DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claim 10, “determining a raw nacelle position” is disclosed. The claim, neither the specification define the term “raw” and how it differentiated from the precalibrated, calibrated nacelle position.
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 5 and 6 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.
The term “several” in claim 5 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “several” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how many mismatches the term several represents and therefore renders the claim indefinite. The applicant can overcome this rejection by clearly defining how many mismatches are sought to be identified. To continue examination, examiner interprets “several” as “more than one.”
Claim 10 discloses the term “raw nacelle position”. It is unclear how a “raw nacelle position” differentiates from a nacelle position or its significance. It is therefore rendered indefinite. The applicant overcome this rejection by removing the term or clearly defining a raw nacelle position.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
a method for calibrating a nacelle position of at least one wind turbine in a wind farm having a plurality of spatially distributed wind turbines ,the method being a computer-implemented method, wherein the method comprises: first calibration step A: recalibrating a precalibrated nacelle position of at least one wind turbine to be calibrated based on an evaluation of computed power ratios and predetermined power ratios between at least one downstream wind turbine and at least one upstream wind turbine for different wind directions, wherein the at least one upstream wind turbine having a wake effect on the at least one downstream wind turbine, thereby obtaining a calibrated nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated; and second calibration step B: wind direction sector specific further recalibrating of the nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated by applying a wind direction sector specific correction value for an identified wind direction sector to the previously obtained calibrated nacelle position.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, steps of “recalibrating a precalibrated nacelle position of at least one wind turbine to be calibrated based on an evaluation of computed power ratios and predetermined power ratios between at least one downstream wind turbine and at least one upstream wind turbine for different wind directions, wherein the at least one upstream wind turbine having a wake effect on the at least one downstream wind turbine, thereby obtaining a calibrated nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated;
recalibrating of the nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated by applying a wind direction sector specific correction value for an identified wind direction sector to the previously obtained calibrated nacelle position” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 14: a computer program, a computer
In Claim 15: computer readable medium, a computer
The additional element in the preamble of “a computer program and a computer are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13 and 15 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1 through 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg et al. (US20150345476A1, 2015-12-03) herein referred to as Gregg.
Regarding Claim 1, Gregg teaches a method for calibrating a nacelle position of at least one wind turbine in a wind farm having a plurality of spatially distributed wind turbines ,the method being a computer-implemented method (Abstract), wherein the method comprises: first calibration step A: recalibrating a precalibrated nacelle position of at least one wind turbine to be calibrated based on an evaluation of computed power ratios and predetermined power ratios between at least one downstream wind turbine and at least one upstream wind turbine for different wind directions [0046; 0068; Fig. 3], wherein the at least one upstream wind turbine having a wake effect on the at least one downstream wind turbine, thereby obtaining a calibrated nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated [0027; 0046; 0067 (Examiner’s Note: Wake features include characteristics such as wind direction and is being interpreted as such)]; and second calibration step B: wind direction sector specific further recalibrating of the nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated by applying a wind direction sector specific correction value for an identified wind direction sector to the previously obtained calibrated nacelle position [0067] (Examiner’s Note: a further calibration is performed based on a “secondary portion” of the power ratio comparison. This corresponds to a lower level of variance, thus an additional mismatch in the wake).
Regarding Claim 2, Gregg teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the method, for implementing the first calibration step A, comprises: determining at least one upstream wind turbine wind direction mismatch to obtain a calibrated nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated [0046]; and wherein the method, for implementing the second calibration step B, implements the wind direction sector specific further recalibrating of the nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated with the further steps of: identifying a wind direction sector with a remaining wind direction mismatch after the previous recalibration, the remaining wind direction mismatch is identified for a specific wind direction sector of a plurality of wind direction sectors by comparing a power ratio at a given wind direction sector of the at least one computed set of power ratios with at least one power ratio at the given wind direction sector in the at least one predetermined set of power ratios ([0040, 0067], and applying a wind direction sector specific correction value for the identified wind direction sector to the previously obtained calibrated nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated for the identified wind direction sector, thereby obtaining a wind direction sector specific nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated [0067], Examiner’s Note: the examiner interprets the wind turbine whose direction as the identified wind direction sector and the recalibration factor as the correction value).
Regarding Claim 3, Gregg further teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one computed set of power ratios and/or the at least one predetermined set of power ratios is determined as a function of a range of the different wind directions ([0027]; Fig. 3; [0046]).
Regarding Claim 4, Gregg further teaches The method according to any of the previous claims claim 1, wherein the at least one predetermined set of power ratios is based on a model or simulation, in particular an upfront simulation [0040; 0046; 0061].
Regarding Claim 5, Gregg further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein several wind direction mismatches are identified ([0046]; Examiner’s Note: Turbines being recalibrated in a serial fashion indicates that more than one mismatch was identified).
Regarding Claim 6, Gregg further teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein a measure of central tendency is calculated from the several wind direction mismatches and the precalibrated nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated is recalibrated based on the computed measure of central tendency to obtain the calibrated nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated [0046].
Regarding Claim 7, Gregg further teaches The method according to claim 6, wherein a median value or mean value is computed as measure of central tendency [0084; 0064].
Regarding Claim 9, Gregg further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein further comprises precalibrating the nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated based on a precalibrated nacelle position of at least one precalibrated wind turbine of the wind farm (Abstract; [0046] Examiner’s Note: it is inherent that the wind turbine to be calibrated is precalibrated as it is to be recalibrated. Further, using historical data to recalibrate the wind turbine means that it is based on a precalibrated nacelle position).
Regarding Claim 10, Gregg teaches the method according to claim 9, the precalibration of the nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated having the steps of: determining a raw nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated, determining a precalibrated nacelle position of at least one precalibrated wind turbine of the wind farm, computing a correction for the raw nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated based on the precalibrated nacelle position of the at least one precalibrated wind turbine, and applying the computed correction to the raw nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated such that the precalibrated nacelle position of the at least one wind turbine to be calibrated is obtained ([0065-0068]; Examiner’s Note: Raw nacelle position is interpreted by the examiner as the reported nacelle position prior to recalibration).
Regarding Claim 11, Gregg further teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one power ratio maximum and/or the at least one power ratio minimum in the at least one computed set of power ratios and/or the at least one predetermined set of power ratios is of a magnitude of at least 0.1, or of at least 0.2, from an adjacent minimum and/or maximum of the at least one computed set of power ratios and/or the at least one predetermined set of power ratios [0076; 0081].
Regarding Claim 12, Gregg further teaches a system for carrying out the method claim 1 [0046].
Regarding Claim 13, Gregg further teaches The system according to claim 12, wherein the system is a wind farm having a plurality of spatially distributed wind turbines (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, Gregg further teaches computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement a method comprising instructions, which, when the computer program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method claim 1 [0023-0025].
Regarding Claim 15, Gregg further teaches A computer-readable medium.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gregg as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mittelmeier (WO2014161626A1, 2014-10-09).
Regarding Claim 8, Gregg further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein, in the step of identifying a wind direction sector with a remaining wind direction mismatch after the previous recalibration, the at least one power ratio for the given wind direction sector is located between a power ratio minimum and a power ratio maximum of the computed set of power ratios [0046-0047; 0068].
Gregg fails to specifically teach and an interpolation is performed for identifying the further wind direction mismatch. However, in a related field, Mittlemeier teaches interpolation is performed for identifying the further wind direction mismatch (pg. 8, last paragraph; Examiner’s Note: the missing matrix elements are interpreted as further wind direction mismatch). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gregg to incorporate the teachings of Mittlemeier by including the limitation above in order to increase accuracy by generating additional unknown data points.
Conclusion
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Fu et al. (SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING WAKE MANAGEMENT IN WIND FARMS, 2021-08-12) teaches a method for optimizing wake management in a wind farm includes receiving, via one or more position localization sensors, position data from at least one nacelle of wind turbines in the wind farm. The method also includes determining angle of the nacelle(s) of the wind turbines with respect to true north based on the position data. Moreover, the method includes determining a wind direction at the nacelle(s) of the wind turbines. As such, the method includes generating a wake estimation model of the wind farm in real-time using the wind direction and the angle of the nacelle(s). In addition, the method includes running the wake estimation model to determine one or more optimal operating parameters for the wind turbines that maximize energy production of the wind turbine. Thus, the method includes operating the wind farm using the optimal operating parameter(s) so as to optimize wake management of the wind farm;
Melgaard et al. (A METHOD FOR DETERMINING A YAW POSITION OFFSET OF A WIND TURBINE, 2017-09-08) teaches A method for determining a yaw position offset of a wind turbine (1) is provided. A neighboring wind turbine (2) of the wind farm is identified, said neighboring wind turbine (2) being arranged in the vicinity of the wind turbine(1). Produced power data and/or wind speed data from the wind turbine (1) and from the neighboring wind turbine(2),is obtained during a period of time, and a yaw position offset of the wind turbine(1) is derived, based on the obtained produced power data and/or wind speed data, and based on the geographical positions of the wind turbine (1) and the neighboring wind turbine(2).A local maximum and a local minimum being separated by an angular difference in yaw position being substantially equal to 180°.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-4593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J SINGLETARY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863