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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior drawing objections, 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome some prior drawing objections and some prior 112(b) rejections.
Regarding the prior specification objections, claim objections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior objections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 1 of page 14 through paragraph 5 of page 15 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to prior art. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
Regarding the argument that “The Examiner's assertion that improving power generation "equates to generator load" mischaracterizes the claimed subject matter, which specifically recites improving load conditions of wind turbine components, not generator electrical load” is not persuasive because a wind turbine’s generator is a component of a wind turbine.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference characters 5 and 22 (e.g., middle of amended paragraph 0089, at least) are both used to designate the pitch angle, illustrated in at least Figs 1, 2, 3. The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character. Are these different types of pitch angles? If so, they must be referred to by unique terms and unique reference characters and explained as such. Are these the same one pitch angle? If so, they must be referred to consistently. This causes confusion.
Reference character 22 is used, in Figures 1-3, to designate both “the pitch angle” (e.g. amended paragraph 0089, at least) and “the current pitch angle” (e.g. para 0085, at least).
For each of the drawing objections above, 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. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/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 1 (line 8) recites the limitation “an offset variation” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same offset variation previously identified in line 7 by the term “pitch offset is varied” or a different offset variation.
Claim 1 (line 12) recites the limitation “the respective pitch offset” [limit] which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 (line 18) recites the limitation “a variation of the pitch angle” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same variation of the pitch angle previously identified in line 4 by the term “vary the pitch angle” or a different variation of the pitch angle.
Claim 1 (line 22) recites the limitation “the respective measure for the variation of the output power of the generator” which renders the claim indefinite because the use of “respective” here causes confusion as the claim has only identified a single measure for the variation of the output power of the generator.
Claim 1 (line 16) recites the limitation “the calibration information” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 (line 26) recites the limitation “separate calibration information” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the same (or one of the same, or a set of the same) calibration information previously identified in claim 1, or a completely different one of or set of calibration information.
Claim 1 (line 26) recites the limitation “the current operating conditions” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. Note also that that the claim has previously identified only a single operating condition.
Claim 1 (line 28) recites the limitation “the given pitch angle” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 2 (line 2) recites the limitation “the operating conditions” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the multiple operating conditions previously identified in claim 1or the current operating conditions or something else.
Claim 2 (line 3) recites the limitation “the operating conditions” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the multiple operating conditions previously identified in claim 1 or the subset of operating conditions previously identified in claim 2, or something else.
Claim 2 (line 6) recites the “the further operational parameter” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 (line 6) recites the limitation “the measurements” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references a plurality of the measure for a variation of an output power of the generator previously identified in claim 1, or the measurements concerning the output power of the generator previously identified in claim 4, or something else.
Claim 5 (line 4) recites the limitation “the pitch offset” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which previously identified pitch offset this references.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “at least one further of the operational parameter” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this references the same at least one further of the operational parameter previously identified in claim 1, or a different at least one further of the operational parameter.
Claim 8 (line 3) recites the limitation “a given pitch angle” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether this references the same given pitch angle previously identified in claim 1, or a different given pitch angle.
Claim 8 (line 1) recites the limitation “the further operational parameter or a respective further operational parameter” which renders the claim indefinite because, in the case where claim 1 does not require a further operational parameter (via the “and/or” term), the first underlined term lacks proper antecedent basis and it is unclear what the second underlined term is respective to.
Claim 9 (line 2) recites the limitation “the pitch offset” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which previously identified pitch offset this references.
Claim 9 (line 10, also line 11) recites the limitation “the first measurements” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 9 (line 10, also line 11) recites the limitation “the second measurements” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 10 (line 3) recites the limitation “acquired measurements” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this references the measurements which are acquired/taken previously in the claims (claim 9) or some other set of measurements.
Claim 10 (line 3) recites the limitation “a number of acquired measurements or on a number of the measurements” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the two underlined terms are different elements or not. It is noted that all previous first measurements and second measurements have been acquired by some sort of measurement process.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the actuator is used to repeat the variation of the pitch angle due to the repetitions of the offset variation” which renders the claim indefinite because the claims have not previously identified that the actuator performs the variation of the pitch angle due to the repetitions of the offset variation. Applicant is request to clearly distinguish between, for example, “the actuator is used to repeat the variation of the pitch angle” and “the actuator is used to repeat the variation of the pitch angle due to the repetitions of the offset variation” as it appears the latter is different from the former.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “at least one wind turbine” (line 1) and then subsequently “the respective wind turbine” (line 2) and then subsequently “the wind turbine” (multiple locations) which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the various inconsistent terms each refer to the same element or not. If the former, then it is suggested that the instances have consistency.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a measure for a variation of an output power of the generator” (line 14) and then subsequently “the measure” (line 17) and then subsequently “the measure for the variation of the output power of the generator” (line 17-18) which renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if the various inconsistent terms each refer to the same element or not. If the former, then it is suggested that the instances have consistency.
Claim 14 (line 20) recites the limitation “the separate calibration information” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 (line 22) recites the limitation “the current operating condition” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite.
Claim(s) 2-14 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 2175129 A1 (Egedal).
Regarding claim 1, Egedal discloses:
A method for operating a wind turbine, the wind turbine including
a rotor (110; Fig 1) with multiple rotor blades (114; Fig 1),
at least one actuator (116; Fig 1) for adjusting a pitch angle of at least one of the rotor blades,
and a generator (128; Fig 1) driven by the rotor,
wherein in at least one mode of operation of the wind turbine,
the actuator is used to vary the pitch angle to improve a load condition of at least one component of the wind turbine (the disclosure is entirely directed towards, e.g. para 0046-0047, improving the power generated by the turbine, which equates to generator load, resulting from changing blade pitch angle), by adding a pitch offset to the pitch angle, wherein the pitch offset is varied within a given offset interval of up to 2° by performing repetitions of an offset variation (para 0048) (Fig 2 shows a series of steps, wherein a single repetition may be, for example, 120 seconds), the method comprising;
increasing the pitch offset to a first pitch offset limit (upper limit of graph in bottom of Fig 2) within the offset interval;
and subsequently decreasing the pitch offset to a second pitch offset angle limit (lower limit of graph in bottom of Fig 2) within the offset interval;
wherein the respective pitch offset limit is either constant or varies between at least some of the repetitions of the offset variation (Fig 2 shows this),
wherein the pitch angle depends on a calibration information (para 0046-0047: “quality of the initial value”; “optimal pitch reference” in for example para 0064),
wherein the pitch offset variation:
(i) improves the load condition of the at least one component during normal power production operation (the disclosure is entirely directed towards, e.g. para 0046-0047, improving the power generated by the turbine, and this is performed during normal operation)
and (ii) enables determination of the calibration information (para 0046, for example, identifies that the “quality of the initial value” is determined via changing the blade pitch angle),
wherein a measure for a variation of an output power of the generator due to a variation of the pitch angle is determined (the disclosure is entirely directed towards, e.g. para 0046-0047, improving the power generated by the turbine resulting from changing blade pitch angle; para 0050-0051) based on a statistical analysis of measurements concerning the output power of the generator taken during at least 10 of the repetitions of the offset variation,
(The claim scope is directed towards: analyzing power by measuring 10 or more reptations of the blade pitch.
The prior art discloses: measuring an initial power captured by a wind turbine, changing the blade pitch angle, measuring a first power captured by the wind turbine, changing the blade pitch angle, measuring a second power captured by the wind turbine, calculating a power difference between the first power and the second power, and performing calculations (abstract) (Fig 2) to determine an optimized value for the blade pitch angle (para 0012). This includes performing calculations (e.g. para 0027-0028: “the differential power between two measured power values is calculated”) constantly (more than 10 repetitions) in a manner that is analogous to Applicant’s manner (e.g., see the similarity between prior art Fig 2 and Applicant’s Fig 3).
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim. Specifically, constantly updating/measuring is consistent with measuring for more than 10 reptations.)
wherein the calibration information is determined or updated based on the measure (para 0046-0047: “the quality of the initial value based on the calculated power difference”),
wherein the respective measure for the variation of the output power of the generator is determined for multiple operating conditions (an operating condition may be simply whether the turbine is powered on, or may be a particular pitch of a blade),
wherein a current operating condition is determined based on an operational parameter and/or on at least one further operational parameter of the wind turbine (the operational parameter may be simply whether the turbine is receiving or producing any amount of power),
wherein separate calibration information is determined for each of the current operating conditions,
and wherein the given pitch angle depends on the calibration information for the current operating condition.
(The claim scope covers updating information across operating conditions, which may be on and off operating conditions.
The prior art discloses constantly updating information during operation; thus, it reads on having separate calibration information, even for the off operating condition, even if that information is merely null. Also, the prior art is directed towards: constantly collecting and updating quality information (e.g., para 0046: “In order to determine the quality of the initial value for the blade pitch angle the control system 130 comprises (a) a data acquisition unit 131 for receiving a measured value of a initial power captured by the wind turbine 100, while the blade pitch angle has the initial value”, wherein it is clear that a new value of initial power is received every time the blade is at a new initial value of blade pitch angle) and using that to inform/influence the blade pitch (e.g. “determining an optimized value for the blade pitch angle based on the initial value and on the calculated power difference” (para 0047) wherein that process comprises determining the quality of the initial value (para 0046)).
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim. Specifically, constantly updating calibration information and having the pitch angle depend on that.)
Regarding claim 2,
The claim scope is directed to that the operating condition sets a respective parameter interval of the operational parameter.
The prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim. Specifically, the prior art discloses using a parameter interval (e.g., some interval of power or electricity) during the operating condition (the wind turbine is powered on).
Regarding claim 3,
The claim scope is directed to that power data is retained after a different operating condition, and after a return to the first operating condition, additional power data is used to determine the power measurement.
Egedal is discloses: (see Fig 2) The pitch angle is a first value, wherein power measurements are made to inform a second pitch angle, then the pitch angle is a second value, wherein power measurements are made to influence a subsequent pitch angle. Each subsequent pitch angle is a product of all the previous pitch angles. The prior art also discloses calculating a power difference (e.g., abstract) and performing calculations (e.g. para 0027-0028) at all times that the wind turbine is powered on (which, as discussed above, the wind turbine powered on may be an operating condition), thus it is disclosed that such calculations are constantly updated (retained and resumed) for any instant or all instants of the “on” operating condition.
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 4,
The claim scope is directed to that the offset interval is limited to a value, the statistical analysis is for 20 or more repetitions.
Egedal is directed towards: (see Fig 2) the pitch offset is limited to some angle, which can be a fraction of a degree, this includes performing calculations constantly (more than 20 repetitions) in a manner that is analogous to Applicant’s manner (e.g., see the similarity between prior art Fig 2 and Applicant’s Fig 3).
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 5,
The claim scope is directed to that the pitch angle depends on at least one operational parameter or the pitch offset is varied in each repetition according to a pattern.
Egedal is directed towards: The pitch angle is dependent on, for example, whether the turbine is powered on, or whether wind is blowing forcefully or from a certain direction or not. Fig 2 shows a pattern which is fixed (even if each repetition reaches a difference value, the pattern is fixed and repeated from iteration to iteration).
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 6,
The claim scope is directed to that the operational parameter is an average of the output power of the generator, a wind speed, a tip-speed ratio, and/or a torque of the rotor shaft.
Egedal is directed towards: The pitch angle is dependent on power data that is measured. Inherently, all data measurement has on some level averaging because no measuring device can measure an infinitesimally small increment.
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 7,
The claim scope is directed to that the power measure is performed repeatedly or in fixed intervals; the calibration information is performed repeatedly or in fixed intervals; a calibration condition that depends on the operational parameter and/or on at least one further operational parameter of the wind turbine is met.
Egedal is directed towards: (See Fig 2) the power measure is performed at each interval repeatedly; similarly, the “the quality of the initial value based on the calculated power difference” is evaluated at each interval repeatedly; “the quality of the initial value based on the calculated power difference” (discussed in para 0046) is an example of a calibration condition which is required to meet some acceptable value.
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 9,
The claim scope is directed to that: the pitch offset is held at the pitch limits for respective time intervals; the measure of power variation is based on measurements of power taken at the first interval and the second time interval; there is an averaging performed of the various measurements, taken within a given measurement interval comprising multiple repetitions of the offset variation.
Egedal is directed towards: (See Fig 2) the pitch offsets are held at upper and lower limits for respective time intervals; the power generated by the turbine relies on the process shown in Fig 2 wherein measurements are constantly taken at the various intervals shown as steps in Fig 2; there is an averaging performed of the various measurements (e.g., see claim 8) taken within a given measurement interval comprising multiple repetitions of the offset variation (this averaging is performed within an interval shown in Fig 2 which can span multiple repetitions).
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 10,
The claim scope is directed to that the measurement interval ends once an ending condition is fulfilled; that condition can be a number of acquired first and/or second measurements.
The prior art is directed towards: (see Fig 2) the measurement interval as shown can be assumed to end after a certain number of iterations in Fig 2.
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 13,
The claim scope is directed to that the actuator varies the pitch angel continuously during the mode of operation.
The prior art is directed towards that actuator constantly pitches the blade while the turbine is powered on or while the blade is within a particular pitch position (see constant pitching in Fig 2).
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 14,
Claim 14 is a method claim reciting substantially the same limitations as the product claim 1, thus is similarly rejected over the prior art.
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) 8, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egedal in view of US 20130121825 A1 (Miranda).
Regarding claim 8,
The claim scope is directed to that an operational parameter is the pitch angle; power from the turbine is fed to a power grid.
Egedal is directed towards: pitch angle can be the operational parameter (see mapping in claim 1).
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Egedal may not explicitly disclose: power from the turbine is fed to a power grid.
However, Miranda, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
In para 0034 that the wind turbine is connected to an electrical grid.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Egedal to include Miranda’s teachings as described above, having the wind turbine is connected to an electrical grid, in order to utilize the power created by the wind turbine within a grid of residence, commerce, or industry.
Regarding claim 11,
The claim scope is directed to that a time interval extends over multiple revolutions of the rotor.
The prior art is directed towards: a time interval inherently exists, wherein this inherent time interval may be chosen to extend over multiple revolutions of the rotor.
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Regarding claim 12,
The claim scope is directed to that a time interval extends over an integer number of full revolutions of the rotor.
The prior art is directed towards: a time interval inherently exists, wherein this inherent time interval may be chosen to extend over an integer number of full revolutions of the rotor.
Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim, as currently written, in so far as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe can be reached at 571-272-8648. 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745