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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant states that because no rejections were presented for some of the parameters in claim 4 that they are novel and patentable. These limitations were presented as optional alternative limitations in claim 4 so as long as the other optional limitations were addressed the claim limitations were taught or disclosed. Not addressing these optional limitations does not mean the examiner is saying they are novel or patentable.
The applicant argues that paragraph 0037 of Dipling does not disclose determining whether the voltage and/or power demand can be met based on the temperature of the battery. The examiner disagrees as Dipling describes the control and regulation system using the temperature measurements for control of the system and battery management which affects the voltage and/or power demand. They then argue that paragraph 0019 of Dipling does not disclose that the voltage and/or power demand can be met based on an actual or desired speed. However, Dipling describes that the speed measurement and failure of the power supply device are dependent on each other, and as such the speed is a component on if the voltage and/or power demand can be met. Finally, the applicant argues that the actual or desired torque are not used in the determination if the voltage and/or power demand are met. Paragraph 0009 of Dipling is cited and as Dipling shows that the nominal voltage is a determination of the torque being satisfactory for the voltage, the torque is determined from the nominal voltage values and the limitations are met. The rejections have been maintained and are updated 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 at least one of a wind speed, a grid fault and a grid failure condition Pars. 0026-0027 describes that the system responds to a lack of current and voltage coming from the grid, which is a grid failure condition); 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 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); and
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).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745