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 § 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) 1-9, 11, 14, 18, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 102400856 (“Pan”).
Regarding claim 1, Pan discloses:
A wind turbine nacelle (as seen in FIG 1) comprising:
a generator (FIGS 1 and 5, generator 4) comprising:
a rotor assembly comprising:
a rotor generator shaft (FIG 5, main shaft 11);
a rotor (16) mounted on the rotor generator shaft (11); and
an array of magnets (15) mounted on an outer surface of the rotor (as seen in FIG 5); and
a stator assembly comprising:
a front chassis (FIG 5, front cover 13) including a front cone (as seen in FIG 5, the front cover 13 generally forms a conical shape by narrowing as it extends forwardly) forming a front bearing housing (as seen in FIG 5, front cover 13 contains bearing 12 and may thus be construed as “a front bearing housing”);
a stator ring (unlabeled housing surrounding stator 14 and stator coils 17) connected to the front chassis (via unlabeled bolts depicted in FIG 5) and surrounding the rotor (as seen in FIG 5);
coils (stator coil 17) mounted on an inner surface of the stator ring opposite the array of magnets (as seen in FIG 5); and
a rear chassis (rear end cover 18) connected to the stator ring (via unlabeled bolts depicted in FIG 5) such that the stator ring is between the front chassis and the rear chassis (as shown in FIG 5), wherein the rear chassis includes a rear cone (rear end cover 18 forms a generally conical chape by narrowing as it extends rearwardly) forming a rear bearing housing (as seen in FIG 5, rear end cover 18 contains bearing 19 and may thus be construed as “a rear bearing housing”); and
wherein the front chassis, the stator ring, and the rear chassis form a frame (para. [0038], the front end cover 13, unlabeled stator ring, and rear end cover 18 form “an outer shell” which may be reasonably construed as “a frame”) of the wind turbine nacelle (the outer shell discussed above forms a generator frame; as the generator is an element of the wind turbine nacelle, the generator frame may be broadly and reasonably construed as “a frame” of “the wind turbine nacelle” in the sense that the generator frame is an element within the nacelle)1;
a front bearing (12) mounted in the front bearing housing for supporting a forward end of the rotor generator shaft (para. [0038]; “main shaft 11 is supported on the front end cover 13 by the front bearing 12”), the rotor generator shaft extending through the front bearing (as seen in FIG 5, shaft 11 extends through front bearing 12);
a rear bearing (19) mounted in the rear bearing housing for supporting a rear end of the rotor generator shaft (para. [0038]; “the other part [of the main shaft 11] is supported on the rear end cover 18 by the rear bearing 19”), the rotor generator shaft extending through the rear bearing (as seen in FIG 5, main shaft 11 extends rearwardly past rear bearing 19; this interpretation is further solidified by FIG 1, depicting a shaft extending through the entirety of the nacelle); and
a stub mast (FIG 3:5) connected (as seen by FIG 1, stub mast 5 is connected to a rear face of generator 4) to a bottom of the rear chassis (as seen in FIG 5, an unlabeled lower bolt is provided for connected to a bottom half of the rear chassis 18 of the generator 4)2 and configured to connect to a top of a tower (FIG 3 depicts stub mast 5 being connected to turbine tower 9 via the depicted yawing mechanism).
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a yaw drive system (FIG 3) connected to the rear chassis (para. [0037; “generator 4 is connected to” the stub mast 5) and the stub mast (as shown in FIG 3), the yaw drive system being configured to rotate the frame about a vertical axis to control orientation of the generator with respect to wind direction (inherent; see also para. [0042]).
Regarding claim 3, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the front chassis being connected to a front surface of the stator ring (see FIG 5; the unlabeled stator ring surrounding stator 14 includes a front surface to which front chassis 13 is affixed via unlabeled bolts shown at the top of the figure) and extending forwardly from the stator ring (as shown).
Regarding claim 4, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a front seal plate (unlabeled plate affixed forwardly relative to bearing 12; see the rectangular black box of the annotated FIG 5, immediately below) connects to the front bearing housing (as shown by FIG 5) to enclose the front bearing within front chassis (front chassis 13 forms a rear portion of the bearing housing, while the unlabeled plate forms a front portion of the bearing housing; see annotated FIG 5, immediately below).
PNG
media_image1.png
785
607
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the rear chassis being connected to a rear surface of the stator ring (see FIG 5; unlabeled stator ring has a rear surface to which rear chassis 18 is affixed via unlabeled bolts at the top of FIG 5) and extending rearwardly from the stator (as shown).
Regarding claim 6, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a rear seal plate (unlabeled plate affixed rearwardly relative to bearing 19; see the rectangular black box of the annotated FIG 5, immediately below) connected to the rear bearing housing (18) to enclose the rear bearing within the rear chassis (as shown).
PNG
media_image2.png
785
607
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a rotor head (FIG 1:3) connected to a forward end of generator shaft (para. [0038]; “main shaft 11 is connected to the hub 3”).
Regarding claim 8, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 7 and further discloses a plurality of rotatable blade holders connected to the rotor head (FIG 2; pitch bearing 21 is affixed to rotor head 3; pitch bearing 21 connects to blades 1, and thus may be interpreted as “holding” the blades; the bearings facilitate rotation of the blades, thus they may be reasonably interpreted as “rotatable blade holders”).
Regarding claim 9, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 8 and further discloses a rotor head and blade pitch system (FIG 2:22, 23) mounted on the rear chassis (as may be seen in FIG 1, the rotor head and blade pitch system is positioned rearwardly of the rear chassis; as the rotor head and blade pitch system is mounted on the main shaft, and the main shaft is connected to the rear chassis, the rotor head and blade pitch system is indirectly mounted on the rear chassis), the rotor head and blade pitch system being configured to control a speed of the generator by rotating the blade holders to control a pitch of blades connected to the rotatable blade holders (inherent function of a blade pitching system; see also para. [0022], discussing use of the pitching system in combination with detected wind and rotational speeds to achieve desired power outputs, thereby inherently disclosing speed control via pitching mechanisms).
Regarding claim 11, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses provision of a blade pitching mechanism configured to rotate the blades of the wind turbine (see the rejection of claim 9, above). Pan does not explicitly refer to the blade pitching system as “a fail-safe system.” This difference, however, is immaterial and irrelevant. Applicant does not define the term “fail-safe system” and, thus, Examiner is compelled to utilize the broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) of the term.
When interpreted under BRI, a “fail-safe system” is one which causes a piece of machinery or other mechanism to revert to a safe condition. One of ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with pitch control systems, as well as emergency response methods for a wind turbine. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably infer that the pitching system, in combination with the controller (FIG 1:8) of Pan, would be configured to provide a feathering function in response to various fault conditions or threats. Thus, Examiner finds that it is inherent that the pitching system of Pan is also “a fail-safe system” as contemplated by the instant claim. Thus, Pan discloses each and every limitation of instant claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites a wind turbine nacelle that is substantially similar to the nacelle of claim 1. Claim 14 differs from claim 1 in the following ways:
Claim 14 omits recitation of front and rear cones.
Claim 14 omits recitation of the shaft extending through each of the front and rear bearings.
Claim 14 omits recitation of the stub mast.
Claim 14 recites the front and rear chassis as forming “part of the stator assembly.”
As detailed above, Pan discloses the limitations of claim 1. Pan further discloses the front and rear chassis forming “part of the stator assembly” in the sense that the enclose the stator and may thus be construed as “part of the stator assembly.” As Pan discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses item 4, above, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 14 and further discloses a rotor hub (FIG 1:3) connected to the connection plate (FIG 5, the right-most portion of main shaft 11), wherein the rotor hub has pivotable blade holders (FIG 2; pitch bearing 21 is affixed to rotor head 3; pitch bearing 21 connects to blades 1, and thus may be interpreted as “holding” the blades; the bearings facilitate rotation of the blades, thus they may be reasonably interpreted as “rotatable blade holders”).
Regarding claim 21, Applicant recites, in independent form, only the generator structures recited by claim 1, as well as the stator ring surfaces of claims 3 and 5. As detailed above, these structures are disclosed by Pan. As such, Examiner finds that the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant merely rephrases the subject matter of claim 21 to recite “a frame for a wind turbine nacelle” rather than “a generator for a wind turbine nacelle.” As the scope of each claim is virtually identical, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 21 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, Pan discloses:
A wind turbine nacelle (e.g., FIG 1) comprising:
a rotor generator shaft (FIG 5:11);
a rotor (FIG 5:16) connected to the rotor generator shaft;
an array of permanent magnets (FIG 5:15) mounted on a circular outer surface of the rotor (as shown);
a rotor hub (FIG 1:3) directly connected to a forward end of the rotor generator shaft (para. [0038]; as seen in FIG 1, no intervening elements are depicted between main shaft 11 and rotor hub 3, thus it is directly connected);
a plurality of circumferentially spaced blades (FIG 1:1) mounted on the rotor hub (as shown) to face upwind;
a stator ring (FIG 5, unlabeled housing surrounding stator 14) surrounding the rotor (as shown);
a plurality (inherent; those of ordinary skill would interpret that “stator coil 17” is formed of multiple coils, not a singular coil) of encased coils (stator coil 17 is at least partially encased by stator 14) mounted on an inner surface of the stator ring facing and radially spaced from the array of permanent magnets (as shown in FIG 5) so that rotation of the rotor induces generation of electricity in the encased coils (inherent);
a rear chassis (FIG 5:18) attached to a rear surface of the stator ring (as discussed in the rejection of claim 5, above) and having a rear bearing housing (as discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 6, above);
a rear bearing (FIG 5:19) mounted in the rear bearing housing (as discussed in the rejection of claims 1 and 6), so that a rear end portion of the rotor generator shaft extends rearwardly out of the rear chassis and the rear bearing housing (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, above);
a forward chassis (FIG 5:13) attached to a front surface of the stator ring (as discussed in the rejection of claim 3, above) and having a front bearing housing (as discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 4, above); and
a front bearing (FIG 5:12) mounted in the front bearing housing (as discussed in the rejections of claims 1 and 4), so that a forward end portion of the rotor generator shaft extends forwardly out of the front chassis and the front bearing housing (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, 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.
Claim(s) 10-12, 15, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan as respectively applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of common knowledge within the art.
Regarding claim 10, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the provision of a brake disc mounted on the rear end of the rotor generator shaft. The use of brake discs on wind turbine shafts is well-known in the art for the purposes of exerting a braking force on the shaft to slow or stop the shaft. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Pan to include a brake disc mounted on a rear end of the rotor generator shaft for the purposes of slowing or stopping the rotation of the main generator/turbine shaft of Pan.
Regarding claim 113, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses provision of a blade pitching mechanism configured to rotate the blades of the wind turbine (see the rejection of claim 9, above). Pan does not explicitly refer to the blade pitching system as “a fail-safe system.” It is well-known in the art that blade pitching systems may be relied upon to perform a fail-safe function, particularly a feathering function, in response to varying fault or threat conditions that necessitate placement of the wind turbine into an idling mode. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the explicit teachings of Pan to further include operation of the blade pitching system as a fail-safe system in order to respond to conditions that necessitate placement of the wind turbine in an idling mode.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant effectively recites a claim comprising the limitations of claims 2, 9, and 11. Claim 12 differs from these claims in that the fail-safe system is recited as rotating blades of the wind turbine “when the rotor head and blade pitch system fails.”
Regarding claim 15, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 15 but does not explicitly disclose provision of circumferentially spaced cooling fins on an outer surface of the stator ring. The use of cooling fins arranged on an outer surface of a stator of an electric machine is well-known in the art for the purposes of dissipating heat generated during operation of the electric machine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Pan to further include cooling fins on an outer surface of the stator ring for the purposes of dissipating heat that will be generated within the stator during operation of the wind turbine.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant recites a wind turbine nacelle that is substantially similar to the nacelle of claim 1, further incorporating elements of claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-11. As detailed above, Pan discloses the subject matter of each claim. Claim 19 differs from these claims in that it simultaneously requires the rotor head and blade pitch system and the fail-safe system. Pan, however, discloses provision of a controller (FIG 1:8) which is configured to control the various elements of the wind turbine disclosed by Pan (para. [0037]).
Those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the controller of Pan may be construed as “a fail-safe system” because it would be the device to order or implement fail-safe methods in response to measured conditions. Thus, the controller may be reasonably interpreted as “being configured to rotate the blades of the wind turbine” because it would direct or otherwise cause the blade pitching system of Pan to place the blades into a feathering position when the turbine needs to be placed in an idling mode. As shown by FIG 1, controller 8 is at least indirectly mounted to the rear chassis.
In view of the above, Examiner finds that the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11 apply, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter recited by claim 19. Examiner further finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the controller of Pan to be further configured to rotate the blades of the wind turbine via the blade pitching system for the purposes of placing the wind turbine into an idling mode when conditions and circumstances necessitate such.
Regarding claim 20, Pan discloses the limitations as set forth in claim and further discloses the front bearing supporting the forward end of the rotor generator shaft and the rear bearing supporting the rear end of the rotor generator shaft (see the rejection of claim 1, above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 16, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the particular physical configuration of the rear chassis as recited by claim 13. Examiner is unable to find any motivation to modify the disclosure of Pan to arrive at the instant limitations of claim 13. As a result, claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (claim 1) and any intervening claims (none). Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations and would therefore be also allowable, for the same reasons, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim (claim 14) and any intervening claims (none). Claim 17 depends from claim 16 and would be allowable by virtue of the dependency.
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 there is a distinction between “a wind turbine nacelle frame” and “a frame of the wind turbine nacelle.” The first necessitates the frame be specifically the frame of the nacelle itself. The second merely requires some form of framing element, such as a generator housing, which is within or otherwise part of the wind turbine nacelle. Since the generator outer shell of Pan is “a frame” and is a part of the wind turbine nacelle, it falls within second category above.
2 Examiner notes that Applicant does not recite “a bottom surface” of the rear chassis, but instead generally recites connection to “a bottom of the rear chassis.” Under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation, connection to “a bottom of the rear chassis” does not necessitate connection to the bottom surface, but instead may constitute a direct connection to a bottom-half of the rear chassis, or an indirect connection to the bottom surface via a rear surface connection.
3 This alternative rejection of claim 11 under §103 is provided solely for purposes of compact prosecution. It should be understood that provision of the alternative rejection is not an admission that the rejection of claim 11 under §102 is deficient in any manner.