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 Objections
Claims 2-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: change “A method” in the preamble to “[[A]] The method”, since these claims depend from claim 1 which recites “A method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “a rotor blade; coupled to the rotor” to “a rotor blade[[;]] coupled to the rotor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. (EP 3 070 327 B1), referred to hereinafter as Nakamura.
With regard to claim 1, Nakamura discloses a method for controlling a pitch angle of a rotor blade of a wind turbine, the wind turbine comprising the rotor blade and a hydraulic pitch actuator system (see 20 in Fig. 5 and [0026]), the hydraulic pitch actuator system being operatively coupled to the rotor blade (Fig. 2, 5), the method comprising: receiving a current pitch signal (θ) of the rotor blade (Fig. 5, [0042]), receiving a pitch reference signal (θD) indicating a desired pitch angle for the rotor blade (Fig. 5, [0042]), receiving an operating parameter signal (input to feedback line 104, it can be the current pitch signal (θ) or a pressure signal, see Fig. 5 and [0049]-[0052]) from the hydraulic pitch actuator system ([0049]-[0052]), generating a feedback signal based on the operating parameter signal (feedback line 104), using a gain scheduler to provide a variable feedback gain (Gain K (see block 112 in Fig. 5) is variable, see item 11 of [0012], also see [0065]-[0066]), generating a damping signal based on the feedback signal and the variable feedback gain (in Fig. 5, see the loop of 104), generating a pitch control command based on a difference between the current pitch signal (θ) and the pitch reference signal (θD), and on the damping signal (Y3, 104) (see Fig. 5), and sending the pitch control command to the hydraulic pitch actuator system (see block 20 in Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 2, Nakamura further discloses that the variable feedback gain is dependent on at least one of: the current pitch signal, the pitch reference signal, a current pitch error, a current pitch rate, a position of a pitch control piston of the hydraulic pitch actuator system, a rate of change of the position of the pitch control piston, a wind speed, a rotor speed or generator speed, and an operational state of the wind turbine (see item 11 in [0012] disclosing that the variable feedback gain K is dependent on the current pitch signal, or the pitch reference signal).
With regard to claim 3, Nakamura further discloses that the operating parameter signal is a pressure signal from the hydraulic pitch actuator system ([0050]-[0052]).
With regard to claim 4, Nakamura further discloses that the pressure signal is indicative of a pressure in a chamber of a hydraulic actuator of the hydraulic pitch actuator system, or of a pressure difference between two chambers of the hydraulic actuator ([0052]).
With regard to claim 5, Nakamura further discloses that the current pitch signal or current pitch error signal is the operating parameter signal (Fig. 5, [0049]).
With regard to claim 8, Nakamura further discloses that the generating of the feedback signal comprises applying a combination of a differentiator and a lowpass filter, or an observer providing a time derivative of the hydraulic pressure to the operating parameter signal (Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 9, Nakamura further discloses controlling a proportional valve in the hydraulic pitch actuator system in dependence of the pitch control command ([0043]).
With regard to claim 10, Nakamura further discloses that the step of generating a pitch control command comprises feeding the difference between the current pitch signal and the pitch reference signal to a pitch reference controller, and adding the damping signal to an output of the pitch reference controller (Fig. 5).
With regard to claim 12, Nakamura discloses a controller for a wind turbine comprising a rotor blade and a hydraulic pitch actuator system (see 20 in Fig. 5 and [0026]), the hydraulic pitch actuator system being operatively coupled to the controller and to the rotor blade for controlling a pitch angle of the rotor blade (Fig. 2, 5), the controller being configured to perform an operation, comprising: receiving a current pitch signal (θ) of the rotor blade (Fig. 5, [0042]), receiving a pitch reference signal (θD) indicating a desired pitch angle for the rotor blade (Fig. 5, [0042]), receiving an operating parameter signal (input to feedback line 104, it can be the current pitch signal (θ) or a pressure signal, see Fig. 5 and [0049]-[0052]) from the hydraulic pitch actuator system ([0049]-[0052]), generating a feedback signal based on the operating parameter signal (feedback line 104), using a gain scheduler to provide a variable feedback gain (Gain K (see block 112 in Fig. 5) is variable, see item 11 of [0012], also see [0065]-[0066]), generating a damping signal based on the feedback signal and the variable feedback gain (in Fig. 5, see the loop of 104), generating a pitch control command based on a difference between the current pitch signal (θ) and the pitch reference signal (θD), and on the damping signal (Y3, 104) (see Fig. 5), and sending the pitch control command to the hydraulic pitch actuator system (see block 20 in Fig. 5)
With regard to claim 15, Nakamura discloses a wind turbine, comprising: a tower (12); a nacelle (11) disposed on the tower (Fig. 1); a rotor (2) extending from the nacelle (Fig. 1); a rotor blade (4); coupled to the rotor (Fig. 1); a controller (100); a hydraulic pitch actuator system operatively coupled to the controller and to the rotor blade for controlling a pitch angle of the rotor blade (Fig. 2, 5); wherein the controller is configured to perform an operation, comprising: receiving a current pitch signal (θ) of the rotor blade (Fig. 5, [0042]), receiving a pitch reference signal (θD) indicating a desired pitch angle for the rotor blade (Fig. 5, [0042]), receiving an operating parameter signal (input to feedback line 104, it can be the current pitch signal (θ) or a pressure signal, see Fig. 5 and [0049]-[0052]) from the hydraulic pitch actuator system ([0049]-[0052]), generating a feedback signal based on the operating parameter signal (feedback line 104), using a gain scheduler to provide a variable feedback gain (Gain K (see block 112 in Fig. 5) is variable, see item 11 of [0012], also see [0065]-[0066]), generating a damping signal based on the feedback signal and the variable feedback gain (in Fig. 5, see the loop of 104), generating a pitch control command based on a difference between the current pitch signal (θ) and the pitch reference signal (θD), and on the damping signal (Y3, 104) (see Fig. 5), and sending the pitch control command to the hydraulic pitch actuator system (see block 20 in Fig. 5).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (EP 3 070 327 B1), referred to hereinafter as Nakamura in view of Atzler et al. (US 9,835,137), referred to hereinafter as Atzler.
With regard to claim 6:
Nakamura discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above.
Nakamura does not appear to explicitly disclose that the generating of the feedback signal comprises applying a high pass filter to the operating parameter signal.
However, Atzler teaches that generating of a signal comprises applying a high pass filter (210, 212) to remove the unwanted frequency components (Col. 7; lines 11-13), and a cutoff (i.e., corner) frequency of the high-pass filter corresponding to a rotor speed (claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, namely adding a high pass filter for the operating parameter signal so the generating of the feedback signal comprises applying a high pass filter to the operating parameter signal, to yield predictable results of removing the unwanted frequency components.
With regard to claim 7, the combination of Nakamura and Atzler further discloses that a corner frequency of the high pass filter is dependent on at least one of: the current pitch signal, the pitch reference signal, a current pitch error, a current pitch rate, a position of a pitch control piston of the hydraulic pitch actuator system, a rate of change of the position of the pitch control piston, a wind speed, a rotor speed or generator speed, and an operational state of the wind turbine (claim 11).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (EP 3 070 327 B1), referred to hereinafter as Nakamura in view of Zheng et al. (US 2016/0305403), referred to hereinafter as Zheng.
With regard to claim 6:
Nakamura discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above, and further discloses a low pass filter.
Nakamura does not appear to explicitly disclose that the generating of the feedback signal comprises applying a high pass filter to the operating parameter signal.
However, Zheng teaches that a low-pass filter may be used in conjunction with a high-pass filter in order to pass high-frequency signals but attenuate signals with frequencies lower than a cutoff (i.e., corner) frequency ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, namely adding a high pass filter for the operating parameter signal so the generating of the feedback signal comprises applying a high pass filter to the operating parameter signal, to yield predictable results of passing high-frequency signals but attenuating signals with frequencies lower than a cutoff (i.e., corner) frequency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (EP 3 070 327 B1), referred to hereinafter as Nakamura in view of Zheng et al. (US 2016/0305403), referred to hereinafter as Zheng, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Atzler et al. (US 9,835,137), referred to hereinafter as Atzler.
With regard to claim 7:
The combination of Nakamura and Zheng discloses the method of claim 6, as set forth above.
The combination of Nakamura and Zheng does not appear to explicitly disclose that a corner frequency of the high pass filter is dependent on at least one of: the current pitch signal, the pitch reference signal, a current pitch error, a current pitch rate, a position of a pitch control piston of the hydraulic pitch actuator system, a rate of change of the position of the pitch control piston, a wind speed, a rotor speed or generator speed, and an operational state of the wind turbine.
However, Atzler teaches that generating of a signal comprises applying a high pass filter (210, 212) to remove the unwanted frequency components (Col. 7; lines 11-13), and a cutoff (i.e., corner) frequency of the high-pass filter corresponding to a rotor speed (claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (EP 3 070 327 B1), referred to hereinafter as Nakamura in view of Christensen (US 2010/0117361).
With regard to claim 11:
Nakamura discloses the method of claim 10, as set forth above.
Nakamura does not appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that the pitch reference controller uses deadband compensation.
However, Christensen teaches a pitch system controller using deadband compensation ([0027], [0031], [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely using deadband compensation for the pitch reference controller, to improve similar devices in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (EP 3 070 327 B1), referred to hereinafter as Nakamura in view of Kjær et al. (US 10,920,747), referred to hereinafter as Kjær.
With regard to claim 16:
Nakamura discloses an operation for controlling a pitch angle of a rotor blade of a wind turbine, the wind turbine comprising the rotor blade and a hydraulic pitch actuator system, the hydraulic pitch actuator system being operatively coupled to the rotor blade (Fig. 2, 5), the operation comprising: receiving a current pitch signal (θ) of the rotor blade (Fig. 5, [0042]), receiving a pitch reference signal (θD) indicating a desired pitch angle for the rotor blade (Fig. 5, [0042]), receiving an operating parameter signal (input to feedback line 104, it can be the current pitch signal (θ) or a pressure signal, see Fig. 5 and [0049]-[0052]) from the hydraulic pitch actuator system ([0049]-[0052]), generating a feedback signal based on the operating parameter signal (feedback line 104), using a gain scheduler to provide a variable feedback gain (Gain K (see block 112 in Fig. 5) is variable, see item 11 of [0012], also see [0065]-[0066]), generating a damping signal based on the feedback signal and the variable feedback gain (in Fig. 5, see the loop of 104), generating a pitch control command based on a difference between the current pitch signal (θ) and the pitch reference signal (θD), and on the damping signal (Y3, 104) (see Fig. 5), and sending the pitch control command to the hydraulic pitch actuator system (see block 20 in Fig. 5).
Nakamura does not appear to explicitly disclose a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to execute the above operation.
However, Kjær teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to execute an operation (claim 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, namely adding a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to execute the above operation, to yield predictable results of storing the instruction and executing the operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar methods such as US 9062656.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights