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 § 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) 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 15-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasugi (2011/0166717), Pan et al. (2013/0200714), and Hennessy et al. (2006/0171086).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, and dependent claims 20 and 21, Yasugi teaches (Fig. 1) a wind power system (WIND FARM A & B) and method for feeding electrical power into an electrical supply grid (11), at a grid connection point, comprising:
at least one wind farm (A and B), the electrical supply grid having at least one distribution grid (11), and the grid connection point (IA and IB) being connected to the at least one distribution grid; and
a central farm computer configured to:
detect a first feed-in limitation associated with the grid connection point, the first feed-in limitation representing an initial power limit (PXLIMITED), the wind power system being permitted to feed electrical power into the electrical supply grid up to the initial power limit, the first feed-in limitation being set at the grid connection point by a grid operator to limit power transmission from the wind power system to the electrical supply grid at all times including if/when there is a neighboring distribution grid that is capable of taking up power exceeding the first feed-in limitation ([0042], [0043]);
determine whether farm power that is capable of being generated from wind by the wind farm is greater than the initial power limit such that the wind farm is throttled to a power below the initial power limit ([0044]);
in response to determining that the wind farm is throttled, determine whether the initial power limit is capable of being increased by redistributing the first feed-in limitation ([0045], [0046]);
in response to determining that the initial power limit is capable of being increased, increase the initial power limit to an increased power limit ([0046]); and
in response to increasing the initial power limit to the increased power limit, feeding in electrical power above the initial power limit ([0046]),
wherein:
more power is fed in than was allowed on the basis of the initial power limit (for wind farm A, based on the deficiency in wind farm B), and the more power that is higher than allowed on the basis of the initial power limit (for wind farm A) or a part thereof flows into a consumer in a neighborhood of the wind power system (via the electrical supply grid), and
determining whether the first feed-in limitation is capable of being increased by redistribution of the first feed-in limitation includes determining that the first feed-in limitation associated with the grid connection point is set to limit power transmission to any part of the grid ([0043]; the first feed-in limitation limits power transmission to the grid, any part of the grid).
Yasugi fails to explicitly teach the claimed electrical supply grid. Pan teaches a similar power system and method (Fig. 3) to that of Yasugi. Pan teaches the idea of a wind power system (12) feeding power into an electrical supply grid via a grid connection point (via 94’s), wherein the electrical supply grid has at least one distribution grid (68, medium voltage power grid) and at least one higher grid portion (high voltage power grid; to the right of voltage transformer 86) that has a higher voltage than the at least one distribution grid, and the at least one distribution grid is subordinate to the at least one higher grid portion; and wherein the power fed in the at least one distribution grid is partially transmitted to another portion of the at least one distribution grid that is a neighboring distribution grid (via 96’s), and is not transmitted to the at least one higher grid portion (via control of 98’s) ([0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Yasugi’s electrical supply grid being a medium and high voltage power grid connected via a voltage transformer as described in Pan’s invention, since Yasugi was broad with their description of the “grid” and Pan teaches a known example of a grid, and would allow the grid to power loads of various voltages.
Yasugi and Pan fail to explicitly teach consumers being connected in the distribution grid. Hennessy teaches a similar power system and method (Fig. 3) to that of Yasugi and Pan. Hennessy teaches a wind farm (108’s) supplying power to a distribution grid (112) and at least one higher grid portion (118). Hennessy also teaches the idea of consumers being connected to the distribution grid (112) via panel board (120) ([0032]), without passing through the voltage transformer (116; analogous to Pan’s transformer 86) that connects the at least one distribution grid (112) to the at least one higher grid portion (118). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have consumers being connected in the distribution grid and power from the wind farm can be fed to consumers connected in the distribution grid, since Pan and Yasugi were not explicit with where there consumers were located and Hennessy teaches an analogous example where consumers are located in the distribution grid.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Yasugi teaches (at [0046]) determining whether the first feed-in limitation is redistributable includes determining whether at least one criterion is satisfied from a list of criteria including:
no physical limitation of the grid connection point exists (i.e. no switch is open);
the first feed-in limitation is one of a plurality of feed-in limitations of the at least one distribution grid that are set such that a sum of the plurality of feed-in limitations is below a limitation for the sum of the plurality of feed-in limitations, and the first feed-in limitation is permitted to be increased on a condition that the sum of the plurality of feed-in limitations remains the limitation for the sum of the plurality of feed-in limitations ([0046]); and
at least one further power generator that feeds into the same distribution grid is associated with a second feed-in limitation and the at least one further power generator is not fully utilizing the second feed-in limitation, and a power level by which the at least one further power generator lies below the second feed-in limitation is offered as a tradable capacity to wind power systems full or partially. ([0046])
Regarding claim 3, Yasugi teaches specifying the increased power limit as a time-based progression (based on how much of a deficiency there is at each moment in time; [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Yasugi teaches controlling the feeding in of the electrical power based on a maximum limit (PALIMITED + PBLIMITED) that is above the initial power limit (PALIMITED or PBLIMITED), wherein the maximum limit is not to be exceeded. ([0045], [0046]; the maximum limit being the total power supplied from all the wind farms, and the initial power limit being the power supplied from a single wind farm)
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Yasugi teaches determining whether the first feed-in limitation is currently applicable or applicable for a future time period is performed when detecting the first-feed in limitation and/or determining whether the farm power is greater than the initial power limit ([0042], [0046]; all of these detecting/determining steps are performed continuously at all times based on if/when there is an increase in a grid frequency or if there is a deficiency).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Yasugi teaches plural wind farm installations, each being associated with a rated power and a sum of rated powers of the wind farms form a total rated power, the grid connection point is limited in a fixed manner to a first power value below the total rated power and above a largest rated power of the rated powers. (This happens when all the wind farms have a feed-in limitation, which stabilizes the frequency, and all have the same rated power; as seen in Fig. 3, during a feed-in limitation the output power is continuously lower than the rated power of each wind farm.)
Yasugi fails to explicitly teach the wind farm including a photovoltaic installation. Pan teaches the idea of a source used in a power generation system (i.e. wind farm) includes a photovoltaic installation ([0015]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a photovoltaic installation to the wind farm in Yasugi, to add to and diversify the types of power generation devices to be used in the system.
Regarding claim 18, the Yasugi/Pan combination teaches the grid connection point is dynamically limited to a dynamic power value below the largest rated power (This happens when the grid frequency continues to increase and the total feed-in limitation value is continuing to be dynamically limited.)
Claim(s) 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasugi (2011/0166717), Pan et al. (2013/0200714), and Hennessy et al. (2006/0171086) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Yasugi (2012/0265356)(referred to as Yasugi #2). Yasugi, Pan, and Hennessy teach the wind power system and method as described above. They fail to explicitly teach batteries being used as part of the power generation system. Yasugi #2 teaches a similar wind power system and method (Fig. 1) to that of Yasugi. Yasugi #2 teaches a wind farm installation including a battery ([0007]).
Regarding claim 4, Yasugi #2 teaches supplying controllable loads (i.e. battery, 10) within the wind farm by electrical power, generated by the wind farm from wind, that is not fed in the electrical supply grid (6) in response to reaching the first feed-in limitation ([0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a battery/controllable load within the wind farm to supply power to it, as needed, to prevent the wind farm from outputting too much power and for storing the excess power for later use.
Regarding claim 19, the Yasugi/Pan/Hennessy/Yasugi #2 combination teaches this claim with respect to claim 17 above.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasugi (2011/0166717), Pan et al. (2013/0200714), and Hennessy et al. (2006/0171086) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Asghari et al. (2019/0056451) and Rogers (WO 2015/103677).
Yasugi, Pan, and Hennessy teach the wind power system and method as described above. Yasugi also teaches determining a level of power fed in at all times (whether it be above or below the initial power limit; [0059]). They fail to explicitly teach taking into account penalty costs and feed-in tariffs when determining the initial power limit and how far over the limit (if any) to supply power from the wind farm power to the grid.
Asghari teaches a similar power system (Fig. 2) to that of Yasugi. Asghari teaches a first feed-in limitation being associated with penalty costs for exceeding the first limitation; and determining a level by which the power fed in exceeds the initial power limit. Asghari also teaches setting a penalty cost function (W(x)), for penalty costs, based on the level by which the power fed in exceeds the initial power limit; and controlling the level by which the power fed in exceeds the initial power limit based on the penalty cost function. ([0079], [0080]) Rogers also teaches a similar power system (Abstract) to that of Yasugi. Rogers teaches the idea of setting a tariff function for a feed-in tariff based on the level by which the power fed in exceeds the initial power limit; and controls the level by which the power fed in exceeds the initial power limit based on the tariff function (pg. 9, line 26 – pg. 10, line 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take into consideration penalty costs and feed-in tariffs when determining the initial power limit and when controlling the level by which the power fed in exceeds the initial power limit, as described above in Asghari and Rogers, in Yasugi’s invention to minimize costs and increase revenue, so that the most money can be made/saved when providing power back into the grid.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasugi (2011/0166717), Pan et al. (2013/0200714), and Hennessy et al. (2006/0171086) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasugi et al. (8,598,726)(referred to as Yasugi #3)
Yasugi, Pan, and Hennessy teach the wind power system and method as described above. They fail to explicitly teach at least one of the consumers requiring an increase/decrease in output power. Yasugi #3 teaches a similar wind power system (Fig. 1) to that of Yasugi. Yasugi #3 teaches wind farms (10-n) connected to a grid (3) via a grid connection point (A). Yasugi #3 also teaches a controller (2) that determines that at least one consumer (i.e. electric power company) requires a change (i.e. increase/decrease) in power output to the grid from the wind farm (Col. 2, lines 8-25; Col. 3, lines 13-26). Yasugi #3 goes on to teach that when determining that a consumer requires an increase/decrease in power output to the grid, the initial power limit will either be increased or decreased in response, to an increased power limit or decreased to a lower/initial power limit, as needed based on the current power limit and the required/requested power limit (Col. 2, lines 8-25; Col. 3, lines 13-26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase or decrease the initial/current power limit as needed, in response to a required increase/decrease in power from at least one consumer as described in Yasugi #3, so that the consumer can receive their desired power and that the wind farm can operate more efficiently and that no power generated goes to waste.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the amendments to the independent claims, the Examiner believes the prior art already of record teach these limitations as described above in the rejection. As stated in previous Office Actions, the limit given to the grid connection point from the wind farm would limit the power transmission to any area on the other side of the grid connection point, including the distribution grid, the transformer, and the at least one higher grid portion. Also, Hennessy teaches consumers connected to the at least one distribution grid (112) receiving the power from the wind farm without passing through the voltage transformer (116) that connects the at least one distribution grid (112) to the at least one higher grid portion (118).
Regarding new claim 22, this claim is rejected as described above with respect to newly introduced prior art reference, Yasugi et al. (8,598,726).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
7/21/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights