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 rebuttal of the claim interpretation of “pitch setting system” under 35 U.S.C §112(f) is not persuasive, MPEP 2181 VI. recites;
“In response to the Office action that determined 35 U.S.C. 112(f) was invoked, if applicant does not want to have the claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) present a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f); or (2) amend the claim limitation in a way that avoids interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function).”
However, the Applicant has not presented evidence constituting a sufficient showing to establish that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (beyond asserting that a person of ordinary skill is well aware of what the Applicant considers a pitch setting system), indicated which claim limitations provide said structure, or amended the claim limitation in a way that avoids interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Therefore, “a pitch setting system” in claim 16, 24, and 30 will continue to interpreted as, “at least one actuator for each of the blades” as on page 13 of the immediate specification, or equivalents thereof. (emphasis added).
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument the Zaib et al. (WO 2013/182200 A1) does not disclose, teach, or suggest,
“determining fourth information depending on the first information, the second information, and the third information, the fourth information being representative for whether the bending moment exceeds the maximum bending moment at the wind turbulence intensity; and,”.
The Examiner has reproduced Pg. 5:19-27 of Zaib et al. below, “One particular aspect in high wind operation is to ensure a safe distance between the tip of the blade and the tower. When the blade bends backwards towards the tower it comes closer to the tower, and it may be necessary to pitch the blade to release pressure on the blade as it passes the tower. According to the invention, the threshold value may be adjusted based on a tower clearance between a tower of the wind turbine and at least one of the rotor blades e.g. based on a measured maximum deflection or measured as a difference between an actually observed distance between the blade tip and the tower and a minimum safety distance.”
The Examiner respectfully notes that the threshold value for adjusting the blade pitch is dependent on “measured maximum deflection” which is developed from the first information (e.g., bending moment; Pg. 4:7-12, “the load condition could e.g. be determined by measuring blade bending”, the second information (e.g., turbulence; Pg. 4:16-17, “The climate condition may relate to wind speed, turbulence, air density, temperature, or measure wind shear etc.”, and the third information (e.g., maximum bending moment of the rotor blade; Pg. 4:18-23, “The threshold value could e.g. be determined based on a difference between a load on one of the blades and an average load on all blades, e.g. a load average over a pre specified duration.”), and Zaib et al. even indicates their intention to pitch the blades to prevent tower strikes in Pg. 5:19-27 and adjusts the threshold value accordingly.
Therefore Zaib et al. anticipates at least independent claims 16, 24, 25, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1).
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.
Claims 16-25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zaib et al. (WO 2013/182200 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Zaib et al. discloses a method (Fig. 3) for operating a wind turbine (Fig. 1) having a rotor (4) with at least one rotor blade (5, 6, 7), a tower (2), and a pitch setting system (22) for setting a pitch angle of the at least one rotor blade (Pg. 9: 6-18), the method comprising:
providing first information (16, 17, 18) which is representative for a bending moment of the at least one rotor blade (Pg. 4:7-12, "The load condition could e.g. be determined by measuring blade bending");
providing second information (19) which is representative for a wind turbulence intensity at the rotor (Pg. 4:13-17);
providing third information which is representative for a maximum allowed bending moment of the at least one rotor blade, wherein the maximum allowed bending moment is dependent on the wind turbulence intensity at the rotor (Pg. 4:18-23);
determining fourth information depending on the first information, the second information, and the third information, the fourth information being representative for whether the bending moment exceeds the maximum allowed bending moment at the wind turbulence intensity (20, the computer system which sets a load asymmetry indication number step 303); and,
if the bending moment exceeds the maximum allowed bending moment at the wind turbulence intensity, generating an output signal which is configured to cause the pitch setting system to change the pitch angle of the at least one rotor blade (Pg. 9: 6-18) in order to reduce a deflection of the at least one rotor blade towards the tower when it passes the tower (Pg. 5:19-27).
Regarding claim 17, Zaib et al. discloses all of claim 16 as above, wherein:
the first information is representative for the bending moment of the at least one rotor blade when the at least one rotor blade passes the tower during the rotation of the tower (Pg. 5:19-27) or the at least one rotor blade is close to the tower during rotation of the rotor (Pg. 5:19-27).
Regarding claim 18, Zaib et al. discloses all of claim 16 as above, wherein:
the rotor includes two or more rotor blades (Fig. 1); and,
the output signal is configured to collectively change the pitch angles of all the two or more rotor blades (Pg. 9:11-18).
Regarding claim 19, Zaib et al. discloses all of claim 16 as above, wherein:
the first information is determined depending on measurements taken via a first sensor system (16, 17, 18; Pg. 4:7-12); and,
the second information is determined depending on measurements taken via a second sensor system (19; Pg. 4:13-17).
Regarding claim 20, Zaib et al. discloses all of claim 16 as above, wherein the third information is
determined via computer simulations ("mathematical model") of the wind turbine simulating the distance of the at least one rotor blade to the tower when passing the tower in dependence of the bending moment (Pg. 10:12-19).
Regarding claim 21, Zaib et al. discloses all of claim 16 as above, further comprising:
providing fifth information representative for a desired pitch angle change to be cause by the pitch setting system (Pg. 9:6-18); and,
wherein the output signal includes the fifth information and is configured to cause the pitch setting system to change the pitch angle of the at least one rotor blade by the desired pitch angle change (Pg. 9:6-18).
Regarding claim 22, Zaib et al. discloses all a computer program (20, DB; Pg. 10:12-19), stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium (DB), which, when the program is executed by a computer (20), cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 16 as disclosed by Zaib et al. above.
Regarding claim 23, Zaib et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (DB, data storage) having the computer program of claim 22 as disclosed by Zaib et al. above.
Regarding claim 24, Zaib et al. discloses a control device (Fig. 2) for operating a wind turbine (Fig. 1) having a rotor (4) with at least one rotor blade (12, 13, 14), a tower (2), and a pitch setting system (22) for setting a pitch angle (alpha, beta, gamma Pg. 10:12-19) of the at least one rotor blade, the control device comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium (DB; Pg. 10:12-19) having program code (Fig. 3)
stored thereon;
a processor (20);
said program code being configured, when executed by said processor to:
provide first information (16, 17, 18) which is representative for a bending moment of the at least one rotor blade (Pg. 4:7-12, "The load condition could e.g. be determined by measuring blade bending");
provide second information (19) which is representative for a wind turbulence intensity at the
rotor (Pg. 4:13-17);
provide third information which is representative for a maximum allowed bending moment of the at least one rotor blade, wherein the maximum allowed bending moment is dependent on the wind turbulence intensity at the rotor (Pg. 4:18-23);
determine fourth information depending on the first information, the second information, and the third information, the fourth information being representative for whether the bending moment exceeds the maximum allowed bending moment at the wind turbulence intensity (20, the computer system which sets a load asymmetry indication number step 303); and,
if the bending moment exceeds the maximum allowed bending moment at the wind turbulence intensity, generating an output signal which is configured to cause the pitch setting system to change the pitch angle of the at least one rotor blade (Pg. 9: 6-18) in order to reduce a deflection of the at least one rotor blade towards the tower when it passes the tower (Pg. 5:19-27).
Regarding claim 25, Zaib et al. discloses a control system (Fig. 2) for operating a wind turbine (Fig. 1) having a rotor (4) with at least one rotor blade (12, 13, 14), a tower (2), a pitch setting system (22) for setting the pitch angle (alpha, beta, gamma; Pg. 10:12-19) of the at least one rotor blade, the control system comprising:
a first sensor system (16, 17, 18) configured to take first measurements via which a bending moment of the at least one rotor blade is determinable (Pg. 4:7-12, "The load condition could e.g. be determined by measuring blade bending");
a second sensor system (19) configured to take second measurements via which a wind turbulence intensity at the rotor is determinable (Pg. 4:13-17);
a control device (DB, 20) including a processor (20) and a non-transitory computer readable medium (DB) having program code (Pg. 10:12-19) stored thereon;
provide first information (16, 17, 18) which is representative for a bending moment of the at least one rotor blade (Pg. 4:7-12, "The load condition could e.g. be determined by measuring blade bending");
provide second information (19) which is representative for a wind turbulence intensity at the rotor (Pg. 4:13-17);
provide third information which is representative for a maximum allowed bending moment of the at least one rotor blade, wherein the maximum allowed bending moment is dependent on the wind turbulence intensity at the rotor (Pg. 4:18-23);
determine fourth information depending on the first information, the second information, and the third information, the fourth information being representative for whether the bending moment exceeds the maximum allowed bending moment at the wind turbulence intensity (20, the computer system which sets a load asymmetry indication number step 303);
if the bending moment exceeds the maximum allowed bending moment at the wind turbulence intensity, generating an output signal which is configured to cause the pitch setting system to change the pitch angle of the at least one rotor blade (Pg. 9: 6-18) in order to reduce a deflection of the at least one rotor blade towards the tower when it passes the tower (Pg. 5:19-27);
said control device being signally connectable to said first sensor system and said second sensor system in order to provide said control device with said first measurements and said second measurements (Fig. 2; A, B, C constitute the sensor signals); and,
said control device being signally connectable to the pitch setting system in order to provide the pitch setting system with the output signal of said control device so that the pitch setting system sets the pitch angle of the at least one rotor blade in dependence upon the output signal (Fig. 2, Pg. 10:12-19).
Regarding claim 30, Zaib et al. discloses a wind turbine (Fig. 1) comprising:
a rotor (3) with at least one rotor blade (12, 13, 14);
a tower (2);
a pitch setting system (22) for setting a pitch angle of the at least one rotor blade (Pg. 10:12-
19); and
the control system of claim 25 as disclosed by Zaib et al. 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.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaib et al. (WO 2013/182200 A1) in view of Eggleston et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0143118 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Zaib et al. discloses all of claim 25 as above.
However, Zaib et al. does not explicitly disclose their blade bending sensors (16, 17, 18) as,
"wherein said first sensor system includes at least one strain sensor coupled to at least one rotor blade"
Eggleston et al. teaches, in the field wind turbine control, "In use, the wind speed sensors 200 may develop a wind induced strain that can be measured optically and/or electronically using, for example, a fiber optic Bragg sensor or a similar type of technology. The strain may be correlated to a wind speed at the location of the particular sensor 200. Several sensors 200 may be implemented along the blade 110 such that a wind speed profile 220 for the length of the blade 110 may be measured and developed. The measured wind speed profile then may be compared by the controller 190 to an expected aerodynamic profile 230 for the given pitch angle, the rotational speed, the torque demand on the blade 110, and other parameters. The controller 190 thus may have any number of expected aerodynamic profiles 230 available. Other parameters also may be measured and considered. The wind speed profiles 220 of the other turbine blades 110 also may be compared and controlled. [0015]"
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the blade bending sensors of Zaib et al. to be fiber optic Bragg sensors as taught by Eggleston et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, "the wind speed sensors 200 may develop a wind induced strain that can be measured optically and/or electronically using, for example, a fiber optic Bragg sensor or a similar type of technology. The strain may be correlated to a wind speed at the location of the particular sensor 200. [0015]".
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Zaib et al. and Eggleston et al. teach all of claim 26 as
above, wherein said at least one strain sensor is a fiber optic strain sensor (Eggleston et al., [0015]).
Claims 26, and 28-29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaib et al. (WO 2013/182200 A1) in view of Von Mutius et al. (US PGPUB 2009/0261588 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Zaib et al. discloses all of claim 25 as above.
However, Zaib et al. does not explicitly disclose their blade bending sensors (16, 17, 18) as, "wherein said first sensor system includes at least one strain sensor coupled to at least one rotor blade"
Von Mutius et al. teaches, in the field of wind turbine control, "Loads exist which can be
associated with an oblique incident flow, with a particularly high probability. This applies, for example,
to loads in which the rotor blades bend more severely at specific angular positions during a revolution
than at other angular positions. For example, the bending on the rotor blades can be measured by
means of strain gauges, and the load value can be determined from the measured values from the strain gauges. [0020]"
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the blade bending sensors in the pitch system of Zaib et al. to be strain gauges as taught by Von Mutius et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would
appreciate that, "For example, the bending on the rotor blades can be measured by means of strain
gauges, and the load value can be determined from the measured values from the strain gauges. [0020]."
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Zaib et al. and Von Mutius et al. teach all of claim 26 as
above, wherein said at least one strain sensor is a strain gauge sensor (Von Mutius et al., [0020]).
Regarding claim 29, Zaib et al. discloses all of claim 25 as above, wherein said second sensor
system includes at least one sensor for measuring a rotational velocity of the rotor (Pg. 4:7-12), and at least one sensor for measuring a power output of the wind turbine (Pg. 4:7-12).
However, Zaib et al. does not explicitly disclose, "at least one sensor for measuring the pitch
angle of the at least one rotor blade."
Von Mutius et al., teaches in the field of measuring the load value on wind turbines that, "The
fundamental mathematical models for the total loads are known in the prior art and have been
published, for example, in the form of commercial simulation programs. Preferred measurement
variables in this case are not only the abovementioned measurement variables for the loads, but in
particular also operating parameters such as power, rotation speed, torque, blade angle, pitch activity
(activity of the blade pitch control system, detectable for example via the standard deviation of the
blade angle), as well as environmental parameters such as wind speed, wind direction, turbulence
intensity, wind gradient, air density, temperature. [0049]"
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to
modify the pitch system of Zaib et al. to have sensors for and measure "blade angle, pitch activity
(activity of the blade pitch control system)" as taught by Von Mutius et al., and one of ordinary skill
would appreciate that Zaib et al. concerns the pitch angle of their blades and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, "he fundamental mathematical models for the total loads are known in the prior art and have been published, for example, in the form of commercial simulation programs. Preferred measurement variables in this case are not only the abovementioned measurement variables for the loads, but in particular also operating parameters such as power, rotation speed, torque, blade angle, pitch activity (activity of the blade pitch control system, detectable for example via the standard deviation of the blade angle), as well as environmental parameters such as wind speed, wind direction, turbulence intensity, wind gradient, air density, temperature [0049]".
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 RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571)-270-3508. 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights