device may exist at the same time, or only one of them may be installed”). In such a case, estimating resistance from humidity would enable one to determine how much current leaks between windings and evaluate danger of short-circuiting.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kraus with the invention of Ma by estimating, on the basis of the climate parameters, the electrical resistance; and evaluating the need for a dry-out procedure on the basis of the estimated resistance. Doing so would enable one to determine how much current may be leaking through the insulator and how close it is to short-circuiting.
Regarding claim 2, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2. However, noting that Ma applies its drying system only if humidity passes a threshold (see ¶23 of Ma and rejection of claim 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Ma in view of Kraus to cause the step of estimating the electrical resistance of the insulating material to be based on a predetermined humidity threshold value for the insulating material. Doing so would avoid making unnecessary calculations when the humidity is not considered high enough to cause issues.
Regarding claim 3, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the electrical resistance of the insulating material is estimated on the basis of a previously established relationship between one of the one or more climate parameters and electrical resistance of the insulating material (see rejection of claim 1; the estimation is based on a relationship between humidity and resistance).
Regarding claim 5, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the method comprises a step of initiating the dry-out procedure when the estimated electrical resistance of the insulating material no longer exceeds a minimum threshold value (See ¶23 of Ma in the rejection of claim 1; when the resistance is below a standard, the air system is operated.).
Regarding claim 6, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 5 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6. However, it would have been obvious to cause the method to comprise a step of concluding the dry-out procedure when the estimated electrical resistance of the insulating material is at least as great as the minimum threshold value. Doing so would prevent wasted power use when the resistance is safe for operations.
Regarding claim 9, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the climate parameters are evaluated during any mode of operation of the wind turbine (see rejection claim 1; the parameters are evaluated, and the invention measures parameters in a wind turbine, so the parameters are evaluated during some operational mode of the wind turbine).
Regarding claim 10, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the dry-out procedure is performed during an on-grid mode of operation (Ma, ¶23: the air system operates on power, so the dry-out is performed during an “on-grid” mode of operation).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are rejected, mutatis mutandis, for the same reasons as given in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 12 and further teaches that the electrical machine is a generator of the wind turbine, and the insulating material is deployed about the generator windings (see rejection of claim 1 and ¶23 of Ma).
Regarding claim 15, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 15. Claim 15’s limitations are encompassed by including a non-transitory storage containing a program which causes a computer to implement the method of claim 1. It would have been obvious to add this in order to instruct a computer to autonomously perform the method of claim 1.
Claims 4, 7-8, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (KR 101724895) in view of Kraus (US 4532568 A), and further in view of Lund (US 20170298908).
Regarding claim 4, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 4.
Lund teaches monitoring the humidity in a wind turbine over time to determine the length of a dry-out period (Abstract: "A method to determine a dry-out period of a converter of a wind turbine is provided. A time dependent chronology of data is measured in the converter. The measured data-chronology reflects the actual humidity and the humidity-history in the converter cabinet. The measured data-chronology is used to determine a dry-out period of time, which is needed to reduce the humidity inside the converter below a given value .").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lund with the invention of Ma in view of Kraus by causing the method to comprise a step of evaluating the progression of the estimated electrical resistance to detect an increase or decrease in electrical resistance. Doing so would be useful to monitor and save how conditions change over time. This would be useful for many purposes: to see if the procedures are effective, for troubleshooting, for data analysis and cross-comparison with other wind turbines, for record-keeping, etc.
Regarding claim 7, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7.
Lund teaches monitoring the humidity in a wind turbine over time to determine the length of a dry-out period (see rejection of claim 4). Lund also teaches using a data logger (¶22: “a data logger is used to store the data-chronology”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lund with the invention of Ma in view of Kraus by causing the method to comprise initial steps of activating a data-logging means adapted to record the one or more climate parameters; and recording an initial value of electrical resistance of the insulating material deployed in the electrical machine. Use of the data-logging means would have been useful for the same reasons given in the rejection of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4), and one may simply define the first electrical resistance value logged by the data-logger as the initial value.
Moreover, while Ma in view of Kraus and Lund do not explicitly teach that the initial steps are performed upon completion of assembly of the electrical machine, it would have been obvious to do so, because before assembly there is no turbine to monitor.
Regarding claim 8, Ma in view of Kraus and Lund teaches the limitations of claim 7 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8. However, noting that the broadest reasonable interpretation of clearing a dry-out flag is clearing a variable somehow related to the entire dry-out process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art practicing the invention of Ma in view of Kraus and Lund to implement a further initial step of clearing a dry-out flag. Applying the methods herein described using software would automate processes, and clearing flags (herein understood as being interchangeable with the term “variable”) is a basic and foundational operation in computer programming.
Regarding claim 11, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the climate parameters comprise relative humidity (Ma, note discussion of relative humidity in ¶40, ¶50, ¶55, and ¶105, implying that the humidity detected is relative humidity.). Ma in view of Kraus does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
Lund teaches monitoring the humidity in a wind turbine over time to determine the length of a dry-out period (see rejection of claim 4). Lund also teaches that temperature may be measured (¶20: "In a preferred configuration at least humidity-data are measured to form part of the data-chronology, while even temperature-data might be measured to form an additional part of the data-chronology.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lund with the invention of Ma in view of Kraus by causing the climate parameters to comprise air temperature and/or surface temperature. The relative humidity, in concert with the temperature difference between the air and a surface, determines whether or not water will condensate on the surface. Knowing whether condensation is present would be useful for maintaining proper dryness of the insulator.
Regarding claim 14, Ma in view of Kraus teaches the limitations of claim 12 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 14. However, it would have been obvious to cause the wind turbine to comprise a data-logging means adapted to record the climate parameters measured by the sensor arrangement for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 7. Additionally, it would have been obvious to adapt the data-logging means to evaluate the climate parameters in order to determine the estimated resistance values recited in claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
