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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the determination parameters of claim 1 are not disclosed by Dipling. The applicant claims that Dipling only tangentially mentions the parameters provided in the rejection and that those do not determine if the voltage or power demand can be met. The examiner disagrees, as all of these parameters affect the voltage and power by providing changes in the operation of the system and the sensing methods and thereby affect the determination on if the voltage and power demand can be met. Specifically, paragraph 0019 of Dipling describes that the feathering of the rotor blades allows for providing the voltage required to supply power, and as such the feathering and modification of the systems change the voltage and thereby help determine whether the system must operate in the boost mode. The applicant then argues that because some of the limitations were not addressed the whole of the claim is not disclosed. As described already in the response to arguments in the Final Rejection dated 03/24/2026, these are optional alternative limitations so as long as at least one of the optional limitations is taught or disclosed the whole of the claim is taught or disclosed. Not addressing these optional limitations does not mean the examiner is saying they are novel and patentable. The arguments are not found to be convincing and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
The applicant then argues regarding claim 20 that Dipling does not teach or disclose the newly added limitations stating that the boost mode is triggered while the first converter remains connected to the supply grid and continues to receive a supply voltage from the supply grid. While the examiner agrees that the boost mode of Dipling operates in a failure mode of the grid, Dipling specifically states in paragraphs 0025-0027 that the operation of the mode occurs when the power supply falls below a threshold value, not that the system only operates when the supply is not providing any voltage. As such, Dipling still describes the boost mode operating while voltage is still supplied from the grid and the limitations are disclosed. Further, the applicant notes that the converter can in fact be operated when the power supply is still connected and simply argues that this is not a boost mode. The examiner disagrees, as there are no limitations in claim 20 relative to the boost mode that prevent the test operation of Dipling from meeting the limitations of the boost mode required. As such, the arguments are not found to be persuasive and updated rejections are provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dipling (EP 1852605).
Regarding claim 1, Dipling discloses A method for controlling an electro-mechanical actuator of a wind turbine, the electro-mechanical actuator (Par. 0004) being configured to be powered from a DC link intermediate circuit (Pars. 0009-0010), the method comprising:
determining whether at least one of a voltage demand and a power demand for operating the electro-mechanical actuator at a specific operating point can be met by an output of a first converter (Paragraph 0019 describes that during normal operation the first converter 1 supplies power to the actuator. As such, without the event of a failure where the voltage and power demand are not met, the first converter is used), the first converter having an input side and being connected to a supply grid on the input side thereof and configured to provide at least one of a first voltage and a first power to the DC link intermediate circuit (Par. 0013, 0015. Figure 1 shows the intermediate circuit 2 being connected to and having power supplied by the first converter 1 where paragraph 0021 describes a battery powered by the system); and,
when at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand cannot be met by the output of the first converter, triggering a boost mode of a second converter (Pars. 0019-0021 describes that when the first converter fails the second converter triggers a boost mode with the boost converter), configured to be connected between the DC link intermediate circuit and an energy storage unit (Figure 1 shows the converter 9 being located between the intermediate circuit 5 and the storage unit 8), to at least one of:
boost the voltage at the DC link intermediate circuit to a second voltage, the second voltage being higher than the first voltage; and,
boost the power supplied to the electro-mechanical actuator via the DC link intermediate circuit to a second power, the second power being higher than the first power (Paragraphs 0019-0021 describes that the second converter operates when the main supply 1 has failed. As such, when the main supply has failed the voltage and power would be insufficient to power the actuator and the second converter provides sufficient and increased voltage and power compared to the first voltage and power),
wherein the determination of whether at least one of the voltage and the power demand can be met is based on at least one of the following parameters:
an actual charging status of the energy storage unit;
an actual discharging voltage of the energy storage unit;
an actual temperature of the energy storage unit (Par. 0037);
an actual speed of the electro-mechanical actuator (Par. 0019 describes the system allows for the actuator to operate with the desired speed);
a desired speed of the electro-mechanical actuator (Par. 0019 describes the system allows for the actuator to operate with the desired speed);
an actual torque or force of the electro-mechanical actuator (Par. 0009 describes the system allows for the actuator to operate with the desired torque);
a desired torque or force of the electro-mechanical actuator (Par. 0009 describes the system allows for the actuator to operate with the desired torque);
a sensor signal including a sensor signal indicating a wind speed (Paragraph 0019 describes feathering the system based on the wind power, which means the wind speed must be sensed); and,
a control signal, in particular a control signal requesting at least one of an emergency control action and a fast movement of the electro-mechanical actuator.
Regarding claim 2, Dipling discloses that the second converter is activated in addition to the first converter when at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand cannot be met by the output of the first converter (Figure 1 shows that the first converter 1 is always connected to the intermediate circuit 5 so when the second converter 9 is activated, both the first and second converters are capable of supplying voltage and power to the actuator).
Regarding claim 4, Dipling discloses that the determination of whether at least one of the voltage and the power demand can be met is based on at least one of the following parameters:
an operating state of the first converter (Par. 0027);
an actual input voltage of the first converter (Par. 0026);
an actual output voltage of the first converter (Par. 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Dipling discloses that the step of determining whether at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand can be met comprises at least one of:
determining that the voltage demand can be met when the first voltage exceeds an actual voltage at the electro-mechanical actuator by a predetermined voltage reserve (Paragraph 0028 describes that when the first voltage is sufficient the switch is switched off and the power is provided by the main circuit); and
determining that the power demand can be met when the first power exceeds a power requested from the electro-mechanical actuator by a predetermined power reserve.
Regarding claim 7, Dipling discloses that the step of determining whether at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand can be met comprises at least one of the following:
determining that at least one of the following adverse conditions has occurred: i) at least one of a wind gust condition, ii) a grid fault ride through condition (Par. 0003 describes disconnection from the grid causing an adverse condition); and, iii) an adversity associated with at least one of hardware components and operational characteristics of the wind turbine (Paragraph 0003 describes disconnection from the grid causing an adverse condition, which is an adversity associated with the electrical hardware components. Further, the counter torque from the main generator is another adversity associated with the hardware components); and
determining that an emergency control action has been requested by a controller (Pars. 0027-0028 describe a controller) including a main or turbine controller of the wind turbine, the emergency control action being a high-speed pitching or feathering of rotor blades (Paragraphs 0003-0004 and 0019 describes the response to the adverse condition being feathering of the rotor blades. The claim limitations do not describe the limitations of what “high speed pitching” comprising so the term “high-speed” is being interpreted broadly as any pitching or feathering of the blades).
Regarding claim 8, Dipling discloses at least one of the following:
after activating the second converter, monitoring at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand of the electro-mechanical actuator, and disabling the boost mode when at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand of the electro-mechanical actuator falls below a first threshold (Pars. 0027-0028 describes that the system is monitored and the emergency system can be turned on and off when the current or voltage, and thereby the power, needed by the motor exceeds or falls below the thresholds); and
continuously monitoring at least one of a charging status and a supply voltage of the energy storage unit, and disabling the boost mode, when at least one of the charging status and the supply voltage falls below a second threshold.
Regarding claim 20, Dipling discloses A method for controlling an electro-mechanical actuator of a wind turbine, the electro-mechanical actuator (Par. 0004) being configured to be powered from a DC link intermediate circuit (Pars. 0009-0010), the method comprising:
determining whether at least one of a voltage demand and a power demand for operating the electro-mechanical actuator at a specific operating point can be met by an output of a first converter (Paragraph 0019 describes that during normal operation the first converter 1 supplies power to the actuator. As such, without the event of a failure where the voltage and power demand are not met, the first converter is used), the first converter having an input side and being connected to a supply grid on the input side thereof and configured to provide at least one of a first voltage and a first power to the DC link intermediate circuit (Par. 0013, 0015. Figure 1 shows the intermediate circuit 2 being connected to and having power supplied by the first converter 1 where paragraph 0021 describes a battery powered by the system); and,
when at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand cannot be met by the output of the first converter, triggering a boost mode of a second converter (Pars. 0019-0021 describes that when the first converter fails the second converter triggers a boost mode with the boost converter), configured to be connected between the DC link intermediate circuit and an energy storage unit (Figure 1 shows the converter 9 being located between the intermediate circuit 5 and the storage unit 8), to at least one of:
boost the voltage at the DC link intermediate circuit to a second voltage, the second voltage being higher than the first voltage; and,
boost the power supplied to the electro-mechanical actuator via the DC link intermediate circuit to a second power, the second power being higher than the first power (Paragraphs 0019-0021 describes that the second converter operates when the main supply 1 has failed. As such, when the main supply has failed the voltage and power would be insufficient to power the actuator and the second converter provides sufficient and increased voltage and power compared to the first voltage and power),
wherein the boost mode is triggered while the first converter remains connected to the supply grid and continues to receive a supply voltage from the supply grid (Paragraphs 0025-0027 describe that the operation of the mode occurs when the power supply falls below a threshold value, not that the system only operates when the supply is not providing any voltage. As such, Dipling still describes the boost mode operating while voltage is still supplied from the grid and the limitations are disclosed. Further the converter can in fact be operated when the power supply is still connected as described in paragraph 0019)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dipling (EP 1852605) in view of Watabu (US 20150365037).
Regarding claim 3, Dipling discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection and that the second converter is configured to provide a variable output to the DC link intermediate circuit (Par. 0010); and, wherein triggering the boost mode further comprises: determining at least one of the second voltage and the second power based on at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand for operating the electro-mechanical actuator (Par. 0004 describes that the actuator is powered by the second converter. Paragraph 0019 descirbes that the second converter provides sufficient voltage and power to operate the motor, meaning that the second voltage and power meet or exceed the power demand for the actuator). However, Dipling does not explicitly disclose at least one of: setting a DC link intermediate circuit voltage set-point to the second voltage; and, setting a power set-point for the power supplied to the electro-mechanical actuator via the DC link intermediate circuit to the second power.
Dipling and Watabu are analogous prior art because both describe an emergency supply to a motor drive system. Watabu teaches providing set point threshold values (Pars. 0058-0059 and 0067) in order to provide adequate AC power to exceed the threshold value while supplying AC power. Dipling describes providing a fuse to protect the power supply from excessive currents (Par. 0034), describes that a control and regulation unit can be provided with the system (Par. 0037) and describes that the voltage provided by the emergency system is sufficient (Par. 0019). Watabu describes that the inclusion of a measured threshold value allows for the emergency system to be sufficiently charged to be used during emergency operation (Par. 0079-0080), the system can be used with reduced current (Par. 0092), and it allows for a more efficient control unit (Par. 0113). As both Dipling and Watabu use AC current to power a DC system during emergency operation and Dipling already desires control of the system to provide sufficient voltage to the system, providing the voltage and power thresholds of Watabu in the system of Dipling would provide predictable results. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the voltage and power thresholds and controls of Watabu in the system of Dipling because the inclusion of a measured threshold value allows for the emergency system to be sufficiently charged to be used during emergency operation (Par. 0079-0080), the system can be used with reduced current (Par. 0092), it allows for a more efficient control unit (Par. 0113), and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dipling (EP 1852605) in view of Morii (US 20140159622).
Regarding claim 6, Dipling discloses the limitations of claim 1 as set forth in the above 102 rejection. However, Dipling does not explicitly disclose determining that at least one of the voltage demand and the power demand cannot be met when the desired torque or force of the electro-mechanical actuator exceeds a first boost threshold value including a torque set-point threshold value or force set-point threshold value based on the actual speed of the electro-mechanical actuator.
Dipling and Morii are analogous prior art because both describe boost converters to control and operate motors. Morii teaches the control device providing a desired torque from the motor and using the measured voltage to achieve the desired torque vs the measured torque (Par. 0068-0069) and that the torque values can be controlled (Pars. 0078-0081 and 0083-0084). Morii further describes that this control system allows for the torque to be maximized and specifically controlled (Par. 0012). As Dipling already describes the emergency system being used to prevent loss of speed and torque (Par. 0009) and describes a control system to ensure monitoring of the power of the system (Par. 0028), the torque control and monitoring of Morii would provide predictable results in the system of Dipling. Thereby, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the torque monitoring and control of Morii in the system of Dipling because the control device providing a desired torque from the motor and using the measured voltage to achieve the desired torque vs the measured torque (Par. 0068-0069) and that the torque values can be controlled (Pars. 0078-0081 and 0083-0084) and combining prior art elements according to known methods is obvious with predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA whose telephone number is (469)295-9164. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00 (CT).
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, Nathan 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.
/THEODORE C RIBADENEYRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights