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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “preferably” in claim 4, line 5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “preferably” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting “preferably parallel” in claim 4, line 5, as -- parallel --.
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 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) 1-8, 10, 11, 14, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (Pub No. US 2015/0362517 A1) in view of Handman et al. (Pub No. US 2004/0174542 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Lim teaches a measurement apparatus (See paragraphs 0009-0010, 0037-0041, 0047, & 0052) for determining a velocity of a fluid relative to a wind turbine component surface, (See paragraphs 0001-0002 & figures 1, 5, & 7-11, ref # 18, 54, & 70) comprising: a sensor arrangement (See paragraph 0059-0060 & figures 1 & 5, ref # 10 & 50) that is configured to be mounted to the wind turbine component surface (See figures 1, 5, & 7-11, ref # 18, 54, & 70) and that comprises: a bendable rod (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53) that is configured to be attached to the wind turbine component surface (See figures 1, 5, & 7-11, ref # 18, 54, & 70) and has a predetermined shape and stiffness, and sensors (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) that are associated with the bendable rod (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53) and that are configured to generate a signal that is indicative of a force or moment that the fluid exerts on the bendable rod; (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53) and a processing system that is configured to receive the signal from the sensors, (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) and to determine the velocity of the fluid relative to the wind turbine component surface (See figures 1, 5, & 7-11, ref # 18, 54, & 70) based on the signal from the sensors and the predetermined shape and stiffness of the bendable rod. (See paragraphs 0009-0010, 0037-0041, 0047, 0052, 0059-0060 & figures 1 & 5, ref # 53)
Lim is silent about a vehicle.
However, Handman teaches a measurement apparatus (See figures 1A-2B, ref # 101 & 210) for determining a velocity of a fluid relative to a vehicle. (See paragraph 0002 & figures 3A-7F)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a measurement apparatus for determining a velocity of a fluid relative to a vehicle as taught by Handman in the measurement apparatus of Lim, since having a measurement apparatus for determining a velocity of a fluid relative to an object, can be used with many objects including different types of vehicles, to determine velocity of the fluid relative to the object/vehicle.
Regarding claim 2
Lim teaches wherein the force or moment causes a deformation of the bendable rod, (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53) and wherein the sensors (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) are configured to measure a strain in form of a compression or a stretching caused by the deformation of the bendable rod. (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53)
Regarding claim 3
Lim teaches wherein the sensors (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) comprise at least one of an electric strain gauge, a piezo sensor, or an optical sensor. (See paragraphs 0041, 0047, 0052, & 0059-0060)
Regarding claim 4
Lim teaches wherein the bendable rod (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53) has a neutral axis, (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 20) and wherein the sensors (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) further comprise: at least one sensor (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) that is provided on the bendable rod (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53) at a distance from the neutral axis. (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 20)
Lim does not teach wherein the sensors further comprise: at least one series of aligned sensors that is provided at the bendable rod preferably parallel to the neutral axis at a predetermined distance from the neutral axis.
However, Handman teaches wherein the bendable rod (See figures 1A-2A, ref # 101) has a neutral axis, and wherein the sensors (See paragraphs 0002 & 0059) further comprise: at least one series of aligned sensors (See paragraphs 0002, 0053, 0055, & 0059) that is provided at the bendable rod (See figures 1A-2A, ref # 101) preferably parallel to the neutral axis at a predetermined distance from the neutral axis. (See figures 1A-2A)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bendable rod that has a neutral axis, and wherein the sensors further comprise: at least one series of aligned sensors that is provided at the bendable rod preferably parallel to the neutral axis at a predetermined distance from the neutral axis as taught by Handman in the measurement apparatus of Lim, so as to determine velocity of the fluid relative to the object/vehicle.
Regarding claim 5
Lim does not teach wherein the at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a predetermined number of series of aligned sensors, and wherein the processing system is further configured to determine a magnitude and a direction of the velocity of the fluid in a plane that is perpendicular to the bendable rod.
However, Handman teaches wherein the at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a predetermined number of series of aligned sensors, and wherein the processing system is further configured to determine a magnitude and a direction of the velocity of the fluid in a plane that is perpendicular to the bendable rod. (See paragraphs 0002, 0053, 0055, & 0059)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a predetermined number of series of aligned sensors, and wherein the processing system is further configured to determine a magnitude and a direction of the velocity of the fluid in a plane that is perpendicular to the bendable rod as taught by Handman in the measurement apparatus of Lim, so as to determine velocity of the fluid relative to the object/vehicle.
Regarding claim 6
Lim teaches wherein the at least one of aligned sensors (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) comprises: wherein the sensors (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) are arranged on opposite sides of the neutral axis (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 20) are connected at a distal end (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 55) of the bendable rod (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53) from the wind turbine component surface. (See figures 1, 5, & 7-11, ref # 18, 54, & 70)
Lim does not teach wherein the at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a predetermined number of series of aligned sensors, wherein any two series of aligned sensors of the even number of series of aligned sensors that are arranged on opposite sides of the neutral axis are connected at a distal end of the bendable rod from the vehicle.
However, Handman teaches wherein the at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a predetermined number of series of aligned sensors. (See paragraphs 0002, 0053, 0055, & 0059)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a predetermined number of series of aligned sensors, wherein any two series of aligned sensors of the even number of series of aligned sensors that are arranged on opposite sides of the neutral axis are connected at a distal end of the bendable rod from the vehicle as taught by Handman in the measurement apparatus of Lim, so as to determine velocity of the fluid relative to the object/vehicle.
Regarding claim 7
Lim teaches wherein the sensors (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51, 51a, 52 & 52a) comprises: a fiber optic cable, (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51 & 52) and optical reflectors (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51a & 52a) embedded in the fiber optic cable. (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 51 & 52)
Lim does not teach wherein a series of aligned sensors of the at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a fiber optic cable; and optical reflectors embedded at predetermined distances from each other in the fiber optic cable.
However, Handman teaches wherein a series of aligned sensors of the at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a fiber optic cable; and optical reflectors embedded at predetermined distances from each other in the fiber optic cable. (See paragraphs 0002, 0053, 0055, & 0059)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a series of aligned sensors of the at least one series of aligned sensors comprises: a fiber optic cable; and optical reflectors embedded at predetermined distances from each other in the fiber optic cable as taught by Handman in the measurement apparatus of Lim, so as to determine velocity of the fluid relative to the object/vehicle.
Regarding claim 8
Lim does not teach wherein the processing system is further configured to determine tilt angles of the bendable rod based on measuring a change in distance between pairs of adjacent optical reflectors of the optical reflectors.
However, Handman teaches wherein the processing system is further configured to determine tilt angles of the bendable rod based on measuring a change in distance between pairs of adjacent optical reflectors of the optical reflectors. (See paragraphs 0002, 0053, 0055, & 0059)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a processing system is further configured to determine tilt angles of the bendable rod based on measuring a change in distance between pairs of adjacent optical reflectors of the optical reflectors as taught by Handman in the measurement apparatus of Lim, so as to determine velocity of the fluid relative to the object/vehicle.
Regarding claim 10
Lim teaches wherein the bendable rod (See figure 1, ref # 10) varies in thickness (See figure 1) and/or in rigidity (See figure 1) along the neutral axis. (See figure 1, ref # 20)
Regarding claim 11
Lim teaches wherein the sensor arrangement (See paragraph 0059-0060 & figures 1 & 5, ref # 10 & 50) further comprises: an additional bendable rod. (See figure 11, ref # 11a-11c)
Lim does not teach wherein the sensor arrangement further comprises: an additional bendable rod (See paragraph 0059) that is configured to be attached to the vehicle perpendicular to the bendable rod and has an additional predetermined shape and stiffness; (See paragraphs 0002, 0053, 0055, & 0059) and additional sensors that are associated with the additional bendable rod, configured to generate an additional signal that is indicative of an additional force or moment that the fluid exerts on the additional bendable rod, (See paragraphs 0002, 0053, 0055, & 0059) and configured to transmit the additional signal to the processing system, wherein the processing system is further configured to determine a three-dimensional representation of the velocity of the fluid relative to the vehicle based on the signal and the additional signal. (See paragraphs 0002, 0053, 0055, & 0059)
However, Handman teaches wherein the sensor arrangement further comprises: an additional bendable rod that is configured to be attached to the vehicle perpendicular to the bendable rod and has an additional predetermined shape and stiffness; and additional sensors that are associated with the additional bendable rod, configured to generate an additional signal that is indicative of an additional force or moment that the fluid exerts on the additional bendable rod, and configured to transmit the additional signal to the processing system, wherein the processing system is further configured to determine a three-dimensional representation of the velocity of the fluid relative to the vehicle based on the signal and the additional signal.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sensor arrangement further comprises: an additional bendable rod that is configured to be attached to the vehicle perpendicular to the bendable rod and has an additional predetermined shape and stiffness; and additional sensors that are associated with the additional bendable rod, configured to generate an additional signal that is indicative of an additional force or moment that the fluid exerts on the additional bendable rod, and configured to transmit the additional signal to the processing system, wherein the processing system is further configured to determine a three-dimensional representation of the velocity of the fluid relative to the vehicle based on the signal and the additional signal as taught by Handman in the measurement apparatus of Lim, so as to determine velocity of the fluid relative to the object/vehicle.
Regarding claim 14
Lim teaches a wind turbine component surface (See figures 1, 5, & 7-11, ref # 18, 54, & 70) comprising the measurement apparatus, (See paragraphs 0009-0010, 0037-0041, 0047, & 0052) wherein the bendable rod (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 53) is attached to the wind turbine component surface (See figures 1, 5, & 7-11, ref # 18, 54, & 70) at a predetermined surface area. (See figures 1 & 5, ref # 54)
Lim is silent about an aircraft.
However, Handman teaches a measurement apparatus (See figures 1A-2B, ref # 101 & 210) for determining a velocity of a fluid relative to an aircraft. (See paragraph 0002 & figures 3A-7F, ref # 302)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an aircraft comprising the measurement apparatus, wherein the bendable rod is attached to the aircraft at a predetermined surface area as taught by Handman in the measurement apparatus of Lim, so as to determine the velocity of the fluid/air flow with respect to the aircraft/object.
Regarding claim 16
The operation of the apparatus of claim 1 meets the limitation of the method of claim 16.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (Pub No. US 2015/0362517 A1) in view of Handman et al. (Pub No. US 2004/0174542 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buenz et al. (Pub No. US 2021/0140989 A1).
Regarding claim 13
A modified Lim does not teach wherein the bendable rod further comprises: a heating device that is adapted for preventing icing of the bendable rod; and an electric cable that is connected to the heating device and provides electricity to the heating device.
However, Buenz teaches wherein the rod (See paragraphs 0003-0005, 0032 & figures 2A-2C, ref # 30) further comprises: a heating device (See figures 2A-2C, ref # 40) that is adapted for preventing icing of the rod; (See figures 2A-2C, ref # 30) and an electric cable that is connected to the heating device (See paragraphs 0003-0005, 0032 & figures 2A-2C, ref # 40) and provides electricity to the heating device. (See paragraphs 0003-0005, 0032 & figures 2A-2C, ref # 40)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a bendable rod further comprises: a heating device that is adapted for preventing icing of the bendable rod; and an electric cable that is connected to the heating device and provides electricity to the heating device as taught by Buenz in the modified measuring apparatus of Lim, so as to prevent icing in possible icing conditions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 12, & 15 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. However, 112 issues need to be resolved.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the bendable rod further comprises: a hosting material comprising a composite material having a fiber orientation that forms a predetermined angle with the neutral axis, and wherein the predetermined angle is selected between 30 degrees and 60 degrees to prevent torsional movements of the bendable rod” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 9.
Regarding claim 12,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “an additional sensor arrangement having additional sensors associated with an additional bendable rod that is attached to the vehicle at a location that is protected from the fluid, and wherein the processing system uses measurements related to another force or moment acting on the additional sensors for filtering out parasitic forces or parasitic moments acting on the sensors” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 12.
Regarding claim 15,
The prior art does not disclose or suggest the claimed “wherein the bendable rod is attached to the rotary-wing aircraft outside the predetermined surface area” in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The reference Gerardi (US Patent No. 5,117,687) discloses an aircraft and method for detecting the velocity of a fluid/air relative to the vehicle/aircraft, a sensor arrangement, a bendable rod attached to the vehicle, sensors associated with the bendable rod, the sensors being at least one of an electrical strain gauge, a piezo sensor, or an optical sensor, and a sensor array that can detect in three orthogonal directions, however, not three orthogonal bending rods.
The reference Grohmann et al. (Pub No. US 2016/0304190 A1) discloses an aircraft and method for detecting the velocity of a fluid/air relative to the vehicle/aircraft, a sensor arrangement, a strain gauge or an optical sensor, and a multi-blade rotor adapted for generating lift in operation, comprising at least two rotor blades that create a downwash during rotation of the main rotor that affects a predetermined surface area.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY ANDREW BONNETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7556. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/RODNEY A BONNETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights