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
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 17-21, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Atzler et al. (EP 2 859 225), referred to hereinafter as Atzler.
With regard to claim 17, Atzler discloses a method for operating a wind turbine having a rotor with N rotor blades, wherein N ≥ 2, and a pitch setting system for individually setting the pitch angles of the N rotor blades, the method comprising: determining first information which is representative for whether an edge-wise movement of at least one rotor blade exceeds a threshold while the rotor is rotating with a frequency P; and, if the edge-wise movement of the at least one rotor blade exceeds the threshold while the rotor is rotating with the frequency P, generating an output signal configured to cause the pitch setting system to individually and periodically change the pitch angles of the N rotor blades each with a frequency of (M*N-1)*P in order to reduce edge-wise movements of the rotor blades, wherein M is an integer greater than 0 (Fig. 4, [0034]-[0036], number of blade N=3, M=1, the tilt and yaw moment are determined from the blade root bending moment which can be interpreted as edge-wise movement since edge-wise is broad and also since root is at least one edge of the blade by virtue of being root. Identifying a difference between a reference value for the 3P bending moment yaw/tilt of the rotor and the determined value for the 3P bending moment yaw/tilt of the rotor, this difference is used to calculate the (M*N-1)*P= 2P cyclic/individual pitch; it is therefore implicit that if the difference is zero, there is no pitch setting, thus the reference value can be interpreted as a threshold, in order to apply a 2P cyclic pitch to the blades).
With regard to claim 18, Atzler further discloses providing second information representative for an M*N*P-content in a bending moment (M_tilt, M_yaw) acting on the rotor while the rotor is rotating with the frequency P, wherein the M*N*P-content is the content in the bending moment (M_tilt, M_yaw) having the frequency M*N*P, and, wherein the first information is determined depending on the second information ( Fig.4, [0034]-[0036], see Figs.1,2, number of blades N=3, the tilt and yaw moments are determined from the blade root bending moment which can be interpreted as edge-wise movement since edge-wise is broad and also since root is at least one edge of the blade by virtue of being root; identifying a difference between a reference value for the M*N*P= 3P bending moment yaw/tilt of the rotor and the determined value for the 3P bending moment yaw/tilt of the rotor, this difference is used to calculate the 2P cyclic/individual pitch; it is therefore implicit that if the difference is zero, there is no pitch setting, thus the reference value can be interpreted as a threshold, in order to apply a 2P cyclic pitch to the blades).
With regard to claim 19, Atzler further discloses that N = 3, and M = 1 (Fig. 1, 2, [0033], number of blades N=3).
With regard to claim 20, Atzler further discloses providing third information which is representative for bending moments (M_y,i , M_z,i) acting on the at least one rotor blade; and, wherein the first information is determined depending on the third information ([0034], blade root bending moment to determine the tilt and yaw moments).
With regard to claim 21, Atzler further discloses providing fourth information representative for the bending moment (M_tilt, M_yaw) acting on the rotor as a function of time, wherein the second information is determined depending on the fourth information via a filter (Fig. 4, [0034]-[0036]. 3P yaw/tilt bending moments are determined using a filter (High-pass and notch filters), see [0037]-[0038], Figs.4,5).
With regard to claim 23, Atzler further discloses that said determining the first information includes determining whether an amplitude of the M*N*P-content exceeds a threshold (Fig. 4, [0034]-[0036]).
With regard to claim 27, Atzler further discloses that the third information is determined depending on measurements taken via a sensor system ([0011], sensor on the blade).
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atzler et al. (EP 2 859 225), referred to hereinafter as Atzler in view of Fu et al. (US 2014/0037448), referred to hereinafter as Fu.
With regard to claim 22:
Atzler discloses the method of claim 20, as set forth above, and further discloses providing fourth information representative for a bending moment (M_tilt, M_yaw) acting on the rotor as a function of time, wherein the second information is determined depending on the fourth information via a filter (Fig. 4, [0034]-[0036]. 3P yaw/tilt bending moments are determined using a filter (high-pass and notch filters), see [0037]-[0038], Fig. 4, 5).
Atzler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fourth information is determined depending on the third information using a coordinate transformation.
However, Fu teaches an information is determined depending on another information using a coordinate transformation ([0028]-[0030]).
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 and determine the fourth information depending on the third information using a coordinate transformation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atzler et al. (EP 2 859 225), referred to hereinafter as Atzler in view of WANG XIUYAN ET AL: "Independent Pitch Control Strategy and Simulation for Reducing Unbalanced Load of Wind Turbine", 2020 CHINESE CONTROL AND DECISION CONFERENCE (CCDC), IEEE, 22 August 2020 (2020-08-22), referred to hereinafter as WANG.
With regard to claims 24 and 25:
Atzler discloses the method of claim 20, as set forth above, and further discloses that the third information is representative for the respective bending moment (M_z,i) acting on the at least one rotor blade; and, the first information is determined depending on the third information. In Atzler, the 3P bending moment yaw/tilt of the rotor is used to determine if a threshold is exceeded in using a reference value before calculating a 2P cyclic pitch.
Atzler does not appear to explicitly disclose edge-wise bending moment.
However, WANG teaches a relation between the fatigue of the tilt and yawing moments from the 3P oscillations and the vibrations from the 2P and 4P blade root bending moments (see p.5536, end of paragraph 4.1).
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 and use the 4P blade root bending moments, e.g. the edgewise blade root bending moment, instead of the 3P bending moment yaw/tilt of the rotor to determine if a threshold is exceeded in using a reference value before calculating a 2P cyclic pitch.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atzler et al. (EP 2 859 225), referred to hereinafter as Atzler.
With regard to claim 26:
Atzler discloses the method of claim 17, as set forth above.
Atzler does not appear to explicitly disclose that said determining the first information includes determining at least one of whether the frequency P lies within a critical frequency range and whether a power output of the wind turbine lies within a critical power range.
However, it is basic engineering not to run a wind turbine with a frequency that is within a critical frequency range, and a power output of the wind turbine within a critical power range because it is not safe to run a wind turbine with a frequency that is within a critical frequency range, and a power output of the wind turbine within a critical power range by virtue of them being “critical.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have a method in which said determining the first information includes determining at least one of whether the frequency P lies within a critical frequency range and whether a power output of the wind turbine lies within a critical power range.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atzler et al. (EP 2 859 225), referred to hereinafter as Atzler in view of Kruger et al. (US 2016/0252075), referred to hereinafter as Kruger.
With regard to claims 28-30:
Atzler discloses the method of claim 17, as set forth above.
Atzler does not appear to explicitly disclose a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 17, a non-transitory computer-readable data carrier having the computer program of claim 28 stored thereon, or a control device comprising at least one processor configured to perform the method of claim 17.
However, Kruger teaches a method of operating a wind turbine, and further teaches a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method, a non-transitory computer-readable data carrier having the computer program stored thereon, or a control device comprising at least one processor configured to perform the method ([0016], [0021], [0035], claim 20).
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, and add a computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 17, a non-transitory computer-readable data carrier having the computer program of claim 28 stored thereon, or a control device comprising at least one processor configured to perform the method of claim 17 to the wind turbine of Atzler, to yield predictable results of operating the wind turbine with the method.
With regard to claim 31:
Atzler discloses a control system for operating a wind turbine having a rotor with N rotor blades, wherein N ≥ 2, and a pitch setting system for individually setting the pitch angles of the N rotor blades, the control system comprising: a sensor system configured to take measurements via which it is determinable whether an edge-wise movement of at least one rotor blade exceeds a threshold while the rotor is rotating with frequency P; a control device to: determine first information which is representative for whether an edge-wise movement of at least one rotor blade exceeds the threshold while the rotor is rotating with the frequency P; and, if the edge-wise movement of at least one rotor blade exceeds the threshold while the rotor is rotating with the frequency P, generate an output signal configured to cause the pitch setting system to individually and periodically change the pitch angles of the N rotor blades each with a frequency of (M*N-1)*P in order to reduce the edge-wise movements of the at least one rotor blade, wherein M is an integer greater than 0; said control device being signally connectable to said sensor system in order to provide said control device with the measurements of the sensor system; and, said control device being signally connectable to the pitch setting system in order to provide the pitch setting system with said output signal of said control device so that the pitch setting system sets the pitch angles of the rotor blades depending on said output signal (Fig.4, [0002], [0011], [0034]-[0036]).
Atzler does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon, wherein said program code is configured, when executed by said processor to perform the operation.
However, Kruger teaches a method of operating a wind turbine, and further teaches at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon, wherein said program code is configured, when executed by said processor to perform the operation ([0016], [0021], [0035], claim 20).
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, and add at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon, wherein said program code is configured, when executed by said processor to perform the operation, to the wind turbine of Atzler, to yield predictable results of operating the wind turbine with the method.
With regard to claim 32:
Atzler discloses a wind turbine comprising: a rotor with N rotor blades, wherein N ≥ 2; a pitch setting system for individually setting pitch angles of said N rotor blades; a control system including a sensor system configured to take measurements via which it is determinable whether an edge-wise movement of at least one rotor blade exceeds a threshold while said rotor is rotating with frequency P; said control system further including a control device to: determine first information which is representative for whether an edge-wise movement of at least one rotor blade exceeds the threshold while said rotor is rotating with the frequency P; and, if the edge-wise movement of the at least one rotor blade exceeds the threshold while said rotor is rotating with the frequency P, generate an output signal configured to cause said pitch setting system to individually and periodically change the pitch angles of said N rotor blades each with a frequency of (M*N-1)*P in order to reduce edge-wise movements of said at least one rotor blade, wherein M is an integer greater than 0; said control device being signally connectable to said sensor system in order to provide said control device with the measurements of said sensor system; and, said control device being signally connectable to said pitch setting system in order to provide said pitch setting system with said output signal of said control device so that said pitch setting system sets the pitch angles of said at least rotor blade depending on said output signal (Fig.4, [0002], [0011], [0034]-[0036]).
Atzler does not appear to explicitly disclose that the control device has at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon, wherein said program code is configured, when executed by said processor.
However, Kruger teaches a method of operating a wind turbine, and further teaches a control device that has at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon, wherein said program code is configured, when executed by said processor ([0016], [0021], [0035], claim 20).
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, and make the control device with at least one processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium having program code stored thereon, wherein said program code is configured, when executed by said processor to perform the above operating functions, to yield predictable results of operating the wind turbine with the method.
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 wind turbines such as US 8506249.
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