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 Amendment
The amendments filed 11/17/2025 have been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending. Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 12, & 14 have been amended. Claim 13 has been cancelled.
Amendments and arguments overcome the drawing objection in the Office Action filed 8/15/2025.
Amendments and arguments overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections in the Office Action filed 8/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101”:
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 9 lines 11-14):
“Applicant submits that controlling a wind turbine generator using active power references is not a mathematical formula or mental process. Wind turbine generators are specialized devices. That is, a wind turbine generator is not a generic computer component”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.”
See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);”
Analysis:
As shown in a factual determination (in consideration of US 9458828 B2 (Nielsen) & US 9909564 B2 (Miranda)), the office action filed 08/15/2025 wind turbine generators are conventional elements well known in the field of art and specified at a high level of generality, thus not significantly more than the judicial exception.
The amended limitation of “controlling the wind turbine generator using active power references” is (when disclosed at this level of generality) not significantly more than necessary data acquisition implied by the judicial exception combined with ‘apply it’ or equivalent. There would have to be more disclosed regarding controlling the turbine and receiving active power references; at this level of generality the judicial exception(s) would be monopolized over the field.
Conclusion:
The amended claims filed 11/17/2025 do not overcome 35 USC 101 considerations.
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102”:
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, filed 11/17/2025, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §102, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 10 lines 6-7):
“[“power value according to a ramp rate limit”,] Respectfully, Applicant submits that Garcia does not teach this claim element.”
& (page 10 lines 16-17):
“However, there is not ramp rate limiter disclosed in Fig. 5 that limits the power when returning to a base line active power value after a frequency event.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111: “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification."
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation the reference of US 11421654 B2 (Garcia) teaches the claimed limitations. See Figure 2 & Figure 3, there is a relation between frequency values and power values and a limit or control on one value is a limit or a control on the other as well.
Conclusion:
For claims 1, 7, & 14 and their dependents, at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are taught by the prior art reference of US 11421654 B2 (Garcia). The claims do not overcome the prior art 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection(s) in consideration of US 11421654 B2 (Garcia).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
537
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-12, & 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
wherein, during the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is outside a frequency deadband, the active power references are determined by:
determining an active power value based on a measured frequency of the power network;
comparing the determined active power value with one of the upper active power limit or the lower active power limit; and
when the determined active power value is outside the limit the active power reference is set equal to the limit, or when the determined active power value is not outside the limit the active power reference is set as the determined active power value;
wherein, after the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is within the frequency deadband, the active power references are determined to change from the final value during the frequency event to a baseline active power value according to a ramp rate limit.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The limitation of “controlling the wind turbine generator using active power references” at this level of generality is not significantly more than stating “apply it” or equivalent with regard to the judicial exception(s).
See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);”
The elements of:
“a wind turbine generator”, “a power network”, &“a controller”,
Are no more than generic elements indicating a field of use or technological environment.
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements as recited in step 2A Prong Two are directed to well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity”
US 9458828 B2 (Nielsen): see Fig. 1 - 102 “wind turbines”, & Fig. 1 - 104 “park grid”, Fig. 1 -110 ”park controller”
US 9909564 B2 (Miranda): see Fig. 3 – 100 “wind turbine” (Fig. shows blade of 132 of wind turbine), Fig. 3 – GRID, Fig. 4 – 400 “controller”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
wherein, during the frequency event, determining the active power value based on the measured frequency of the power network comprises:
determining an active power adjustment value that corresponds to the measured frequency;
and subtracting the active power adjustment value from an active power baseline value.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
wherein determining the active power adjustment value comprises comparing the measured frequency with a chart or look-up table indicating a correspondence between active power and frequency.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
wherein setting the active power reference to be equal to the limit comprises:
determining an active power limit adjustment value as the difference between an active power baseline value and the active power limit;
and subtracting the active power limit adjustment value from the active power baseline value.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
wherein the baseline active power value comprises a minimum value of a nominal active power value and a curtailed active power value.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
wherein when during the frequency event the frequency level is below the deadband, the relevant limit is the upper active power limit and the upper active power limit is based on the available active power, and wherein when during the frequency event the frequency level is above the deadband, the relevant limit is the lower active power limit and the lower active power limit is based on a user preference.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
A method for controlling active power output of a wind turbine generator in response to a frequency event on a power network to which the wind turbine generator is connected, wherein the active power output of the wind turbine generator is limited to be below an upper active power limit and/or above a lower active power limit, the method comprising:
wherein, during the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is outside a frequency deadband, the active power references are determined based on a measured frequency of the power network; and
wherein, after the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is within the frequency deadband, the active power references are determined to change from a restart active power value to a baseline active power value according to a ramp rate limit, the restart active power value being determined based on a measured active power output of the wind turbine generator.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The limitation of “controlling the wind turbine generator using active power references” at this level of generality is not significantly more than stating “apply it” or equivalent with regard to the judicial exception(s).
See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);”
The elements of:
“a wind turbine generator”, “a power network”, “a controller”
Are no more than generic elements indicating a field of use or technological environment.
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The additional elements as recited in step 2A Prong Two are directed to well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2): “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity”
US 9458828 B2 (Nielsen): see Fig. 1 - 102 “wind turbines”, & Fig. 1 - 104 “park grid”, Fig. 1 -110 ”park controller”
US 9909564 B2 (Miranda): see Fig. 3 – 100 “wind turbine” (Fig. shows blade of 132 of wind turbine), Fig. 3 – GRID, Fig. 4 – 400 “controller”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
wherein during the frequency deviation the active power reference value is determined by:
determining an active power adjustment value by comparing the measured frequency with a chart or look-up table indicating a correspondence between active power and frequency;
and subtracting the active power adjustment value from a baseline active power value.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
wherein after the frequency deviation determining the active power references comprises:
determining the restart active power value by:
determining a restart active power adjustment value by subtracting the measured active power output from a baseline active power value;
and subtracting the restart active power adjustment value from the baseline active power value.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
wherein the active power baseline value comprises a minimum of an available active power value and a curtailed active power value.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
wherein when during the frequency event the frequency level is below the deadband, the relevant limit is the upper active power limit and the upper active power limit is based on the available active power, and wherein when during the frequency event the frequency level is above the deadband, the relevant limit is the lower active power limit and the lower active power limit is based on a user preference.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method, which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature of natural phenomenon?
Yes; the claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 7.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
wherein the frequency deviation is deemed to have ended upon determination that a condition is met, wherein the condition comprises at least one of: the frequency level being within the frequency deadband; the frequency level is equal to or exceeds a threshold frequency value; a difference between the measured active power value and the relevant active power limit is equal to or exceeds a threshold value.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim(s) these limitations are no more than “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): “the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Or “Mental Process” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer”)
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-12. In addition, claim 14 is claiming “a computer storage medium", which is understood to cover 'signal' and not belonging to any of the four categories of invention (see step 1 in flow chart above). adding "non-transitory" before “computer storage medium” would exclude the signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 11421654 B2 (Garcia)).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia teaches a method for controlling active power output of a wind turbine generator (Fig. 1 – 100 “wind turbine generator, WTG”) in response to a frequency event on a power network (Fig. 2 & 3 schematically shows P-f curve) to which the wind turbine generator is connected, wherein the active power output of the wind turbine generator is limited to be below an upper active power limit and/or above a lower active power limit (Fig. 2 & 3 power has upper and lower bounds), the method comprising: controlling the wind turbine generator using active power references (Fig. 6 – Ptotal, column 3 lines 13-15: “FIG. 6 schematically shows the frequency control structure and the remaining part of the IEC controller implemented in the P-f loop,”), wherein, during the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is outside a frequency deadband (Fig. 2 – DB, column 5 lines 48-49: “DB” is for “dead-band”), the active power references are determined by: determining an active power value based on a measured frequency of the power network (Fig. 2 & 3 show active power based on frequency, column 5 lines 18-20: “Inertia Emulation Controller (IEC) is an external loop to the active power controller and it provides means of reacting to fast frequency contingencies in the power/electrical grid.”); comparing the determined active power value with one of the upper active power limit or the lower active power limit (Fig. 2 & 3, determining if the active power is outside of the dead band the system ); and when the determined active power value is outside the limit the active power reference is set equal to the limit, or when the determined active power value is not outside the limit the active power reference is set as the determined active power value (Fig. 4 – 200 “Inertia Emulation Controller, IEC”, column 6 lines 17-24: “the Inertia Emulation Controller, IEC, monitors the frequency deviations from nominal frequency as well as its rate of change of frequency (i.e. ROCOF). Based on the ROCOF, the controller should calculate a power reference change (i.e. increase/decrease) that should be provided by the WPP on top of its actual produced power, with a high rate as specified by the grid codes. The power change varies with the ROCOF.”, system returns the power to a point within the dead band); wherein, after the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is within the frequency deadband, the active power references are determined to change from the final value during the frequency event to a baseline active power value according to a ramp rate limit (Fig. 4 – 251 “Ramp Rate Limiter”, determines adjustment values).
Regarding claim 2, Garcia teaches the method of claim 1,
Garcia further teaches wherein, during the frequency event, determining the active power value based on the measured frequency of the power network comprises: determining an active power adjustment value that corresponds to the measured frequency (Fig. 2 & 3); and subtracting the active power adjustment value from an active power baseline value (column 6 lines 17-24: “the Inertia Emulation Controller, IEC, monitors the frequency deviations from nominal frequency as well as its rate of change of frequency (i.e. ROCOF). Based on the ROCOF, the controller should calculate a power reference change (i.e. increase/decrease) that should be provided by the WPP on top of its actual produced power, with a high rate as specified by the grid codes. The power change varies with the ROCOF.”, system at least partly determines current active power and subtracts an adjustment value/(“power reference change”) due to a change in frequency and then updates the current active power accordingly).
Regarding claim 3, Garcia teaches the method of claim 2,
Garcia further teaches wherein determining the active power adjustment value comprises comparing the measured frequency with a chart or look-up table indicating a correspondence between active power and frequency (Fig. 5 – “Lookup Table”, takes as input a measured frequency and returns a change in active power/(“deltaP”) ).
Regarding claim 4, Garcia teaches the method of claim 1,
Garcia further teaches wherein setting the active power reference to be equal to the limit comprises: determining an active power limit adjustment value as the difference between an active power baseline value and the active power limit (Fig. 5 DeltaP is input to a DeltaP-Hardlimiter, system adjusts the active power until it is equal to the limit); and subtracting the active power limit adjustment value from the active power baseline value (Fig. 2 & 3 system adjusts the power until the active power is within the dead band “DB”).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia teaches the method of claim 1,
Garcia further teaches wherein the baseline active power value comprises a minimum value of a nominal active power value (Fig. 2 & 3 Power value in the DB “dead band”) and a curtailed active power value (power at point B, since ramping operation was curtailed at B).
Regarding claim 6, Garcia teaches the method of claim 1,
Garcia further teaches wherein when during the frequency event the frequency level is below the deadband, the relevant limit is the upper active power limit and the upper active power limit is based on the available active power, and wherein when during the frequency event the frequency level is above the deadband, the relevant limit is the lower active power limit and the lower active power limit is based on a user preference (Fig. 2 & 3 relevant limit is within the DB deadband because this is where it has been determined that the system doesn’t have to adjust the power levels, if the power is above the power corresponding to the DB then the power necessarily has to be decreased and inversely if the power is below the power corresponding to the DB then the power has to be increased, Fig. 2 & 3 show frequency below frequencies corresponding to DB and shows power above powers corresponding to DB however these teachings are obviously relevant to the inverse at least to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 7, Garcia teaches a method for controlling active power output of a wind turbine generator (Fig. 1 – 100 “wind turbine generator, WTG”) in response to a frequency event on a power network (Fig. 2 & 3 schematically shows P-f curve) to which the wind turbine generator is connected, wherein the active power output of the wind turbine generator is limited to be below an upper active power limit and/or above a lower active power limit (Fig. 2 & 3 power has upper and lower bounds), the method comprising: controlling the wind turbine generator using active power references (Fig. 6 – Ptotal, column 3 lines 13-15: “FIG. 6 schematically shows the frequency control structure and the remaining part of the IEC controller implemented in the P-f loop,”), wherein, during the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is outside a frequency deadband (Fig. 2 – DB, column 5 lines 48-49: “DB” is for “dead-band”), the active power references are determined based on a measured frequency of the power network (Fig. 2 & 3 show active power based on frequency, column 5 lines 18-20: “Inertia Emulation Controller (IEC) is an external loop to the active power controller and it provides means of reacting to fast frequency contingencies in the power/electrical grid.”); and wherein, after the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is within the frequency deadband, the active power references are determined to change from a restart active power value to a baseline active power value according to a ramp rate limit (Fig. 4 – 251 “Ramp Rate Limiter”, determines adjustment values), the restart active power value being determined based on a measured active power output of the wind turbine generator (Fig. 4 – 202 “Frequency Monitoring & Conditioning”, the system collects the frequency and power data it needs for the analysis).
Regarding claim 8, Garcia teaches the method of claim 7, wherein during the frequency deviation the active power reference value is determined by: determining an active power adjustment value by comparing the measured frequency (Fig. 2 & 3) with a chart or look-up table indicating a correspondence between active power and frequency (Fig. 5 – “Lookup Table”, takes as input a measured frequency and returns a change in active power/(“deltaP”) ); and subtracting the active power adjustment value from a baseline active power value (column 6 lines 17-24: “the Inertia Emulation Controller, IEC, monitors the frequency deviations from nominal frequency as well as its rate of change of frequency (i.e. ROCOF). Based on the ROCOF, the controller should calculate a power reference change (i.e. increase/decrease) that should be provided by the WPP on top of its actual produced power, with a high rate as specified by the grid codes. The power change varies with the ROCOF.”, system at least partly determines current active power and subtracts an adjustment value/(“power reference change”) due to a change in frequency and then updates the current active power accordingly).
Regarding claim 9, Garcia teaches the method of claim 7, wherein after the frequency deviation determining the active power references comprises: determining the restart active power value by: determining a restart active power adjustment value by subtracting the measured active power output from a baseline active power value(Fig. 4 – 251 “Ramp Rate Limiter”, determines adjustment values); and subtracting the restart active power adjustment value from the baseline active power value (column 6 lines 17-24: “the Inertia Emulation Controller, IEC, monitors the frequency deviations from nominal frequency as well as its rate of change of frequency (i.e. ROCOF). Based on the ROCOF, the controller should calculate a power reference change (i.e. increase/decrease) that should be provided by the WPP on top of its actual produced power, with a high rate as specified by the grid codes. The power change varies with the ROCOF.”, system at least partly determines current active power and subtracts an adjustment value/(“power reference change”) due to a change in frequency and then updates the current active power accordingly).
Regarding claim 10, Garcia teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the baseline active power value comprises a minimum of an available active power value (Fig. 2 & 3 Power value in the DB “dead band”) and a curtailed active power value (power at point B, since ramping operation was curtailed at B).
Regarding claim 11, Garcia teaches the method of claim 7, wherein when during the frequency event the frequency level is below the deadband, the relevant limit is the upper active power limit and the upper active power limit is based on the available active power, and wherein when during the frequency event the frequency level is above the deadband, the relevant limit is the lower active power limit and the lower active power limit is based on a user preference (Fig. 2 & 3 relevant limit is within the DB deadband because this is where it has been determined that the system doesn’t have to adjust the power levels, if the power is above the power corresponding to the DB then the power necessarily has to be decreased and inversely if the power is below the power corresponding to the DB then the power has to be increased, Fig. 2 & 3 show frequency below frequencies corresponding to DB and shows power above powers corresponding to DB however these teachings are obviously relevant to the inverse at least to one of ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding claim 12, Garcia teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the frequency deviation is deemed to have ended upon determination that a condition is met (Fig. 2 & 3, when values are within the conditions corresponding to the DB deadband then there would no longer be a need to trigger a ), wherein the condition comprises at least one of: the frequency level being within the frequency deadband (Fig. 2 & 3, when the frequency level is outside of the dead band then a corrective action would be triggered); the frequency level is equal to or exceeds a threshold frequency value (Fig. 2 & 3, when frequency is some difference away from those frequency values in the DB then a corrective action would be triggered); a difference between the measured active power value and the relevant active power limit is equal to or exceeds a threshold value (Fig. 2 & 3, shows that for frequencies outside of DB by some threshold the power is also outside corresponding power threshold).
Regarding claim 14, Garcia teaches a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform an operation for controlling active power output of a wind turbine generator (Fig. 1 – 100 “wind turbine generator, WTG”) in response to a frequency event on a power network (Fig. 2 & 3 schematically shows P-f curve) to which the wind turbine generator is connected, wherein the active power output of the wind turbine generator is limited to be below an upper active power limit and/or above a lower active power limit(Fig. 2 & 3 power has upper and lower bounds), the operation, comprising: controlling the wind turbine generator using active power references (Fig. 6 – Ptotal, column 3 lines 13-15: “FIG. 6 schematically shows the frequency control structure and the remaining part of the IEC controller implemented in the P-f loop,”), wherein, during the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is outside a frequency deadband (Fig. 2 – DB, column 5 lines 48-49: “DB” is for “dead-band”), the active power references are determined by: determining an active power value based on a measured frequency of the power network (Fig. 2 & 3 show active power based on frequency, column 5 lines 18-20: “Inertia Emulation Controller (IEC) is an external loop to the active power controller and it provides means of reacting to fast frequency contingencies in the power/electrical grid.”); comparing the determined active power value with one of the upper active power limit or the lower active power limit (Fig. 2 & 3, determining if the active power is outside of the dead band the system ); and when the determined active power value is outside the limit the active power reference is set equal to the limit, or when the determined active power value is not outside the limit the active power reference is set as the determined active power value (Fig. 4 – 200 “Inertia Emulation Controller, IEC”, column 6 lines 17-24: “the Inertia Emulation Controller, IEC, monitors the frequency deviations from nominal frequency as well as its rate of change of frequency (i.e. ROCOF). Based on the ROCOF, the controller should calculate a power reference change (i.e. increase/decrease) that should be provided by the WPP on top of its actual produced power, with a high rate as specified by the grid codes. The power change varies with the ROCOF.”, system returns the power to a point within the dead band); wherein, after the frequency event, in which the frequency level of the power network is within the frequency deadband, the active power references are determined to change from the final value during the frequency event to a baseline active power value according to a ramp rate limit (Fig. 4 – 251 “Ramp Rate Limiter”, determines adjustment values).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220316443 A1 "Fast Frequency Support From Wind Turbine Systems" (Zhang) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3 & Fig. 5.
US 12173692 B2 "Method Of Operating A Wind Turbine And Control System" (Gonzalez) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1, & Fig. 4, & Fig. 5.
US 10985611 B2 "System And Method For Estimating Grid Strength" (Sagi) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 7.
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 event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858