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 § 112
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 9 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.
As filed, claim 9 recites “said power electronic component is coupled to one of said first component and said second component” in lines 2-3 of the claim. This is inherent to the limitations of parent claim 3; there, Applicant recites “at least one of said first…and said second electrical device includes a power electronic component….” If the power electronic component is included in one of the first and second electrical devices, it must be coupled to said first and/or second electrical device. Furthermore, claim 1 establishes that the first and second electrical devices are coupled to the first and second components, respectively. Thus, if the power electronic is coupled to the first or second electric device and the first and second electric devices are coupled to the first and second component, the power electronic component is inherently coupled to the first or second component, at least via indirect connection through the first or second electric device.
Claim 9 also recites “said filter element is coupled to the one of said first component and said second component that is coupled to said power electronic component.” As with limitation discussed above, this limitation is also inherent to the limitations of parent claim 3. The filter element is, per claim 1, “coupled to said electrical connection….” The electrical connection extends between the first and second electrical devices. As established above, the first and second electrical devices are coupled to the first and second components. Thus, the filter, being connected to the first and second components, is inherently and indirectly coupled to both the first and second components.
Thus, claim 9 fails to recite any elements that further limit parent claim 3, making claim 9 an improperly dependent claim.
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.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0270833 (“Miyamoto”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,700,357 (“Taniguchi”) and common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Miyamoto discloses:
A system for a wind turbine, the system comprising:
a first component (FIG 3, rotor hub 130a) and a second component (FIG 2, nacelle 120), wherein said first component and said second component are arranged rotatable relative to each other (inherent) via a bearing (FIG 2:11);
a first electrical device (FIG 3, pitch drive unit 31) coupled to said first component (as shown in FIG 3);
a second electrical device (power feed unit, 60) coupled to said second component (as shown in FIG 2);
an electrical connection (power feed cable 81; signal wire 82) between said first electrical device and said second electrical device.
Miyamoto does not explicitly disclose a filter element coupled to said electrical connection and configured to at least partially attenuate high-frequency electrical signals in said electrical connection.
It is well-known in the art that operation of AC inverters and/or AC frequency inverters (such as the AC drive of Miyamoto) may generate undesirable, high-frequency noise on the networks they are connected to. Such noise may produce undesirable effects on communication and power signals carried by the network and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would seek to mitigate the effects of such high-frequency noise.
Furthermore, Taniguchi teaches that filtering elements comprised of ferrite are “conventionally known” to reduce noise and that such filters “constitute a lower-pass filter” which “shut off or reduce high frequency electromagnetic wave noises” (col. 1, ll. 41-47).
In view of the foregoing, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Miyamoto to further include a ferrite-based filtering element coupled to the electrical connection element, the filtering element configured to at least partially attenuate high-frequency noise signals that may or will be produced during operation of the AC driver of the pitch drive unit in Miyamoto for the purposes of reducing or removing high-frequency noise that might otherwise produce undesired outcomes on the wind turbine communications and/or power networks.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Miyamoto, Taniguchi, and common knowledge (“the first combination”) discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Miyamoto further discloses the first component being a rotor hub (see the rejection of claim 1, above) for the wind turbine and said second component is a nacelle (see the rejection of claim 1, above) for the wind turbine; and, said electrical connection is fed through a feed-through of a drivetrain of the wind turbine (FIGS 3-6; para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses at least one of said first electrical device and said second electrical device including a power electronic component (Miyamoto; see, e.g., AC driver 31c of pitch drive unit 31); and, said high-frequency electrical signals in said electrical connection result from an operation of said power electronic component (common knowledge; as discussed above, it is well-known that the operation of AC inverters and/or AC frequency converters, such as the AC driver of Miyamoto, may produce undesirable, high-frequency noise).
Regarding claim 4, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses at least one of said first electrical device and said second electrical device including a power electronic component (Miyamoto; see, e.g., AC driver 31c of pitch drive unit 31); said high-frequency electrical signals in said electrical connection result from an operation of said power electronic component (common knowledge; as discussed above, it is well-known that the operation of AC inverters and/or AC frequency converters, such as the AC driver of Miyamoto, may produce undesirable, high-frequency noise); said first electrical device is or includes an electrical drive for changing a pitch angle of a rotor blade of the wind turbine (Miyamoto, motor 31b); and, said power electronic component is or includes at least one of a converter and an inverter for producing high-frequency control signals for said electrical drive (Miyamoto, AC driver 31c).
Regarding claim 5, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 4 and Miyamoto further discloses said second electrical device is or includes a power supply (power feed unit 60) for supplying said electrical drive with electrical power (para. [0044]).
Regarding claim 6, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses said filter element including a soft magnetic material (Taniguchi, ferrite material); and, said filter element is arranged around at least a portion of said electrical connection (inherent; in order to filter a signal passed along an electrical cable, the electrical cable must be connected to or encompassed by the filtering element; if the cable is connected to the filter as an input, the filter “is arranged around at least a portion of the electrical connection” in the sense that it must encircle or house the portion of the connection that is input to the filter).
Regarding claim 7, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 6 and further discloses the filter element including ferrite (Taniguchi, col. 1, ll. 41-47).
Regarding claim 8, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and Miyamoto further discloses said electrical connection including a rotary electrical interface (FIG 5, slip ring 15) which enables an electrical signal transfer from said second electrical device to said first electrical device (e.g., transfer of control signals via signal wire 82) or vice versa (e.g., transfer of sensor data via signal wire 83) when said first component rotates relative to said second component (inherent function of a slip ring).
Regarding claim 9, all limitations of the claim are inherent to parent claim 3. As detailed above, the first combination discloses each and every limitation of claim 3. Examiner therefore finds that the rejection of claim 3 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter recited by claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a first power electronic component (Miyamoto, pitch drive unit 31) coupled to said first component (Miyamoto, rotor hub 130a) and a second power electronic component (Miyamoto, power feed unit 60) coupled to said second component (Miyamoto, nacelle 120); and, said filter element (as detailed in the rejection of claim 1, above) being coupled to said first component (in the same manner as discussed in the §112 rejection of claim 9, above), but does not disclose a further filter element being coupled to the second component.
As the power unit 60 of Miyamoto delivers power to the AC driver 31c of pitch drive unit 31, those of ordinary skill would appreciate a need to eliminate or reduce the transmission of undesirable frequencies from the power feed unit or the sources from which it conveys power to the pitch drive unit. The use of filters, in general, for preventing the transmission of undesired frequencies or signals is indisputably well-known in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to further modify Miyamoto to include a second filtering element configured to filter the input and/or output of the power feed unit 60 for the purposes of preventing the transmission of undesired frequencies or signals from the power feed unit to the pitch drive unit of Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 11, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses said electrical connection including a plurality of electrical conductors (e.g., cables/wires 81-83); and, each of said plurality of electrical conductors which is not grounded is coupled to said filter element (inherent; the modification of Miyamoto provided in the rejection of claim 1 connects the filter to the electrical connection, all of the conductors 81-83 would be coupled to the filter element, directly or otherwise; furthermore, Miyamoto does not disclose any of the cables/wires 81-83 being grounded, thus it may be reasonably interpreted that “each of said…conductors which is not grounded is coupled to said filter element” as recited by the instant claim).
Regarding claim 12, the first combination discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 11 and further discloses each of said plurality of electrical conductors which is grounded1 is not coupled to said filter element (inherent; as none of the conductors in Miyamoto are disclosed as being grounded, and none of them are not connected to the filter, it follows that “each of said plurality of…conductors which is grounded,” which is none of the conductors, “is not coupled to said filter element,” because all of the conductors are coupled to the filter element).
Regarding claim 13, Applicant merely recites a wind turbine comprising the system of claim 1. The first combination discloses the system, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1, above. Miyamoto further discloses a wind turbine comprising the system (see FIG 1). Thus, the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 Examiner notes that the language of the claim does not require any of the conductors be grounded. Applicant does not positively recite such a configuration, instead reciting only that there are a plurality of conductors. Of this plurality, claim 11 establishes that some conductors may not be grounded and claim 12 establishes that some conductors may be grounded. Thus, Miyamoto’s disclosure is sufficient to teach the limitations of claim 12 because the claim does not require any of the conductors to be grounded.