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
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/21/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 15, 17 – 21, 25, 33, 53, 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Hoffmann et al. US 2012/0027586 (hereinafter Hoffmann).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffmann teaches: a system configured to calculate, adjust or constrain at least one blade pitch control parameter of a turbine (Abstract - - adjusting a pitch of one of rotor blades), the system comprising:
a processor to receive data including an angle, wherein the angel is within a vertical plane which contains a non-vertical turbine rotor axis, and the angle separates the rotor axis from a direction of fluid velocity projected into the vertical plane (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0023]-[0026 - - the tilt angle);
the processor to calculate, adjust or constrain the blade pitch control parameter, based on the received angle ([0036] - -if the tilt angle exceeds the predetermined tilt angle, adjust pitch of rotor blades), wherein the blade pitch control parameter is to cancel or partially counteract a cyclic or a non-cyclic variation in a fluid-dynamic angle of attack parameter, due to any one or more of:
(i) turbine rotor yaw misalignment, (ii) turbine rotor axis tilt (Fig. 2 - - tilt angle is rotor axis tilt at no load condition), (iii) vertical flow inclination angle, (iv) linear vertical shear, (v) linear vertical veer, (vi) linear horizontal shear, (vii) linear horizontal veer, (viii) non- linear vertical shear, (ix) non-linear vertical veer, (x) non-linear horizontal shear, (xi) non-linear horizontal veer, (xii) rotor pre-cone geometry, (xiii) rotor shape change during operation, (xiv) turbine tower bending (Fig. 3 - - turbine tower bending). (xv) rotor flow induction, (xvi) change of vertical flow inclination angle across a rotor, (xvii) smart rotor shape change, or (xviii) general variation of a fluid velocity vector field across the turbine rotor as represented by a set of one or more velocity samples at respectively one or more position in time and space.
Claim 53 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Claim 54 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 2, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: the data are one or more of:
(i) fluid data at least in part provided by measurement instruments ([0041] - - wind direction sensor);
(ii) fluid data provided from a plurality of points in space-time;
(iii) data including three-dimensional fluid velocity data;
(iv) data including three-dimensional wind velocity data provided by at least three Doppler LIDAR beams arranged in order to converge to a given measurement point with three distinct lines of sight such that the three respective unit direction vectors, which are individually parallel to their three respective beam directions, are mutually non-parallel and non-co-planar and therefore have a scalar triple product magnitude which is non- Zero;
(v) data where the data is or includes operational data from an operating wind turbine ([0026] - - tilt angle is operational data);
(vi) data which are at least in part calculated by, or processed within, a processor ([0031] - - the second angle 46 which is part of tilt angle is calculated from change in acceleration); and
(vii) data including terrain shape data of any type, such as but not limited to (a) satellite navigation data, (b) grid data of northing, easting and elevation above mean sea level, (c) contour data, (d) LIDAR terrain mapping data or (e) any other type of survey data.
Regarding claim 15, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: the computer model is part of any one or more of (1) a LIDAR assisted turbine control system, (ii) a model predictive control system, (iii) an open loop control system, (iv) a closed loop control system ([0037] - - closed loop system).
Regarding claim 17, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: a parameter is adjusted to match fluid flow conditions at a specific turbine deployment location, either statically to account for the general local conditions, or dynamically to account for changing conditions ([0036], [0037] - - adjust the pitch to reduce tilt angle performed in a closed loop system, thus it teaches dynamically to account for changing conditions).
Regarding claim 18, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: a turbine rotor axis tilt angle parameter is adjusted to match parameters of a specific turbine and its environment, either statically, or dynamically to account for changing conditions in which case the system incorporates turbine rotor axis tilt motorization ([0036] - - control rotor tilt angle).
Regarding claim 19, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: the at least one parameter of a turbine is any one or more of (i) the location position of a turbine base, (ii) the rotor diameter, (iii) the hub height, (iv) the rotor lower tip height above ground, (v) the rotor top tip height above ground, (vi) rotor axis tilt angle (Fig. 2, Fig. 3, [0026] - - tilt angle), (vii) a blade shape parameter, (vili) a rotor pre-cone geometric parameter, (ix) a smart rotor adjustable geometry parameter, (x) a turbine rotor tower parameter, (xi) a turbine tower foundation parameter, (xii) an adjustable tower height parameter, or (xiii) a parameter of a mounting frame upon which a turbine rotor is mounted.
Regarding claim 20, KRISTOFFERSEN teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: the turbine is a notional turbine within a turbine farm planning project, where fluid data, or one or more exclusion zone calculated from it, or one or more turbine parameters calculated from it, are employed for improving turbine array layout, or checking constraints relating to correct turbine category selection and correct turbine deployment parameters within a given turbine array layout, including any one or more of (1) turbulence intensity, (ii) shear, (111) veer, (iv) flow inclination angle, (v) gust conditions, (vi) fatigue loads ([0003] - - fatigue loading), (vii) extreme/ultimate loads ([0003] - - bend past a limiting point), (viii) noise amplitude, (ix) noise tonality or spectral limits, (x) three-dimensional turbulence components, (xi) turbulence spectral limits, (xii) vibration limits, (xiii) wind speed, or (xiv) at least one component of three- dimensional wind velocity.
Regarding claim 21, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: data or parameters are provided for checking whether insurance conditions are met, whether turbine planning conditions are met ([0007] - - predetermined tilt angle is a planning condition), or whether turbine supply, turbine service, turbine warranty or turbine maintenance contractual conditions are met with respect to a given turbine, or are met with respect to a given turbine farm array layout.
Regarding claim 25, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: at least one operational control parameter is provided for at least one or more of (i) yaw control, (11) generator-torque control, (iii) storm shut-down/ restart, (iv) noise control, (v) curtailment control, (vi) loads control or damping ([0020] - - control the load), (vii) vibration control or damping, (viii) blade flaps control, (ix) adjustable blade or smart rotor control ([0020] - - adjust blades), (x) output electrical power quality control, (xi) rotor axis tilt control ([0036] - - reducing tilt angle), (xii) turbine start up.
Regarding claim 33, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hoffmann further teaches: operational data are gathered prior to and after a parameter change in order to quantify an improvement or degradation at the time of the parameter change ([0036] , [0037] – a closed loop system means quantify an improvement or degradation at the time of the parameter change, thus the controller adjusts the pitch accordingly).
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 5, 8, 9, 34, 48, 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. US 2012/0027586 (hereinafter Hoffmann) in view of HOLTOM et al. US 2018/0246138 (hereinafter HOLTOM).
Claims 5, 8, 9, 11, 34, 48, 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. US 2012/0027586 (hereinafter Hoffmann) in view of HOLTOM et al. US 2018/0246138 (hereinafter HOLTOM).
Regarding claim 5, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: at one or more points in space-time, the data describes the fluid medium, including one or more of: (i) fluid density, (ii) temperature, (ii1) pressure, (iv) humidity, (v) molecular composition, (vi) electromagnetic force fields, (vii) gravitational force fields present within the fluid medium.
However, HOLTOM teaches: at one or more points in space-time, the data describes the fluid medium, including one or more of: (i) fluid density ([0043] - - fluid density value), (ii) temperature, (ii1) pressure, (iv) humidity, (v) molecular composition, (vi) electromagnetic force fields, (vii) gravitational force fields present within the fluid medium.
Hoffmann and HOLTOM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating fluid density, as taught by HOLTOM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve energy harvesting, as suggested by HOLTOM ([0008]).
Regarding claim 8, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: at least three Doppler LIDARs incorporate beam steering for at least one of the Doppler LIDAR beams, where a given LIDAR unit automatically aims its beam at a received, commanded, generated or programmed measurement point in space by employing data from sensors of its own LIDAR unit position and LIDAR unit orientation.
However, HOLTOM teaches: at least three Doppler LIDARs incorporate beam steering for at least one of the Doppler LIDAR beams, where a given LIDAR unit automatically aims its beam at a received, commanded, generated or programmed measurement point in space by employing data from sensors of its own LIDAR unit position and LIDAR unit orientation ([0149] - - GPS sensors, or differential GPS sensors; [0156] - - three or more LIDAR beam units aiming towards the chosen measurement position).
Hoffmann and HOLTOM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating LIDAR unit, as taught by HOLTOM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve energy harvesting, as suggested by HOLTOM ([0008]).
Regarding claim 9, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: the parameter calculation, adjustment or constraint is performed for a particular sub-domain of the overall parameter domain for the turbine, including that the sub-domain is an angular range of nacelle yaw direction, or an angular range of wind direction, thereby enabling direction sector-based calculation, adjustment or constraint.
However, HOLTOM teaches: the parameter calculation, adjustment or constraint is performed for a particular sub-domain of the overall parameter domain for the turbine, including that the sub-domain is an angular range of nacelle yaw direction, or an angular range of wind direction, thereby enabling direction sector-based calculation, adjustment or constraint ([0125] - - measurement range).
Hoffmann and HOLTOM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating measurement range, as taught by HOLTOM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve energy harvesting, as suggested by HOLTOM ([0008]).
Regarding claim 11, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: fluid velocity data is provided from one or more points within a given volume, the volume which would be swept out by a turbine rotor of given dimensions if the turbine rotor were deployed at a given location.
However, HOLTOM teaches: fluid velocity data is provided from one or more points within a given volume, the volume which would be swept out by a turbine rotor of given dimensions if the turbine rotor were deployed at a given location ([0005] - - wind velocity vector).
Hoffmann and HOLTOM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating fluid velocity, as taught by HOLTOM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve energy harvesting, as suggested by HOLTOM ([0008]).
Regarding claim 34, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: a computer program calculates wind velocity reconstruction error based on the three deployment locations of a triple LIDAR and one or more provided measurement locations allowing for calculation of three respective unit vectors along the three Doppler LIDAR beams which are required to converge at the one or more measurement locations.
However, HOLTOM teaches: a computer program calculates wind velocity reconstruction error based on the three deployment locations of a triple LIDAR and one or more provided measurement locations allowing for calculation of three respective unit vectors along the three Doppler LIDAR beams which are required to converge at the one or more measurement locations ([0115] - - a 3D wind velocity measurements using 3 or more LIDAR measurements; [0156] - - 3 or more arms to bear 3 or more LIDAR beam units).
Hoffmann and HOLTOM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating using the three deployment locations of a triple LIDAR, as taught by HOLTOM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve energy harvesting, as suggested by HOLTOM ([0008]).
Regarding claim 48, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: the turbine is any one of (1) a pump, (ii) a compressor, (iii) an impeller, (iv) a propeller, (v) a helicopter rotor, (vi) a drone rotor.
However, HOLTOM teaches: the turbine is any one of (1) a pump, (ii) a compressor, (iii) an impeller, (iv) a propeller, (v) a helicopter rotor, (vi) a drone rotor ([0002] - - pump or compressor).
Hoffmann and HOLTOM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating a pump or compressor, as taught by HOLTOM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve energy harvesting, as suggested by HOLTOM ([0008]).
Regarding claim 49, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: the turbine parameter is replaced by a vehicle parameter and where the turbine is replaced by a vehicle; and where one or more of the following applies: (a) a data communication system allows that the vehicle communicates with one or more measurement instrument and transmits data, to a fluid measurement instrument control system; (b) a data communication system allows that one or more measurement instrument communicates at least one parameter, to the vehicle; (c) a vehicle or its trajectory is governed by at least one parameter relating to any one of (i) an adjustable fin, (11) rocket motor gimbal / directional thrust angle, (iii) an adjustable flap, (iv) an adjustable aileron, (v) an adjustable aerodynamic shape modification, (vi) a rotor blade angle, (vii) steering control, (viii) drive or thrust control, (ix) brakes, (x) eject initiation, (xi) parachute deployment, (xii) self-destruct initiation, (xiii) launch abort/postponement, (xiv) landing abort/postponement, (xv) take off abort/postponement, (xvi) initiate a safety action, (xvii) docking abort/postponement, (xviii) initiate a safety maneuver to avoid entering or approaching a particular region of airspace; (d) a plurality of vehicles are in mutual communication with at least one measurement instrument, in order to avoid risk of collision between the plurality of vehicles or risk that one of the vehicle trajectories passes outside of a provided spatial or temporal constraint.
However, HOLTOM teaches: the turbine parameter is replaced by a vehicle parameter and where the turbine is replaced by a vehicle; and where one or more of the following applies: (a) a data communication system allows that the vehicle communicates with one or more measurement instrument and transmits data, to a fluid measurement instrument control system; (b) a data communication system allows that one or more measurement instrument communicates at least one parameter, to the vehicle; (c) a vehicle or its trajectory is governed by at least one parameter relating to any one of (i) an adjustable fin, (11) rocket motor gimbal / directional thrust angle, (iii) an adjustable flap, (iv) an adjustable aileron, (v) an adjustable aerodynamic shape modification, (vi) a rotor blade angle, (vii) steering control, (viii) drive or thrust control, (ix) brakes, (x) eject initiation, (xi) parachute deployment, (xii) self-destruct initiation, (xiii) launch abort/postponement, (xiv) landing abort/postponement, (xv) take off abort/postponement, (xvi) initiate a safety action, (xvii) docking abort/postponement, (xviii) initiate a safety maneuver to avoid entering or approaching a particular region of airspace; (d) a plurality of vehicles are in mutual communication with at least one measurement instrument, in order to avoid risk of collision between the plurality of vehicles or risk that one of the vehicle trajectories passes outside of a provided spatial or temporal constraint ([0151] - - vehicles such as boats or vessels; LIDAR system).
Hoffmann and HOLTOM are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating a vehicle, as taught by HOLTOM.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve energy harvesting, as suggested by HOLTOM ([0008]).
Claims 12, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. US 2012/0027586 (hereinafter Hoffmann) in view of ONETTO et al. US 2018/0364651 (hereinafter ONETTO).
Regarding claim 12, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: the fluid velocity data is used to ascertain at the one or more points a bin-partitioned statistical distribution for one or more of (i) rotor averaged fluid speed (velocity magnitude), (11) rotor averaged horizontal fluid speed, (iii) rotor averaged fluid horizontal direction, or (iv) a rotor averaged fluid velocity component with reference to a particular direction, (v) rotor averaged wind shear, (vi) rotor averaged wind veer, (vii) rotor averaged flow inclination angle, (viii) rotor averaged turbulence intensity.
However, ONETTO teaches: fluid velocity data is used to ascertain at the one or more points a bin-partitioned statistical distribution for one or more of (i) rotor averaged fluid speed (velocity magnitude), (11) rotor averaged horizontal fluid speed, (iii) rotor averaged fluid horizontal direction, or (iv) a rotor averaged fluid velocity component with reference to a particular direction, (v) rotor averaged wind shear, (vi) rotor averaged wind veer, (vii) rotor averaged flow inclination angle, (viii) rotor averaged turbulence intensity (Fig. 5, [0045] - - data bin; wind velocity is fluid speed).
Hoffmann and ONETTO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating bin-partitioned statistical distribution, as taught by ONETTO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve performance validation, as suggested by ONETTO ([0004]).
Regarding claim 35, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: one or more of the following apply: (i) the data includes turbine power curve data, consisting of average fluid speed versus average power data pairs from a series of operational time intervals, which overall data set may be split into one or more partitions according to the value of another operational parameter; (ii) energy production capability per data partition may be compared by bin-wise multiplication of the corresponding power curve histogram per partition with a fluid speed frequency histogram employing the same fluid speed bin ranges as for the power curve; (iii) the data set is cut to exclude time intervals when one or more parameter is outside of a given range in order that the energy losses calculation focuses on particular operating regime of the turbine; (iv) an energy losses calculation for a given operating regime indicate that a control adjustment or controller retrofit may be beneficial within that operating regime, and where the energy losses calculation may indicate potential gains in annual energy production that might be obtained by the wind turbine owner when applying the control adjustment or retrofit; (v) energy losses calculation, or energy production capability per data partition, or energy losses per data partition, or energy losses per operating regime, or energy production capability per operating regime, is automatically calculated and provided within a turbine SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system, either as a numerical data point within the SCADA database or in graphical form within an associated Graphical User Interface; (vi) a dataset is split into partitions according to a first parameter of the dataset, and where a second parameter is calculated from the data within each partition, and where linear or non-linear interpolation is used to produce a unique value of the second parameter, given any distinct value of the first parameter.
However, ONETTO teaches: one or more of the following apply: (i) the data includes turbine power curve data, consisting of average fluid speed versus average power data pairs from a series of operational time intervals, which overall data set may be split into one or more partitions according to the value of another operational parameter; (ii) energy production capability per data partition may be compared by bin-wise multiplication of the corresponding power curve histogram per partition with a fluid speed frequency histogram employing the same fluid speed bin ranges as for the power curve; (iii) the data set is cut to exclude time intervals when one or more parameter is outside of a given range in order that the energy losses calculation focuses on particular operating regime of the turbine; (iv) an energy losses calculation for a given operating regime indicate that a control adjustment or controller retrofit may be beneficial within that operating regime, and where the energy losses calculation may indicate potential gains in annual energy production that might be obtained by the wind turbine owner when applying the control adjustment or retrofit; (v) energy losses calculation, or energy production capability per data partition, or energy losses per data partition, or energy losses per operating regime, or energy production capability per operating regime, is automatically calculated and provided within a turbine SCADA (Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition) system, either as a numerical data point within the SCADA database or in graphical form within an associated Graphical User Interface; (vi) a dataset is split into partitions according to a first parameter of the dataset, and where a second parameter is calculated from the data within each partition, and where linear or non-linear interpolation is used to produce a unique value of the second parameter, given any distinct value of the first parameter ([0037] - - the condition range is represented by a data bin associated with specific condition values in a data matrix; [0041] - - performance improvement associated with the update is validated; performance improvement is power generation increase which is a power curve).
Hoffmann and ONETTO are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating bin-partitioned statistical distribution, as taught by ONETTO.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve performance validation, as suggested by ONETTO ([0004]).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. US 2012/0027586 (hereinafter Hoffmann) in view of Raach et al. “Nonlinear Model Predictive Control of Floating Wind Turbines with Individual Pitch Control” from “2014 American Control Conference (ACC) June 4-6, 2014. Portland, Oregon, USA” (hereinafter Raach).
Regarding claim 26, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: a wind speed parameter is multiplied or divided by a factor; in order to account for wind velocity misalignment angle with respect to the wind turbine rotor axis, or misalignment with respect to a horizontal axis within the same vertical plane as the rotor axis, before being employed in a governor, a trigger, a control LUT (Look Up Table) or a control functional model, for any one or more of: (1) blade pitch set point, (ii) rotor RPM set point, (111) power quality factor set point, (iv) active power set point, (v) reactive power set point, (vi) start up yaw enable, (vii) storm shut-down initiation, (viii) storm re-start, (ix) an operational control mode transition, or (x) a maximum power tracking algorithm.
However, Gebraad teaches: a wind speed parameter is multiplied or divided by a factor; in order to account for wind velocity misalignment angle with respect to the wind turbine rotor axis, or misalignment with respect to a horizontal axis within the same vertical plane as the rotor axis, before being employed in a governor, a trigger, a control LUT (Look Up Table) or a control functional model, for any one or more of: (1) blade pitch set point, (ii) rotor RPM set point, (111) power quality factor set point, (iv) active power set point, (v) reactive power set point, (vi) start up yaw enable, (vii) storm shut-down initiation, (viii) storm re-start, (ix) an operational control mode transition, or (x) a maximum power tracking algorithm (page 4436, left column - - “To cope with oblique inflow the rotor effective wind speed is corrected with the cosine of the misalignment angle, v0;c = v0 cos g.”).
Hoffmann and Raach are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating correcting wind speed, as taught by Raach.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve wind turbine control, as suggested by Raach (Abstract).
Claims 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. US 2012/0027586 (hereinafter Hoffmann) in view of Davoust et al. US 2018/0017039 (hereinafter Davoust).
Regarding claim 27, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: a blade element model is employed to calculate fluid-dynamic contributions from along a turbine blade, optionally employing interpolation between a discrete set of blade model elements in order to provide a continuous model.
However, Davoust teaches: a blade element model is employed to calculate fluid-dynamic contributions from along a turbine blade, optionally employing interpolation between a discrete set of blade model elements in order to provide a continuous model ([0035] - - models to illustrate wind flow with and without the wind turbine; [0042] - - effects of individual baled are averaged; [0079] - - blade element theory is used to model as a function of a radius of interest).
Hoffmann and Davoust are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating a blade element model, as taught by Davoust.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to allow the control system to take optimized action at give turbine conditions, as suggested by Davoust ([0033]).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. US 2012/0027586 (hereinafter Hoffmann) in view of Chacon et al. US 2016/0265512 (hereinafter Chacon).
Regarding claim 28, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: the data are employed to specify parameters of a retrofit control unit, or are provided to a retrofit control unit which may be installed within an existing or future planned turbine and where the retrofit control unit provides the at least one parameter of a turbine and one or more of the following apply:
(i) the retrofit control unit is inserted in series between an existing control unit and an actuator, thereby enabling over-ride, adjustment or constraint of the original controller output signal by a replacement output signal which is the signal provided as a new set point to the actuator;
(ii) the retrofit control unit is a retrofit blade pitch control unit and its actuator is a blade pitch angle actuator such as an electric motor or hydraulic motor system, optionally, incorporating a relative or absolute pitch angle encoder;
(iii) the retrofit control unit further comprises a fail safe signal switch by-pass system which ensures that by default the original control unit output will be provided as output from the retrofit control unit and that this signal is only over- ridden, adjusted or constrained when the retrofit control unit has power and is not provided with any indication that its control function would be incorrect;
(iv) the retrofit controller output set point is vetoed, over-ridden or attenuated in favour of the original set point, depending on the value of a condition-monitoring signal, a load sensor signal, a noise sensor signal, a wind parameter, a turbine parameter, or another parameter.
However, Chacon teaches: the data are employed to specify parameters of a retrofit control unit, or are provided to a retrofit control unit which may be installed within an existing or future planned turbine (Fig. 3, Abstract - - a secondary controller) and where the retrofit control unit provides the at least one parameter of a turbine and one or more of the following apply:
(i) the retrofit control unit is inserted in series between an existing control unit and an actuator, thereby enabling over-ride, adjustment or constraint of the original controller output signal by a replacement output signal which is the signal provided as a new set point to the actuator (Fig. 3, [0049] - - a secondary controller disposed between the wind turbine controller and the pitch system);
(ii) the retrofit control unit is a retrofit blade pitch control unit and its actuator is a blade pitch angle actuator (Fig. 3, [0049] - - a secondary controller disposed between the wind turbine controller and the pitch system);
(iii) the retrofit control unit further comprises a fail safe signal switch by-pass system which ensures that by default the original control unit output will be provided as output from the retrofit control unit and that this signal is only over- ridden, adjusted or constrained when the retrofit control unit has power and is not provided with any indication that its control function would be incorrect;
(iv) the retrofit controller output set point is vetoed, over-ridden or attenuated in favour of the original set point, depending on the value of a condition-monitoring signal, a load sensor signal, a noise sensor signal, a wind parameter, a turbine parameter, or another parameter.
Hoffmann and Chacon are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating a retrofit controller, as taught by Chacon.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to allow the control system to improve wind turbine control, as suggested by Chacon (Abstract).
Claims 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. US 2012/0027586 (hereinafter Hoffmann) in view of Girardot et al. US 2020/0049129 (hereinafter Girardot).
Regarding claim 41, Hoffmann teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Hoffmann does not explicitly teach: a machine learning component for improving, re-calculating, adjusting, constraining or optimising either at least one parameter of the system, or a scalar objective function formed from a vector of one or more parameter of the system; wherein one or more of the following apply:
(i) where the machine learning system employs as training data operational data from either or both of the one turbine, or one or more other turbine;
(ii) where the at least one parameter is any one or both of: (a) an amplitude or attenuation factor to be applied to a cyclic blade pitch correction which may or may not be sinusoidal, (b) a phase offset to be applied to a cyclic blade pitch correction;
(iii) further comprising a machine learning success measure, where the at least one parameter optimised by the machine learning component, is only employed when the machine learning success measure reaches a required success rate threshold;
(iv) where at least one parameter to be improved by the machine learning component is improved only for a particular operating regime as defined by one or more operational parameters;
(v) where machine learning is reset or re-run, optionally employing newly available data, within any fixed or rolling window of time or number of rotor revolutions so as to allow for self-tuning or adapting to changing conditions; and
(vi) where the parameter constitutes an alarm or warning.
However, Girardot teaches: a machine learning component for improving, re-calculating, adjusting, constraining or optimising either at least one parameter of the system, or a scalar objective function formed from a vector of one or more parameter of the system (Fig. 5 - - generate recommended operating parameters); wherein one or more of the following apply:
(i) where the machine learning system employs as training data operational data from either or both of the one turbine, or one or more other turbine ([0079] - - machine learning using measured results);
(ii) where the at least one parameter is any one or both of: (a) an amplitude or attenuation factor to be applied to a cyclic blade pitch correction which may or may not be sinusoidal, (b) a phase offset to be applied to a cyclic blade pitch correction ([0046] - - change operating parameters including blade pitch);
(iii) further comprising a machine learning success measure, where the at least one parameter optimised by the machine learning component, is only employed when the machine learning success measure reaches a required success rate threshold ([0079] - - select a machine learning model based on a efficiency metric);
(iv) where at least one parameter to be improved by the machine learning component is improved only for a particular operating regime as defined by one or more operational parameters ([0017] - - simulate in a range of variations from the environment and the control parameters);
(v) where machine learning is reset or re-run, optionally employing newly available data, within any fixed or rolling window of time or number of rotor revolutions so as to allow for self-tuning or adapting to changing conditions ([0088] - - update model using updated operating data); and
(vi) where the parameter constitutes an alarm or warning.
Hoffmann and Girardot are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to wind turbine system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Hoffmann, and incorporating a machine learning component, as taught by Girardot.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve performance of wind turbines, as suggested by Girardot ([0004]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights