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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/11/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendments to the Claims filed 05/15/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 5, and 8-24 are pending in the application. Claims 3-4 and 6-7 have been canceled. Applicant’s amendment to the Claims have overcome each and every claim objection previously set forth in the final rejection dated 08/11/2025. Due to amendments to the claims new 35 USC 103 rejections are presented below.
Claim Objections
As noted above the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections previously set forth have been overcome by amendment to the claims.
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) 1-2, 11-12, 14, 17-18, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US 5372039 A) in view of Yan (US 20170307647 A1) and Bou-Zeid et al. (US 20180062393 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 17, and 18. Wiese teaches:
An apparatus for wind speed measurement, the apparatus comprising:
the pressure sensor being the only pressure sensor provided in the apparatus to facilitate the wind speed measurement (See Fig. 5, Col. 3 lines 15 – 20, Col. 3 lines 40 – 50, and Col. 10 lines 17 - 27: geostrophic wind equation can be determined using a single pressure sensor. The apparatus, according to the invention, includes a pressure sensor for detecting atmospheric pressure at the given location.); and
the processor being configured is arranged to:
derive a time series of pressure values by sampling the pressure sensor signal to facilitate processing the pressure values as a sequence of time frames, each respective time frame including a predefined number of consecutive pressure values (See Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Col. 2 line 59 – Col. 3 line 14, Col. 5 lines 8 – 15, Col. 6 lines 51 – 64, and Col. 8 lines 30 - 48: The atmospheric pressure is detected at the location over a predetermined period of time (t). Thus, for a timer period of 5 minutes, and a minimum number of samples of 24, the method requires a two hour lag time before the first results can be computed. The period of time (t) is a moving window over which the detected pressure is averaged. It should be sufficiently long to accurately determine the time rate of change of pressure.),
derive, for each respective time frame of the sequence of time frames based on a variation of pressure values within the respective time frame, a respective reference wind speed value, thereby obtaining a time series of reference wind speed values (See Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Col. 2 line 59 – Col. 3 line 14, Col. 5 lines 8 – 15, Col. 6 lines 51 – 64, Col. 7 line 22 – Col. 8 lines 10, and Col. 8 lines 30 - 48: The variable PAVE represents the average pressure over a period of N consecutive pressure samples. In step 54, the average pressure PAVE is computed by dividing the variable SUM, which is now equal to the sum of the N most recent detected pressure samples. In step 56, the change in pressure DP is computed as the value of the current pressure sample P(K) minus the average pressure PAVE. The geostrophic wind velocity determination, therefore, does not simply use two pressure samples to determine a change in pressure. Rather, the change in pressure P is the current pressure P(K) minus the average pressure over the N most recent pressure samples.),
compute, for each respective time frame of the sequence of time frames, respective one or more wind speed characteristics based on the time series of reference wind speed values (See Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, and Col. 8 lines 1 – 20: The change in pressure DP is then used in step 58 to determine the geostrophic wind velocity VG.), and
one or more of: (i) display the one or more computed wind speed characteristics on a display (See Fig. 1, Fig. 5, and Col. 5 lines 44 – 55: If the current geostrophic wind velocity VG(K) is greater than VGMAX, the method sets VGMAX equal to VG(K) and updates a display in step 25 with the new value of VGMAX.), and (ii) transmit the one or more computed wind speed characteristics to another apparatus.
Wiese is silent as to the language of:
a wind shield defining a measurement volume therein;
a pressure sensor disposed within the measurement volume such that the wind shield is configured to prevent a direct airflow from an environment of the apparatus to the pressure sensor when the apparatus is in an operating position to carry out wind speed measurement,
the pressure sensor thereby configured to provide a pressure sensor signal that is descriptive of an instantaneous atmospheric pressure in ambient air within the measurement volume, and
a processor configured to derive, based on the pressure sensor signal, one or more wind speed characteristics that are descriptive of the wind speed at a predefined reference measurement height.
Nevertheless Yan teaches:
a wind shield defining a measurement volume therein (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para[0008], para[0018], para[0038], and para[0049]: Measuring a static pressure P.sub.0 of an inner cavity of a pressure hole of a mobile device; wherein the pressure hole is in communication with the outside, and is a specifically formed opening or an existing designed opening in the mobile device.);
a pressure sensor disposed within the measurement volume such that the wind shield is configured to prevent a direct airflow from an environment of the apparatus to the pressure sensor when the apparatus is in an operating position to carry out wind speed measurement (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para[0018], and para[0049]: A pressure sensor disposed in an inner cavity of a pressure hole of the device for testing wind speed, wherein the pressure hole is in communication with the outside, and is a specifically formed opening or an existing designed opening in the mobile device; wherein the pressure sensor is configured to acquire a static pressure P.sub.0 of the inner cavity of the pressure hole.),
the pressure sensor thereby configured to provide a pressure sensor signal that is descriptive of an instantaneous atmospheric pressure in ambient air within the measurement volume (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para[0018], and para[0049]: A pressure sensor disposed in an inner cavity of a pressure hole of the device for testing wind speed, wherein the pressure hole is in communication with the outside, and is a specifically formed opening or an existing designed opening in the mobile device; wherein the pressure sensor is configured to acquire a static pressure P.sub.0 of the inner cavity of the pressure hole.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese by a wind shield defining a measurement volume therein; a pressure sensor disposed within the measurement volume such that the wind shield is configured to prevent a direct airflow from an environment of the apparatus to the pressure sensor when the apparatus is in an operating position to carry out wind speed measurement, the pressure sensor thereby configured to provide a pressure sensor signal that is descriptive of an instantaneous atmospheric pressure in ambient air within the measurement volume such as that of Yan. Yan teaches, “Since a too large cross-sectional area of the inner cavity of the pressure hole affects wind resistance and further affects the precision of the wind speed testing, the inner diameter of the inner cavity of the pressure hole of the mobile device is generally set to be about 3.5 mm in practical application” (See para[0038]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because using a pressure sensor disposed within a measurement volume defined by a wind shield would have helped to prevent wind from affecting the precision of the measurements, as recognized by Yan.
Yan is silent as to the language of:
a processor configured to derive, based on the pressure sensor signal, one or more wind speed characteristics that are descriptive of the wind speed at a predefined reference measurement height.
Nevertheless Bou-Zeid teaches:
a processor configured to derive, based on the pressure sensor signal, one or more wind speed characteristics that are descriptive of the wind speed at a predefined reference measurement height (See para[0038] – para[0045]: z is the elevation above ground at which the wind velocity vector is sought. Measure the wind speed and its direction at wind turbines hub height (e.g. around 10-200 m above the ground) in the particular geographical location of interest, or even at lower heights that subsequently can be extrapolated to hub heights.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese by one or more wind speed characteristics that are descriptive of the wind speed at a predefined reference measurement height such as that of Bou-Zeid. Bou-Zeid teaches, “the wind velocity used for wind-energy applications, could be obtained from the anemometers that measure the wind speed and its direction at wind turbines hub height (e.g. around 10-200 m above the ground) in the particular geographical location of interest, or even at lower heights that subsequently can be extrapolated to hub heights” (See para[0045]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because determining a wind speed at a reference height would have helped to use measured wind speed to extrapolate wind speed at a reference height, as recognized by Bou-Zeid.
Regarding Claim 2. Wiese is silent as to the language of:
The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the wind shield is configured to allow an indirect airflow from the environment of the apparatus to the pressure sensor.
Nevertheless Yan teaches:
wherein the wind shield is configured allow an indirect airflow from the environment of the apparatus to the pressure sensor (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2, para[0018], and para[0049]: A pressure sensor disposed in an inner cavity of a pressure hole of the device for testing wind speed, wherein the pressure hole is in communication with the outside, and is a specifically formed opening or an existing designed opening in the mobile device; wherein the pressure sensor is configured to acquire a static pressure P.sub.0 of the inner cavity of the pressure hole.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese wherein the wind shield is configured allow an indirect airflow from the environment of the apparatus to the pressure sensor such as that of Yan. Yan teaches, “Since a too large cross-sectional area of the inner cavity of the pressure hole affects wind resistance and further affects the precision of the wind speed testing, the inner diameter of the inner cavity of the pressure hole of the mobile device is generally set to be about 3.5 mm in practical application” (See para[0038]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because using a pressure sensor disposed within a measurement volume defined by a wind shield would have helped to prevent wind from affecting the precision of the measurements, as recognized by Yan.
Regarding Claims 11 and 22. Wiese teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1, or the apparatus according to claim 2,
wherein computing the respective one or more wind speed characteristics for the respective time frame comprises deriving an average wind speed for the respective time frame (See Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Col. 2 line 59 – Col. 3 line 14, Col. 5 lines 8 – 15, Col. 6 lines 51 – 64, Col. 7 line 22 – Col. 8 lines 10, and Col. 8 lines 30 - 48: The variable PAVE represents the average pressure over a period of N consecutive pressure samples. In step 54, the average pressure PAVE is computed by dividing the variable SUM, which is now equal to the sum of the N most recent detected pressure samples. In step 56, the change in pressure DP is computed as the value of the current pressure sample P(K) minus the average pressure PAVE.).
Regarding Claim 12. Wiese teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 11,
wherein deriving the average wind speed for the respective time frame comprises computing an average of the reference wind speeds within a predefined time window that includes the respective time frame (See Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Col. 2 line 59 – Col. 3 line 14, Col. 5 lines 8 – 15, Col. 6 lines 51 – 64, Col. 7 line 22 – Col. 8 lines 10, and Col. 8 lines 30 - 48: The variable PAVE represents the average pressure over a period of N consecutive pressure samples. In step 54, the average pressure PAVE is computed by dividing the variable SUM, which is now equal to the sum of the N most recent detected pressure samples. In step 56, the change in pressure DP is computed as the value of the current pressure sample P(K) minus the average pressure PAVE.).
Regarding Claim 14. Wiese teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to:
derive the time series of pressure values based on the pressure sensor signal for processing the pressure values as the sequence of time frames (See Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Col. 2 line 59 – Col. 3 line 14, Col. 5 lines 8 – 15, Col. 6 lines 51 – 64, and Col. 8 lines 30 - 48: The atmospheric pressure is detected at the location over a predetermined period of time (t). Thus, for a timer period of 5 minutes, and a minimum number of samples of 24, the method requires a two hour lag time before the first results can be computed. The period of time (t) is a moving window over which the detected pressure is averaged. It should be sufficiently long to accurately determine the time rate of change of pressure.); and
estimate an ambient pressure based on an average of the pressure values within a predefined time window (See Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Col. 2 line 59 – Col. 3 line 14, Col. 5 lines 8 – 15, Col. 6 lines 51 – 64, Col. 7 line 22 – Col. 8 lines 10, and Col. 8 lines 30 - 48: The variable PAVE represents the average pressure over a period of N consecutive pressure samples. In step 54, the average pressure PAVE is computed by dividing the variable SUM, which is now equal to the sum of the N most recent detected pressure samples. In step 56, the change in pressure DP is computed as the value of the current pressure sample P(K) minus the average pressure PAVE.).
Claim(s) 5, 8-9, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US 5372039 A) in view of Yan (US 20170307647 A1) and Bou-Zeid et al. (US 20180062393 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ashmore (US 20170192031 A1).
Regarding Claim 5. Wiese is silent as to the language of:
The apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein deriving the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame comprises:
determining, within pressure values of the respective time frame, respective maximum and minimum pressures for the respective time frame; and
computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame based on a difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame.
Nevertheless Ashmore teaches:
determining, within pressure values of the respective time frame, respective maximum and minimum pressures for the respective time frame (See Fig. 7, Fig. 9, Fig. 15, Abstract, and para[0067]: the flow speed of a gas may be determined based on a difference between a maximum and a minimum one of the absolute gas pressure measurements.); and
computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame based on a difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame (See Fig. 7, Fig. 9, Fig. 15, Abstract, and para[0067]: the flow speed of a gas may be determined based on a difference between a maximum and a minimum one of the absolute gas pressure measurements.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese by determining, within pressure values of the respective time frame, respective maximum and minimum pressures for the respective time frame; and computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame based on a difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame such as that of Ashmore. Ashmore teaches, “It is noted that the pressure difference (i.e., P.sub.max−P.sub.min) is very dependent on the flow speed, and independent of changes in the ambient pressure and elevation changes, making the pressure difference a good indicator of the flow speed” (See para[0044]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because determining wind speed based on the difference between maximum and minimum pressures would have helped to determine the wind speed independent of changes in ambient pressure and elevation, as recognized by Ashmore.
Regarding Claim 8. Wiese teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 5,
wherein computing the respective one or more wind speed characteristics for the respective time frame comprises deriving a maximum wind speed for the respective time frame (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, and Col. 5 lines 44 – 55: in step 22, the velocity VG(K) is compared to a previously computed maximum geostrophic wind velocity VGMAX in step 24. If the current geostrophic wind velocity VG(K) is greater than VGMAX, the method sets VGMAX equal to VG(K) and updates a display in step 25 with the new value of VGMAX.).
Regarding Claim 9. Wiese teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein deriving the maximum wind speed for the respective time frame comprises finding a maximum reference wind speed within a predefined time window that includes the respective time frame (See Fig. 1, Fig. 3, and Col. 5 lines 44 – 55: in step 22, the velocity VG(K) is compared to a previously computed maximum geostrophic wind velocity VGMAX in step 24. If the current geostrophic wind velocity VG(K) is greater than VGMAX, the method sets VGMAX equal to VG(K) and updates a display in step 25 with the new value of VGMAX.).
Regarding Claims 23 and 24. Wiese teaches:
The apparatus according to claim 5, or the apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein computing the respective one or more wind speed characteristics for the respective time frame comprises deriving an average wind speed for the respective time frame (See Abstract, Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Col. 2 line 59 – Col. 3 line 14, Col. 5 lines 8 – 15, Col. 6 lines 51 – 64, Col. 7 line 22 – Col. 8 lines 10, and Col. 8 lines 30 - 48: The variable PAVE represents the average pressure over a period of N consecutive pressure samples. In step 54, the average pressure PAVE is computed by dividing the variable SUM, which is now equal to the sum of the N most recent detected pressure samples. In step 56, the change in pressure DP is computed as the value of the current pressure sample P(K) minus the average pressure PAVE. The geostrophic wind velocity determination, therefore, does not simply use two pressure samples to determine a change in pressure. Rather, the change in pressure P is the current pressure P(K) minus the average pressure over the N most recent pressure samples.).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US 5372039 A) in view of Yan (US 20170307647 A1), Bou-Zeid et al. (US 20180062393 A1), and Ashmore (US 20170192031 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 20200340703 A1).
Regarding Claim 19. Wiese is silent as to the language of:
The apparatus according to claim 5,
wherein computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame comprises computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame based on a square root of the difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame.
Nevertheless Kimura teaches:
wherein computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame comprises computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame based on a square root of the difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame (See Fig. 3, para[0037], and para[0084] – para[0088]: V is a wind velocity (m/s), d is an air density (kg/m.sup.3), and Pv is the variation in the air pressure values (hPa).
PNG
media_image1.png
60
102
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese wherein computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame comprises computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame based on a square root of the difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame such as that of Kimura. Kimura teaches, “the wind velocity calculation unit 132 is capable of calculating a wind velocity by using the Bernoulli's theorem from the air pressure values measured by the portable terminal 110” (See para[0089]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because using the square root of a difference between two pressures would have helped to determine the wind velocity using Bernoulli’s theorem, as recognized by Kimura.
Claim(s) 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US 5372039 A) in view of Yan (US 20170307647 A1), Bou-Zeid et al. (US 20180062393 A1), Ashmore (US 20170192031 A1), and Kimura et al. (US 20200340703 A1) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ray et al. (US 20150377662 A1).
Regarding Claim 20. Wiese is silent as to the language of:
The apparatus according to claim 19,
wherein computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame comprises multiplying the square root of the difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame by a predefined scaling factor that is defined at least in dependence of the reference measurement height.
Nevertheless Ray teaches:
wherein computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame comprises multiplying the square root of the difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame by a predefined scaling factor that is defined at least in dependence of the reference measurement height (See para[0062] – para[0063] and para[0066] – para[0067]: where ρ is the air density at a given altitude.
PNG
media_image2.png
58
108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese wherein computing the respective reference wind speed for the respective time frame comprises multiplying the square root of the difference between the maximum pressure and the minimum pressure found for the respective time frame by a predefined scaling factor that is defined at least in dependence of the reference measurement height such as that of Ray. Ray teaches, “speed calculation is based on a density of the fluid medium and the signals transmitted by the one or more differential pressure sensors” (See para[0018]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because using a predefined scaling factor that is defined at least in dependence of the reference measurement height would have helped to determine an appropriate air density to calculate wind speed, as recognized by Ray.
Regarding Claim 21. Wiese is silent as to the language of:
The apparatus according to claim 20,
wherein the scaling factor is defined further in dependence of characteristics of an installation height of the apparatus.
Nevertheless Ray teaches:
wherein the scaling factor is defined further in dependence of characteristics of an installation height of the apparatus (See para[0062] – para[0063] and para[0066] – para[0067]: where ρ is the air density at a given altitude.
PNG
media_image2.png
58
108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) (Examiner note: the broadest reasonable interpretation of installation height is interpreted to include the altitude of an air plane.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese wherein the scaling factor is defined further in dependence of characteristics of an installation height of the apparatus such as that of Ray. Ray teaches, “speed calculation is based on a density of the fluid medium and the signals transmitted by the one or more differential pressure sensors” (See para[0018]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because using a predefined scaling factor that is defined at least in dependence of the reference measurement height would have helped to determine an appropriate air density to calculate wind speed, as recognized by Ray.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US 5372039 A) in view of Yan (US 20170307647 A1), Bou-Zeid et al. (US 20180062393 A1), and Ashmore (US 20170192031 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Meier et al. (US 20190391287 A1).
Regarding Claim 10. Wiese is silent as to the language of:
The apparatus according to claim 8,
wherein deriving the maximum wind speed for the respective time frame comprises deriving the maximum wind speed for the respective time frame as a linear combination of a maximum wind speed derived for a preceding time frame and the reference wind speed derived for the respective time frame.
Nevertheless Meier teaches:
wherein deriving the maximum wind speed for the respective time frame comprises deriving the maximum wind speed for the respective time frame as a linear combination of a maximum wind speed derived for a preceding time frame and the reference wind speed derived for the respective time frame (See para[0096]: calculating a moving average of the frequency over each three-second period, and finding a maximum three-second average wind speed by applying a predetermined multiplier to the maximum three-second moving average frequency.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese wherein deriving the maximum wind speed for the respective time frame comprises deriving the maximum wind speed for the respective time frame as a linear combination of a maximum wind speed derived for a preceding time frame and the reference wind speed derived for the respective time frame such as that of Meier. Meier teaches, “When it is determined that the respective average wind speed or maximum wind speed exceeded a predetermined threshold for the respective average wind speed or maximum wind speed, the method further comprises transmitting and alert signal” (See para[0026]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because deriving a maximum wind speed would have helped to determine when a user needs to be alerted about heigh wind gusts, as recognized by Meier.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US 5372039 A) in view of Yan (US 20170307647 A1), and Bou-Zeid et al. (US 20180062393 A1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Corcoran (US 3182503 A).
Regarding Claim 13. Wiese is silent as to the language of:
The apparatus according to claim 12,
wherein deriving the average wind speed for the respective time frame comprises deriving the average wind speed for the respective time frame as a linear combination of an average wind speed derived for a preceding time frame and the reference wind speed derived for the respective time frame.
Nevertheless Corcoran teaches:
wherein deriving the average wind speed for the respective time frame comprises deriving the average wind speed for the respective time frame as a linear combination of an average wind speed derived for a preceding time frame and the reference wind speed derived for the respective time frame (See Fig. 1 and Col. 3, lines 1 – 45: The average value i(t) of the current that is presented at the output of averager 16 is a time weighted average which is continuously available. The time weighted average thereof, rather than periodic outputs as would be obtained by integrating means, numerous important advantages are obtained. Among these advantages are the ability to have information as to the average wind velocity at every instant of time rather than merely at discrete intervals.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese wherein deriving the average wind speed for the respective time frame comprises deriving the average wind speed for the respective time frame as a linear combination of an average wind speed derived for a preceding time frame and the reference wind speed derived for the respective time frame such as that of Corcoran. Corcoran teaches, “Among these advantages are the ability to have information as to the average wind velocity at every instant of time rather than merely at discrete intervals, the existence of an electrical signal which can be combined with other electrical signals or further acted upon to supply more information” (See Col. 3, lines 1 – 45). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because deriving an average wind speed using a linear combination would have helped determine a continually updated average wind velocity available at every instant of time, as recognized by Corcoran.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US 5372039 A) in view of Yan (US 20170307647 A1), and Bou-Zeid et al. (US 20180062393 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kreitinger et al. (US 20220082495 A1).
Regarding Claim 15. Wiese is silent as to the language of:
A wind speed measurement network, comprising:
a plurality of apparatuses according to claim 1; and
a control apparatus,
wherein each of the plurality of apparatuses is configured to derive respective one or more wind speed characteristics at a respective location, and the control apparatus is configured to derive a wind speed profile based on the respective one or more wind speed characteristics obtained from the plurality of the apparatuses.
Nevertheless Kreitinger teaches:
A wind speed measurement network, comprising:
a plurality of apparatuses according to claim 1 (See Fig. 5, para[0010], para[0030], and para[0041]): The method may also include measuring or inferring the wind data at a plurality of vertical heights above the ground, each associated with a height of one of the plurality of measurement paths. One or more of the mobile platforms may measure the wind speed at their current elevation, using, for example, a sensor, such as one or more anemometer, mounted on the mobile platform. Any of a variety of sensors may be used to determine wind speed and/or wind direction. For example, compact pitot probe); and
a control apparatus (See Fig. 5, para[0010], para[0030], and para[0041]): One or more of the mobile platforms may measure the wind speed at their current elevation, using, for example, a sensor, such as one or more anemometer, mounted on the mobile platform.),
wherein each of the plurality of apparatuses is configured to derive respective one or more wind speed characteristics at a respective location (See para[0010]: The method may also include measuring or inferring the wind data at a plurality of vertical heights above the ground, each associated with a height of one of the plurality of measurement paths.), and
the control apparatus is configured to derive a wind speed profile based on the respective one or more wind speed characteristics obtained from the plurality of the apparatuses (See Fig. 8A, para[0029], and para[0039]: a vertical wind profile may be determined from a wind measurement.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese with a wind speed measurement network, comprising: a plurality of apparatuses according to claim 1; and a control apparatus, wherein each of the plurality of apparatuses is configured to derive respective one or more wind speed characteristics at a respective location, and the control apparatus is configured to derive a wind speed profile based on the respective one or more wind speed characteristics obtained from the plurality of the apparatuses such as that of Kreitinger. Kreitinger teaches, “A vertical wind profile may refer to the dependence of a wind characteristic (e.g. speed and/or direction) with vertical height from the ground. It may thus be useful to build both a vertical wind profile and a vertical profile of the gas concentration in order to determine overall flux” (See para[0029]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because using a network of sensors to determine a wind speed profile would have helped to determine the flux of gas concentration in a particular area, as recognized by Kreitinger.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiese (US 5372039 A) in view of Yan (US 20170307647 A1), and Bou-Zeid et al. (US 20180062393 A1), and Kreitinger et al. (US 20220082495 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ashmore (US 20170192031 A1).
Regarding Claim 16. Wiese teaches:
The wind speed measurement network according to claim 15,
wherein each of the plurality of apparatuses is configured to estimate a respective ambient pressure at the respective location ( Col. 2 lines 60 – 65: The atmospheric pressure is detected at the location over a predetermined period of time (t).).
Wiese is silent as to the language of:
the control apparatus is configured to estimate wind direction based on the respective ambient pressures estimated for the respective locations of the plurality of the apparatuses.
Nevertheless Ashmore teaches:
the control apparatus is arranged to estimate wind direction based on the respective ambient pressures estimated for the respective locations of the plurality of the apparatuses (See Fig. 10 and para[0055] – para[0056]: the gas flow direction may be determined from a set of absolute gas pressure measurements.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wiese wherein the control apparatus is arranged to estimate wind direction based on the respective ambient pressures estimated for the respective locations of the plurality of the apparatuses such as that of Ashmore. Ashmore teaches, “Mechanical devices are generally lower cost than other instruments used to determine the speed and direction of a gas flow. However, mechanical devices have moving parts, and are therefore susceptible to the effects of wear and tear, leading to the degradation and eventual failure of the devices” (See para[0044]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Wiese, because determining the wind direction using a pressure sensors would have helped to determine a wind direction without using a mechanical device, as recognized by Ashmore.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that: Therefore, the combination of the teachings of Chien, Ray, and Bou-Zeid does not disclose or suggest all the features of amended independent claims 1, 17, and 18, and claims 1, 17, and 18 are patentably distinguished over Chien, Ray, and Bou-Zeid. Ashmore, Meier, Corcoran, Pedersen and Kreitinger fail to cure the deficiencies in Chien, Ray, and Bou-Zaid.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 17, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Justus et al. (Justus, C. G., and Amir Mikhail. "Height variation of wind speed and wind distributions statistics." Geophysical research letters 3.5 (1976): 261-264.) discloses projecting wind speed measurements from a first height to a second height (See Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARTER W FERRELL whose telephone number is (571)272-0551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 8 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, Catherine T. Rastovski can be reached at (571)270-0349. 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.
/CARTER W FERRELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863