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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 25, 2025 have been fully considered.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections of the claims. Based on the amendments, the previous grounds of rejection have been withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are presented. The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Additionally, 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are presented to new claims 23 and 24.
All new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment and are therefore final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 recites, “wherein the wake control system is configured to achieve control in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine and base changes of control parameters on wake effects to be expected.” Claim 24 similarly recites, “wherein the wake control system is configured to base changes of control parameters on wake effects to be expected.”
The specification recites, “In particular, the factor of the change, for example the adaptation of the azimuth angle and/or the pitch angle, may then advantageously depend on the speed of the wind and thus on the overall wake effects to be expected.” The examiner finds that this description merely correlates wind speed with wake effects to be expected and there is no wake effect calculation / prediction made by the control system. The claims present the limitation regarding the overall wake effects to be expected additionally after the limitation regarding the control being in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine. This makes the claim appear to have additional requirements regarding the control being based on wake effects to be expected. There is no support for any additional calculations to determine a wake effect to be expected.
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 23 and 24 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.
Claim 23 recites, “wherein the wake control system is configured to achieve control in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine and base changes of control parameters on wake effects to be expected.” Claim 24 similarly recites, “wherein the wake control system is configured to base changes of control parameters on wake effects to be expected.”
The specification recites, “In particular, the factor of the change, for example the adaptation of the azimuth angle and/or the pitch angle, may then advantageously depend on the speed of the wind and thus on the overall wake effects to be expected.” The examiner finds that this description merely correlates wind speed with wake effects to be expected and there is no wake effect calculation / prediction made by the control system. The claims present the limitation regarding the overall wake effects to be expected additionally after the limitation regarding the control being in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine. This makes the claim appear to have additional requirements regarding the control being based on overall wake effects to be expected. There is no support for any additional requirements; please see the 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection above.
Based on the above, the examiner finds that the claimed requirements of the wake control system are unclear as it appears extra requirements are present (but these are not supported). Additionally, it is unclear who/what is doing the expecting as no aspect of how the expecting is defined. The claim requires the control parameters are changed based on wake effects to be expected.
Lastly, it is unclear if the turbulence measured value / horizontal wind shear itself could be the calculation of the wake effects to be expected. If so, changes of the control parameters are already based on wake effects to be expected.
For purposes of examination, no additional requirements are added by the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 11, 3-4, 14-17, 22, 18, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roma (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20170022974) hereinafter Roma in view of Schreiber, Wind shear estimation and wake detection by rotor loads - First wind tunnel verification, September 2016, Journal of Physics, Vol. 753, page 32027 hereinafter Schreiber and Ambekar et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20150308416) hereinafter Ambekar.
Regarding claim 11, Roma discloses:
A wind farm {[0001], [0031]} comprising:
A wake control system {[0001]},
An upstream wind turbine {[0001], [0047] first wind turbine}
A downstream wind turbine {[0001], [0047] second wind turbine}, and
a sensor configured to obtain a turbulence measured value at the downstream wind turbine and provide the turbulence measured value to the wake control system {[0012], [0017]-[0021], [0047]; parameters measured at the first and second wind turbine, these measurements are provided to wake control system},
wherein the wake control system is configured to control the upstream wind turbine based on the turbulence measured value determined at the downstream wind turbine {[0012], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0057], [0060] both upstream and downstream wind turbines are controlled based on the turbulence measurement value}.
Roma also teaches that turbulence may be indirectly determined at a wind turbine from load measurements provided by the load sensors {[0048]}, but is silent as to the specific type of load sensor as well as what type of measurement of turbulence is used. Additionally, Roma teaches wind speed and/or wind turbulence is measured at first and second wind turbines, but does not describe that this measurement of wind speed at the upstream turbine is used to impact the control performed by the wake control system.
Roma is therefore silent regarding:
wherein the sensor includes a bending sensor configured to measure bending of a rotor blade in at least one position of the rotor blade, and
wherein the wake control system is configured to determine a horizontal wind shear over a rotor of the downstream wind turbine as the turbulence measured value from the measured bending of the rotor blade
and control the upstream wind turbine with respect to a sign of the horizontal wind shear
wherein the wake control system is configured to control the upstream wind turbine in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine.
Schreiber pertains to wind turbine farm control. Schreiber teaches:
wherein the sensor includes a bending sensor configured to measure bending of a rotor blade in at least one position of the rotor blade {Page 2 second paragraph, “The method first estimates the local wind speed and horizontal shear using measured blade root bending moments, as more fully described in Ref. [8].” }, and
wherein the wake control system is configured to determine a horizontal wind shear over a rotor of the downstream wind turbine as the turbulence measured value from the measured bending of the rotor blade {See citation directly above which discusses horizontal wind shear being determined by the bending sensor measurements. Additionally, on page 2 second paragraph it also states, “Then, by using a model of the wake deficit, the wake position is determined.” The bending moment measurements are therefore performed on the downstream turbine that has reduced output due to the wake}.
Since Roma does not describe the specific type of load sensor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a bending sensor as taught by Schreiber for the load sensor of Roma. This bending sensor information can be used to determine horizontal wind shear. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as bending sensors provide information which can be used for a variety of purposes in a wind turbine including determining wind characteristics such as horizontal wind shear which are used to determine wake position and control wind turbines {Schreiber page 2 paragraph 2; Roma [0017]-[0021]}.
Since Roma does not specify what method of calculating a turbulence value is used, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used horizontal wind shear for the turbulence measured value and wake model information of Roma. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as horizontal wind shear can be calculated and used to determine the position of the wake which determines the negative impact the wake has on the downstream turbine {Schreiber page 2 paragraph 2 and last paragraph; page 3 paragraph 2, page 5, Figure 3a}.
The combination of Roma and Schreiber therefore teaches:
The wake control system controls the upstream wind turbine with respect to a sign of the horizontal wind shear
{Roma controls the upstream wind turbine to optimal set points based on the wake model, [0022]/[0052]/[0057]/[0060]. As discussed in the modification above the control system of Roma is modified to use horizontal wind shear for the turbulence value to determine wake properties based on Schreiber. Schreiber uses values of horizontal wind shear that have positive or negative signs associated with the quantity that shows the directionality of the wind shear, see Figure 3a on page 5. These signed values of horizontal wind shear impact how the controller of Roma behaves. If the sign of the horizontal wind shear were different, the control system would calculate a different wake model which would lead the control system of Roma to perform different control functions. Based on the above, the examiner finds that the wake control system of the combination of Roma and Schreiber controls the upstream wind turbine with respect to the sign of the horizontal wind shear. It is noted that the examiner interprets the claim language of “with respect to” as essentially “based on”. There are no explicit relationships in the specification that further defines this language}
Ambekar pertains to wind turbine farm control. Ambekar teaches:
wherein the wake control system is configured to perform control based on the wind speed measured {[0038]-[0041] describes different operating regimes that are at least partially based on wind speed. The operating regime determines how control is performed. For example wake affects are used in the “rated speed/power mode” but not in the “variable speed mode”}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used different operating regimes at least partially based on wind speed to control the wind turbine in different manners as taught by Ambekar for the control system of the combination of Roma and Schreiber. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the control of the wind turbine can be further optimized by depending on wind speed as different wind speed conditions have different constraints and impactful phenomena for the wind turbine {Ambekar [0038]-[0041]}.
The combination of Roma, Schreiber, and Ambekar therefore teaches:
wherein the wake control system is configured to control the upstream wind turbine in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine {Roma [0012], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0057], [0060] both upstream and downstream wind turbines are controlled based on the turbulence measurement value. Roma measures wind speed at both upstream and downstream wind turbines [0012]. Ambekar teaches that different operating regimes are based on wind speed [0038]-[0041]. These operating regimes determine how the wake control system controls the upstream wind turbine as wake influence is not important at low wind speeds when in “variable speed mode” but is important at higher wind speeds when in “rated speed/power mode”; [0038]-[0041]}.
Regarding claim 3, Roma further discloses wherein the downstream wind turbine is selected based on at least one of an azimuth position or a determined wind direction [0023] and [0012]-[0014]}.
Regarding claim 4, Roma further discloses wherein the wake control system is configured to control at least one of: an azimuth position, a pitch angle, a generator torque, or a generator power of the upstream wind turbine {[0057]}.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Roma, Schreiber, and Ambekar further teaches wherein the horizontal wind shear is measured as a difference in a wind speed on at least one rotor blade between two different blade positions of at least one rotor blade {this is implicit in Schreiber as this is the definition of horizontal wind shear, Schreiber on page 2 paragraph 2 describes the horizontal wind shear experienced by the turbine, see MPEP 2144.01 for implicit disclosure}.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Roma, Schreiber, and Ambekar further teaches wherein the horizontal wind shear is determined as a difference in the wind speeds at the 3 o'clock position and 9 o'clock position {This is implicit in the disclosure of Schreiber as the definition of horizontal wind shear is a difference in wind speed between two horizontal separated points. It is noted, 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock cover the full horizontal distribution of wind across the turbine. Schreiber on page 2 paragraph 2 describes the horizontal wind shear experienced by the turbine which would be at the 3 o’clock and 9 o’clock position. See MPEP 2144.01 for implicit disclosure}.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Roma, Schreiber, and Ambekar further teaches wherein the sensor is configured to obtain the turbulence measured value by measuring loads acting on at least one rotor blade at different rotor positions {Roma [0048]. The discussion of Schreiber on pages 1 and 2 where bending sensors are used in place of LiDAR systems to map the flow field and can determine horizontal wind shear implicitly mean the bending sensors acquire data continuously through rotation of the rotor as it moves through different positions}.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Roma, Schreiber, and Ambekar further teaches wherein the sensor is configured to measure a wind field over the rotor plane and to derive the turbulence measurement value from the measured wind field {Roma [0048]. The discussion of Schreiber on pages 1 and 2 where bending sensors are used in place of LiDAR systems to map the flow field and can determine horizontal wind shear implicitly mean the bending sensors acquire data continuously through rotation of the rotor as it moves through different positions}.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Roma, Schrieber, and Ambekar further teaches:
wherein the wind farm is configured such that at least one of an azimuth angle and a pitch angle of the upstream wind turbine are controlled in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine {Roma [0057]; both upstream and downstream wind turbines control yaw/azimuth angle and pitch. Ambekar teaches that the control is dependent on wind speed as it uses different operating regimes based on wind speed ([0038]-[0041]) that control the wind turbines including the upstream wind turbine differently depending on the operating regime}.
Regarding claim 18, Roma discloses:
A method comprising:
controlling a wind farm {[0001], [0031]},
the controlling comprising:
determining a turbulence measured value at a downstream wind turbine and provide the turbulence measurement value to the wake control system {[0012], and [0017]-[0021], [0047] parameters measured at the first and second wind turbine, these measurements are provided to wake control system},
using the wake control system to control an upstream wind turbine based on the determined turbulence measured value {[0012], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0057], [0060] both first/upstream and second/downstream wind turbines are controlled based on the turbulence measurement value}.
Roma also teaches that turbulence may be indirectly determined at a wind turbine from load measurements provided by the load sensors {[0048]}, but is silent as to the specific type of load sensor. Additionally, Roma teaches wind speed and/or wind turbulence is measured at first and second wind turbines, but does not describe that this measurement of wind speed at the upstream turbine is used to impact the control performed by the wake control system.
Roma is therefore silent regarding:
including using a bending sensor configured to measure bending of a rotor blade in at least one position of the rotor blade and
using a wake control system to determine a horizontal wind shear over a rotor of the downstream wind turbine to obtain the turbulence measured value from the measured bending of the rotor blade
and control the upstream wind turbine with respect to a sign of the horizontal wind shear.
using the wake control system to control the upstream wind turbine in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine.
Schreiber pertains to wind turbine farm control. Schreiber teaches:
including using a bending sensor configured to measure bending of a rotor blade in at least one position of the rotor blade and {Page 2 second paragraph, “The method first estimates the local wind speed and horizontal shear using measured blade root bending moments, as more fully described in Ref. [8].” }, and
using a wake control system to determine a horizontal wind shear over a rotor of the downstream wind turbine to obtain the turbulence measured value from the measured bending of the rotor blade {See citation directly above which discusses horizontal wind shear being determined by the bending sensor measurements. Additionally, on page 2 second paragraph it also states, “Then, by using a model of the wake deficit, the wake position is determined.” The bending moment measurements are therefore performed on the downstream turbine that has reduced output due to the wake}.
Since Roma does not describe the specific type of load sensor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a bending sensor as taught by Schreiber for the load sensor of Roma. This bending sensor information can be used to determine horizontal wind shear. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as bending sensors provide information which can be used for a variety of purposes in a wind turbine including determining wind characteristics such as horizontal wind shear which are used to determine wake position and control wind turbines {Schreiber page 2 paragraph 2; Roma [0017]-[0021]}.
Since Roma does not specify what method of calculating a turbulence value is used, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used horizontal wind shear for the turbulence measured value of Roma. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as horizontal wind shear can be calculated and used to determine the position of the wake which determines the negative impact the wake has on the downstream turbine {Schreiber page 2 paragraph 2 and last paragraph; page 3 paragraph 2, page 5, Figure 3a}.
The combination of Roma and Schreiber therefore teaches:
The wake control system controls the upstream wind turbine with respect to a sign of the horizontal wind shear
{Roma controls the upstream wind turbine to optimal set points based on the wake model, [0022]/[0052]/[0057]/[0060]. As discussed in the modification above the control system of Roma is modified to use horizontal wind shear for the turbulence value to determine wake properties based on Schreiber. Schreiber uses values of horizontal wind shear that have positive or negative signs associated with the quantity that shows the directionality of the wind shear, see Figure 3a on page 5. These signed values of horizontal wind shear impact how the controller of Roma behaves. If the sign of the horizontal wind shear were different, the control system would calculate a different wake model which would lead the control system of Roma to perform different control functions. Based on the above, the examiner finds that the wake control system of the combination of Roma and Schreiber controls the upstream wind turbine with respect to the sign of the horizontal wind shear. It is noted that the examiner interprets the claim language of “with respect to” as essentially “based on”. There are no explicit relationships in the specification that further defines this language}
Ambekar pertains to wind turbine farm control. Ambekar teaches:
wherein the wake control system is configured to perform control based on the wind speed measured {[0038]-[0041] describes different operating regimes that are at least partially based on wind speed. The operating regime determines how control is performed. For example wake affects are used in the “rated speed/power mode” but not in the “variable speed mode”}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used different operating regimes at least partially based on wind speed to control the wind turbine in different manners as taught by Ambekar for the control system of the combination of Roma and Schreiber. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the control of the wind turbine can be further optimized by depending on wind speed as different wind speed conditions have different constraints and impactful phenomena for the wind turbine {Ambekar [0038]-[0041]}.
The combination of Roma, Schreiber, and Ambekar therefore teaches:
using the wake control system to control the upstream wind turbine in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine {Roma [0012], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0057], [0060] both upstream and downstream wind turbines are controlled based on the turbulence measurement value. Roma measures wind speed at both upstream and downstream wind turbines [0012]. Ambekar teaches that different operating regimes are based on wind speed [0038]-[0041]. These operating regimes determine how the wake control system controls the upstream wind turbine as wake influence is not important at low wind speeds when in “variable speed mode” but is important at higher wind speeds when in “rated speed/power mode”; [0038]-[0041]}.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Roma, Schrieber, and Ambekar further teaches:
wherein using the wake control system to control the upstream wind turbine includes controlling at least one of an azimuth angle and a pitch angle of the upstream wind turbine {Roma [0057]; both upstream and downstream wind turbines control yaw/azimuth angle and pitch}.
Regarding claim 23, Roma discloses:
A wind farm {[0001], [0031]} comprising:
A wake control system {[0001]},
An upstream wind turbine {[0001], [0047] first wind turbine}
A downstream wind turbine {[0001], [0047] second wind turbine}, and
a sensor configured to obtain a turbulence measured value at the downstream wind turbine and provide the turbulence measured value to the wake control system {[0012], [0017]-[0021], [0047]; parameters measured at the first and second wind turbine, these measurements are provided to wake control system},
wherein the wake control system is configured to control the upstream wind turbine based on the turbulence measured value determined at the downstream wind turbine {[0012], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0057], [0060] both upstream and downstream wind turbines are controlled based on the turbulence measurement value}.
Roma also teaches that turbulence may be indirectly determined at a wind turbine from load measurements provided by the load sensors {[0048]}, but is silent as to the specific type of load sensor as well as what type of measurement of turbulence is used. Additionally, Roma teaches wind speed and/or wind turbulence is measured at first and second wind turbines, but does not describe that this measurement of wind speed at the upstream turbine is used to impact the control performed by the wake control system.
Roma is therefore silent regarding:
wherein the sensor includes a bending sensor configured to measure bending of a rotor blade in at least one position of the rotor blade, and
wherein the wake control system is configured to determine a horizontal wind shear over a rotor of the downstream wind turbine as the turbulence measured value from the measured bending of the rotor blade
and control the upstream wind turbine with respect to a sign of the horizontal wind shear
wherein the wake control system is configured to achieve control in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine
wherein the wake control system is configured to base changes of control parameters on wake effects to be expected.
Schreiber pertains to wind turbine farm control. Schreiber teaches:
wherein the sensor includes a bending sensor configured to measure bending of a rotor blade in at least one position of the rotor blade {Page 2 second paragraph, “The method first estimates the local wind speed and horizontal shear using measured blade root bending moments, as more fully described in Ref. [8].” }, and
wherein the wake control system is configured to determine a horizontal wind shear over a rotor of the downstream wind turbine as the turbulence measured value from the measured bending of the rotor blade {See citation directly above which discusses horizontal wind shear being determined by the bending sensor measurements. Additionally, on page 2 second paragraph it also states, “Then, by using a model of the wake deficit, the wake position is determined.” The bending moment measurements are therefore performed on the downstream turbine that has reduced output due to the wake}.
Since Roma does not describe the specific type of load sensor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a bending sensor as taught by Schreiber for the load sensor of Roma. This bending sensor information can be used to determine horizontal wind shear. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as bending sensors provide information which can be used for a variety of purposes in a wind turbine including determining wind characteristics such as horizontal wind shear which are used to determine wake position and control wind turbines {Schreiber page 2 paragraph 2; Roma [0017]-[0021]}.
Since Roma does not specify what method of calculating a turbulence value is used, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used horizontal wind shear for the turbulence measured value and wake model information of Roma. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as horizontal wind shear can be calculated and used to determine the position of the wake which determines the negative impact the wake has on the downstream turbine {Schreiber page 2 paragraph 2 and last paragraph; page 3 paragraph 2, page 5, Figure 3a}.
The combination of Roma and Schreiber therefore teaches:
The wake control system controls the upstream wind turbine with respect to a sign of the horizontal wind shear
{Roma controls the upstream wind turbine to optimal set points based on the wake model, [0022]/[0052]/[0057]/[0060]. As discussed in the modification above the control system of Roma is modified to use horizontal wind shear for the turbulence value to determine wake properties based on Schreiber. Schreiber uses values of horizontal wind shear that have positive or negative signs associated with the quantity that shows the directionality of the wind shear, see Figure 3a on page 5. These signed values of horizontal wind shear impact how the controller of Roma behaves. If the sign of the horizontal wind shear were different, the control system would calculate a different wake model which would lead the control system of Roma to perform different control functions. Based on the above, the examiner finds that the wake control system of the combination of Roma and Schreiber controls the upstream wind turbine with respect to the sign of the horizontal wind shear. It is noted that the examiner interprets the claim language of “with respect to” as essentially “based on”. There are no explicit relationships in the specification that further defines this language}
Ambekar pertains to wind turbine farm control. Ambekar teaches:
wherein the wake control system is configured to perform control based on the wind speed measured {[0038]-[0041] describes different operating regimes that are at least partially based on wind speed. The operating regime determines how control is performed. For example wake affects are used in the “rated speed/power mode” but not in the “variable speed mode”}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used different operating regimes at least partially based on wind speed to control the wind turbine in different manners as taught by Ambekar for the control system of the combination of Roma and Schreiber. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the control of the wind turbine can be further optimized by depending on wind speed as different wind speed conditions have different constraints and impactful phenomena for the wind turbine {Ambekar [0038]-[0041]}.
The combination of Roma, Schreiber, and Ambekar therefore teaches:
wherein the wake control system is configured to achieve control in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine {Roma [0012], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0057], [0060] both upstream and downstream wind turbines are controlled based on the turbulence measurement value. Roma measures wind speed at both upstream and downstream wind turbines [0012]. Ambekar teaches that different operating regimes are based on wind speed [0038]-[0041]. These operating regimes determine how the wake control system controls the upstream wind turbine as wake influence is not important at low wind speeds when in “variable speed mode” but is important at higher wind speeds when in “rated speed/power mode”; [0038]-[0041]}
wherein the wake control system is configured to base changes of control parameters on wake effects to be expected {See 35 U.S.C 112(b) above; it can be interpreted such that there are no additional requirements. The horizontal wind shear used to determined control can be said to be measure of the wake effects expected described in the Roma and Schreiber. It can additionally be said that Ambekar [0038]-[0041] describes a “variable speed mode” at low wind speeds where wake effects are not factored into the control of the wind turbines. In contrast at high wind speeds in the rated speed/power mode wake effects are factored into the control. Since wake effects are not factored in to the control at low wind speeds and they are factored in at higher wind speeds, implicitly wake effects are not expected to be impactful in the low wind speed operating regime while are expected to be impactful in the high wind speed operating regime; see MPEP 2144.01}.
Regarding claim 24, Roma discloses:
A method comprising:
controlling a wind farm {[0001], [0031]},
the controlling comprising:
determining a turbulence measured value at a downstream wind turbine and provide the turbulence measurement value to the wake control system {[0012], and [0017]-[0021], [0047] parameters measured at the first and second wind turbine, these measurements are provided to wake control system},
using the wake control system to control an upstream wind turbine based on the determined turbulence measured value {[0012], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0057], [0060] both first/upstream and second/downstream wind turbines are controlled based on the turbulence measurement value}.
Roma also teaches that turbulence may be indirectly determined at a wind turbine from load measurements provided by the load sensors {[0048]}, but is silent as to the specific type of load sensor. Additionally, Roma teaches wind speed and/or wind turbulence is measured at first and second wind turbines, but does not describe that this measurement of wind speed at the upstream turbine is used to impact the control performed by the wake control system.
Roma is therefore silent regarding:
including using a bending sensor configured to measure bending of a rotor blade in at least one position of the rotor blade and
using a wake control system to determine a horizontal wind shear over a rotor of the downstream wind turbine to obtain the turbulence measured value from the measured bending of the rotor blade
and control the upstream wind turbine with respect to a sign of the horizontal wind shear.
using the wake control system to control the upstream wind turbine in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine
wherein the wake control system is configured to base changes of control parameters on wake effects to be expected.
Schreiber pertains to wind turbine farm control. Schreiber teaches:
including using a bending sensor configured to measure bending of a rotor blade in at least one position of the rotor blade and {Page 2 second paragraph, “The method first estimates the local wind speed and horizontal shear using measured blade root bending moments, as more fully described in Ref. [8].”}, and
using a wake control system to determine a horizontal wind shear over a rotor of the downstream wind turbine to obtain the turbulence measured value from the measured bending of the rotor blade {See citation directly above which discusses horizontal wind shear being determined by the bending sensor measurements. Additionally, on page 2 second paragraph it also states, “Then, by using a model of the wake deficit, the wake position is determined.” The bending moment measurements are therefore performed on the downstream turbine that has reduced output due to the wake}.
Since Roma does not describe the specific type of load sensor, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a bending sensor as taught by Schreiber for the load sensor of Roma. This bending sensor information can be used to determine horizontal wind shear. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as bending sensors provide information which can be used for a variety of purposes in a wind turbine including determining wind characteristics such as horizontal wind shear which are used to determine wake position and control wind turbines {Schreiber page 2 paragraph 2; Roma [0017]-[0021]}.
Since Roma does not specify what method of calculating a turbulence value is used, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used horizontal wind shear for the turbulence measured value of Roma. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as horizontal wind shear can be calculated and used to determine the position of the wake which determines the negative impact the wake has on the downstream turbine {Schreiber page 2 paragraph 2 and last paragraph; page 3 paragraph 2, page 5, Figure 3a}.
The combination of Roma and Schreiber therefore teaches:
The wake control system controls the upstream wind turbine with respect to a sign of the horizontal wind shear
{Roma controls the upstream wind turbine to optimal set points based on the wake model, [0022]/[0052]/[0057]/[0060]. As discussed in the modification above the control system of Roma is modified to use horizontal wind shear for the turbulence value to determine wake properties based on Schreiber. Schreiber uses values of horizontal wind shear that have positive or negative signs associated with the quantity that shows the directionality of the wind shear, see Figure 3a on page 5. These signed values of horizontal wind shear impact how the controller of Roma behaves. If the sign of the horizontal wind shear were different, the control system would calculate a different wake model which would lead the control system of Roma to perform different control functions. Based on the above, the examiner finds that the wake control system of the combination of Roma and Schreiber controls the upstream wind turbine with respect to the sign of the horizontal wind shear. It is noted that the examiner interprets the claim language of “with respect to” as essentially “based on”. There are no explicit relationships in the specification that further defines this language}
Ambekar pertains to wind turbine farm control. Ambekar teaches:
wherein the wake control system is configured to perform control based on the wind speed measured {[0038]-[0041] describes different operating regimes that are at least partially based on wind speed. The operating regime determines how control is performed. For example wake affects are used in the “rated speed/power mode” but not in the “variable speed mode”}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used different operating regimes at least partially based on wind speed to control the wind turbine in different manners as taught by Ambekar for the control system of the combination of Roma and Schreiber. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as the control of the wind turbine can be further optimized by depending on wind speed as different wind speed conditions have different constraints and impactful phenomena for the wind turbine {Ambekar [0038]-[0041]}.
The combination of Roma, Schreiber, and Ambekar therefore teaches:
using the wake control system to control the upstream wind turbine in dependence on the wind speed measured at the upstream wind turbine {Roma [0012], [0017], [0022]-[0023], [0057], [0060] both upstream and downstream wind turbines are controlled based on the turbulence measurement value. Roma measures wind speed at both upstream and downstream wind turbines [0012]. Ambekar teaches that different operating regimes are based on wind speed [0038]-[0041]. These operating regimes determine how the wake control system controls the upstream wind turbine as wake influence is not important at low wind speeds when in “variable speed mode” but is important at higher wind speeds when in “rated speed/power mode”; [0038]-[0041]}.
wherein the wake control system is configured to base changes of control parameters on wake effects to be expected {See 35 U.S.C 112(b) above; it can be interpreted such that there are no additional requirements. The horizontal wind shear used to determined control can be said to be measure of the wake effects expected described in the Roma and Schreiber. It can additionally be said that Ambekar [0038]-[0041] describes a “variable speed mode” at low wind speeds where wake effects are not factored into the control of the wind turbines. In contrast at high wind speeds in the rated speed/power mode wake effects are factored into the control. Since wake effects are not factored in to the control at low wind speeds and they are factored in at higher wind speeds, implicitly wake effects are not expected to be impactful in the low wind speed operating regime while are expected to be impactful in the high wind speed operating regime; see MPEP 2144.01}.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roma in view of Schreiber and Ambekar as applied to claims 11 and 18 above, and further in view of Westergaard (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20150050144) hereinafter Westergaard.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Roma, Schrieber, and Ambekar teaches the wind farm of claim 11. Roma further discloses wherein the wake control system is configured to change a pitch angle in response to the turbulence measured value exceeding the determined first threshold value {[0038], [0057]; control occurs to both first and second wind turbine which includes pitch angle when turbulence reaches a certain amount}.
Roma is silent as to whether the change in pitch angle is an increase or decrease.
Westergaard pertains to a wind turbine park controller for reducing the impact of wakes. Westergaard teaches in [0043],”When the blade is at a minimum pitch (e.g., zero pitch) the induction factor (contributed by that blade), and thereby the wake expansion, are at maximums. When the blade is at a maximum pitch, the reverse is true”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the controller of the combination of Roma, Schrieber, and Ambekar to increase the pitch angle in response to the turbulence measured value exceeding the determined first threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to reduce the wake expansion {Westergaard [0043]}.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Roma, Schrieber, and Ambekar teaches the wind farm of claim 11. Roma further discloses wherein using the wake control system to control the upstream wind turbine comprises changing a pitch angle of one or more rotor blades of the upstream wind turbine in response to the turbulence measured value exceeding a first threshold value {Roma [0038], [0057]; control occurs to both first and second wind turbine which includes pitch angle when turbulence reaches a certain amount}.
Roma is silent as to whether the change in pitch angle is an increase or decrease.
Westergaard pertains to a wind turbine park controller for reducing the impact of wakes. Westergaard teaches in [0043],”When the blade is at a minimum pitch (e.g., zero pitch) the induction factor (contributed by that blade), and thereby the wake expansion, are at maximums. When the blade is at a maximum pitch, the reverse is true”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the controller of the combination of Roma, Schrieber, and Ambekar to increase the pitch angle in response to the turbulence measured value exceeding the determined first threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to reduce the wake expansion {Westergaard [0043]}.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roma in view of Schreiber and Ambekar as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Vyas (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20090099702) hereinafter Vyas.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Roma, Schrieber, and Ambekar teaches the wind farm of claim 11, but is silent regarding, “wherein the wake control system is configured to reverse the changes performed over a specific previous period of time or a multiple of previous recorded changes for as long as the turbulence measured value exceeds a second threshold value”.
Vyas pertains to wind farm control. Vyas teaches:
wherein the wake control system is configured to reverse the changes performed over a specific previous period of time or a multiple of previous recorded changes for as long as the turbulence measured value exceeds a second threshold value {[0034] describes “gradient search methods” such as a gradient descent which is a first-order optimization algorithm that in the context of the disclosure of Vyas upon detecting an increase in the turbulence based on parameter changes reverses the last performed change. Figure 5 control loops show adjustment continues until end of wake condition; end of wake condition is the second threshold value, [0032]-[0035]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the controller of the combination of Roma, Schrieber, and Ambekar to use gradient search techniques as taught by Vyas. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to find control parameters to optimize energy capture between the two turbines {Vyas [0034], Roma [0057]}
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Roma, Schreiber, Ambekar, and Vyas further teaches wherein the wake control system is configured to change an azimuth position counter to a direction of a last recorded change until the turbulence measured value falls below the determined second threshold value {Vyas [0035], one of the changes reversed as described in the rejection of claim 9 may be “yaw angle” which is azimuth position}.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no