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 . Claims 1-20 filed on 8/17/2023 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 8/18/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102022120945.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 8/17/2023, 2/2/2024, and 4/17/2025 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 8/17/2023 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 8/17/2023 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of the listed claims include the limitation of “and/or” which does not provide clarity of whether any proceeding claims are required. In order to further prosecution, each instance of “and/or” will be treated as the more broad term of “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 includes the limitation of, “selecting…installation settings of the wind power installation such that: installation settings of stored combinations to be avoided are avoided, and/or installation settings are selected from stored suitable combinations.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of selecting a set of settings based upon measured environmental parameters which is a process that can reasonably be performed in the human mind/using pen and paper and thus, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For instance, claim 1 includes the additional limitation of, “setting installation settings of the wind power installation such that: installation settings of stored combinations to be avoided are avoided, and/or installation settings are selected from stored suitable combinations.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to merely adjusting values which in turn just simply applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, claim 1 includes the limitations of, “storing operating situations to be avoided and/or suitable operating situations in a memory by: storing a combination of environmental conditions and installation settings as a combination to be avoided for an operating situation that should be avoided in each case, and/or storing a combination of environmental conditions and installation settings as a suitable combination for a suitable operating situation in each case, and avoiding operating situations that should be avoided by:” and “capturing environmental conditions;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 1 also includes the limitation of, “A method for setting a fully or partially built wind power installation having a rotor having a plurality of rotor blades whose blade angle can be adjusted, wherein the wind power installation can take on variable operating situations, and each operating situation is characterized by a combination of settable installation settings of the wind power installation and environmental conditions that can be captured, so that an operating situation can be set for given environmental conditions by setting the installation settings, wherein the method comprises:”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just simply describes and overview of the method and associates it with a wind power installation and thus just generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering operating situation and weather data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claims 19 and 20 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above. Claim 20 further includes the limitation of, “an installation controller”, however as generally recited merely represents generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claim 17, includes limitations in which operating situations are inferred based upon gathered information, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes additional limitations which can readily be performed in the human mind and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 14 and 17, include limitations in which an alert is provided or settings are adjusted, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds additional limitations which merely apply the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims 9-11 and 15-16, each include limitations of gathering/storing data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, claims 2-8, 12-13, and 18, each describe types of values/settings considered/monitored, various conditions in which the wind installation is in when performing monitoring, consideration that the values are recorded in a range, and receiving settings from an identical installation, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, add a plurality of limitations which just generally describe conditional aspects of the system/method and as such, just generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering operating situation and weather data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
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.
Claims 1-8, 12, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Veldkamp et al. (US PGPUB 20110076142).
Regarding Claims 1 and 19; Veldkamp teaches; A method for setting a fully or partially built wind power installation having a rotor having a plurality of rotor blades whose blade angle can be adjusted, (Veldkamp; at least Fig. 1; paragraph [0005])
wherein the wind power installation can take on variable operating situations, and each operating situation is characterized by a combination of settable installation settings of the wind power installation and environmental conditions that can be captured, so that an operating situation can be set for given environmental conditions by setting the installation settings, wherein the method comprises: (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0027] and [0033]; disclose wherein the system includes capturing various results utilizing various wind turbine settings empirically correlated with respective wind/environment conditions and storing the various relationships which can then be used to set corresponding wind turbine settings based upon detected wind conditions)
storing operating situations to be avoided and/or suitable operating situations in a memory by: storing a combination of environmental conditions and installation settings as a combination to be avoided for an operating situation that should be avoided in each case, and/or storing a combination of environmental conditions and installation settings as a suitable combination for a suitable operating situation in each case, and (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0027]; disclose storing a plurality of turbine setting/wind condition relationships to be utilized when controlling a wind turbine based upon monitored effects of the plurality of settings such that suitable and avoidable situations are learned)
avoiding operating situations that should be avoided by: capturing environmental conditions; and (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0033]; disclose a plurality of sensors for capturing environmental conditions)
depending on the captured environmental conditions and the stored combinations to be avoided and/or suitable combinations, selecting and setting installation settings of the wind power installation such that: installation settings of stored combinations to be avoided are avoided, and/or installation settings are selected from stored suitable combinations. (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0033]; disclose, based upon the sensed parameters regarding environmental conditions, providing adjustments to various settings of the wind turbine (i.e. blade pitch) in order to address the detected situation).
Regarding Claim 2; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the environmental conditions considered include wind speed and wind direction. (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 3; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the environmental conditions considered include turbulence intensity, ambient temperature of the wind power installation, vertical wind shear, vertical wind direction shear, vertical angle of inclination of the wind, and air density. (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0027]).
Regarding Claim 4; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the installation settings considered include: a collective blade angle, individual blade angles, an azimuth orientation of the wind power installation, a rotor speed, and/or a rotor position of the rotor. (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0033]).
Regarding Claim 5; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the installation settings considered include whether the rotor is locked. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0028] and [0032]).
Regarding Claim 6; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the rotor blades of the wind power installation are adjusted, after the wind power installation has been built but before the wind power installation is connected to an electrical supply network, by an individual blade adjustment during which the blade angles of the rotor blades are adjusted individually and independently of one other, and during feed-in operation, after the wind power installation has been connected to the electrical supply network, the rotor blades are set by specifying a collective blade angle, with the result that all rotor blades are set synchronously with one another and with the same blade angles. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0030] and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 7; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: for the combinations to be avoided and/or suitable combinations, the installation settings and environmental conditions are respectively stored and/or taken into account as a range to be avoided or a suitable range. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0023] and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 8; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the operating situations that should be avoided are those in which an oscillation of at least one component of the wind power installation with a dangerous amplitude is to be expected, and/or if an oscillation of the component is detected for a current operating situation, the current operating situation is stored as an operating situation that should be avoided by storing a combination of installation settings and environmental conditions of the current operating situation as a combination to be avoided. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0027] and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 12; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the method is carried out in a non-feeding-in state of the wind power installation when the wind power installation does not generate any power and/or does not feed any power into an electrical supply network, in a commissioning period in which the wind power installation has already been completed, but has not yet been connected to the electrical supply network and therefore no electrical power can be fed into the electrical supply network, in a period of up to 3 or 6 months after completion, and/or in a conversion situation when the wind power installation is locked, when at least the rotor is locked. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0028] and [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 15; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: capturing and storing of operating situations that should be avoided and/or capturing and storing of suitable, or confirmed suitable, operating situations are continuously repeated in changing environmental conditions in order to thereby establish a data pool with operating situations that should be avoided and/or suitable, or confirmed suitable, operating situations. (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0027]).
Regarding Claim 16; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: operating situations that should be avoided and/or suitable, or confirmed suitable, operating situations are captured by simulations and then stored, wherein operating situations that should be avoided and/or suitable, or confirmed suitable, operating situations are also captured by measurements and then stored. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0027] and [0033]).
Regarding Claim 18; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wind power installation is in a parked situation, wherein the parked situation is an idling or rotor-locked situation. (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 20; Veldkamp teaches; The wind power installation as claimed in claim 19, wherein the wind power installation has an installation controller and the installation controller is prepared to carry out the method. (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0033]).
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 9-11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veldkamp et al. (US PGPUB 20110076142) in view of Demtroder (US PGPUB 20140327243).
Regarding Claim 9; Veldkamp teaches; The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein: the operating situations that should be avoided are those in which an oscillation of at least one of the rotor blades reaches or exceeds a predefinable amplitude limit, and/or if an oscillation of at least one of the rotor blades is detected for a current operating situation with an amplitude which reaches or exceeds the predeterminable amplitude limit, the current operating situation is stored as an operating situation that should be avoided by storing a combination of installation settings and environmental conditions of the current operating situation as a combination to be avoided. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0027] and [0033]; disclose wherein the system and method includes monitoring a plurality of situations are monitored and learned in which particular rotor blade settings utilized during specific wind conditions and the resulting vibrations induced are learned and empirically stored such that they can be utilized during future events to ensure proper control of the wind turbine is achieved to avoid damaging oscillations on the tower).
Veldkamp appears to be silent on; The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein: the operating situations that should be avoided are those in which an oscillation of at least one of the rotor blades reaches or exceeds a predefinable amplitude limit, and/or if an oscillation of at least one of the rotor blades is detected for a current operating situation with an amplitude which reaches or exceeds the predeterminable amplitude limit, the current operating situation is stored as an operating situation that should be avoided by storing a combination of installation settings and environmental conditions of the current operating situation as a combination to be avoided.
However, Demtroder teaches; The method as claimed in claim 8, wherein: the operating situations that should be avoided are those in which an oscillation of at least one of the rotor blades reaches or exceeds a predefinable amplitude limit, and/or if an oscillation of at least one of the rotor blades is detected for a current operating situation with an amplitude which reaches or exceeds the predeterminable amplitude limit, the current operating situation is stored as an operating situation that should be avoided by storing a combination of installation settings and environmental conditions of the current operating situation as a combination to be avoided. (Demtroder; at least paragraphs [0010] and [0012]; disclose a wind turbine system and method in which vibrations of the rotor blades are monitored over time according to varying settings and wind conditions, and wherein the system utilizes thresholds (i.e. limits) in order to learn and adapt control strategies to ensure efficient operation).
Veldkamp and Demtroder are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, wind turbine control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of using predefined thresholds regarding vibrations in rotor blades as taught by Demtroder with the known system of a wind turbine control system of Veldkamp in order to provide safe operation at a high efficiency of a wind turbine as taught by Demtroder (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding Claim 10; the combination of Veldkamp and Demtroder teach; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: if no oscillation of a component of the wind power installation is detected for a current operating situation, at least only with an amplitude below a predefinable amplitude threshold, the current operating situation is stored as a suitable operating situation by storing a combination of installation settings and environmental conditions of the current operating situation as a suitable combination. (Veldkamp; at least paragraph [0027] and [0033]; disclose providing learning periods for determining suitable/unsuitable operational conditions and wherein Demtroder (at least paragraphs [0010]-[0012]) discloses using limits during learning operations when determining acceptable/unacceptable operation parameters).
Regarding Claim 11; the combination of Veldkamp and Demtroder teach; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: if no oscillation of at least one of the rotor blades is detected for a current operating situation, at least only with an amplitude below a predefinable amplitude threshold, the current operating situation is stored as a suitable operating situation by storing a combination of installation settings and environmental conditions of the current operating situation as a suitable combination; and a stored suitable operating situation is stored as a confirmed suitable operating situation if this stored suitable operating situation has occurred repeatedly and no oscillation of the component or rotor blades has occurred, at least only with an amplitude below the predefinable amplitude threshold, wherein operating situations are set by capturing environmental conditions and setting installation settings of the wind power installation such that a stored confirmed suitable operating situation is set. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0027] and [0033]; Demtroder; at least paragraphs [0010]-[0012]).
Regarding Claim 17; the combination of Veldkamp and Demtroder teach; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: critical operating situations are captured, wherein critical operating situations are those in which an oscillation of a component of the wind power installation, or at least one of the rotor blades, occurs with an amplitude which is above a predefinable amplitude threshold, but below an amplitude limit which is greater than the amplitude threshold, and an operating situation that should be avoided is inferred from a captured critical operating situation, in such a way that at least one installation setting is changed, and an operating situation that should be avoided is inferred from a resulting increase or decrease in the amplitude of the oscillation, without setting it. (Veldkamp; at least paragraphs [0027] and [0033]; Demtroder; at least paragraphs [0010]-[0012] and [0031]).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veldkamp et al. (US PGPUB 20110076142) in view of Lafferty et al. (US PGPUB 20110193344).
Regarding Claim 13; Veldkamp appears to be silent on; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: at least some of the stored operating situations that should be avoided and/or suitable operating situations have been received from at least one structurally identical wind power installation.
However, Lafferty teaches; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: at least some of the stored operating situations that should be avoided and/or suitable operating situations have been received from at least one structurally identical wind power installation. (Lafferty; at least paragraphs [0006]-[0008]; disclose a wind turbine system and method in which a plurality of wind turbines can each share data between each other (i.e. wherein the system of Veldkamp can be reasonably configured to provide the learned operation data between wind turbines) that can then be utilized to control by the respective wind turbines to adjust operations).
Veldkamp and Lafferty are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or problem solving area of, wind turbine control systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of sharing/sending information between wind turbines as taught by Lafferty with the known system of a wind turbine control system of Veldkamp in order to provide a method which can help prevent damage, improve energy capture, and reduce loads of wind turbines due to the communication as taught by Lafferty (claim 13).
Regarding Claim 14; the combination of Veldkamp and Lafferty teach; The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: a warning signal is output if an operating situation that should be avoided is set, or if an operating situation that should be avoided is caused by changing environmental conditions, or is expected to occur. (Lafferty; at least paragraph [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Arroyo Beltri et al. (US PGPUB 20200173418): disclose a system and method for providing an auxiliary controller for operation of a wind turbine to avoid unnecessary vibrations that is in a standstill/locked condition during a commissioning phase of the wind turbine.
Nielsen et al. (US PGPUB 2010301605): disclose a system and method for reducing edgewise oscillations in wind turbines that are in an idling or locked rotor state.
Damgaard et al. (US PGPUB 20110243706): disclose a system and method for providing auxiliary control to a wind turbine nacelle that is in an idle state or during transportation such as to reduce rotor vibrations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117