DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment/request for reconsideration after non-final rejection (hereinafter “Reply”) dated 7 August 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 3 are canceled.
Claim(s) 21 are new.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-21 is/are pending.
Response to Amendment
The objection(s) to claim(s) 1, 9-10, 13 is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
The rejection of claim(s) 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is/are withdrawn after consideration of the submitted amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1, 4, 7-12, 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schram, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At pages 10-11, bridging paragraph and page 14 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following features of claims 1 and 16: the throttling down is controlled in dependence on a thermal stratification so that an area surrounding the wind turbine is classified as flat land or mountainous land, wherein, in the case of classification as flat land, throttling down is increased when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable, and wherein, in the case of classification as mountainous land, throttling down is reduced when the mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable. Specifically, Schram discloses information considered during the regulation of the wind farm does not include thermal stratification.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram in view of Brath, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At pages 11-12 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art, specifically Brath, fails to disclose classification of the land as flat or mountainous.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive because claim 2 does not recite classification of the land. Rather, claim 2 recites: the further weather property is a thermal stratification of atmospheric boundary layers. Brath teaches a wind turbine wake management strategy includes consideration of ambient temperature distribution in the atmosphere such that the atmosphere is classified as neutral, stably stratified, or unstable (Brath para. 0003). Thus, the rejection of claim 2 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of canceled claim(s) 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram in view of Brath, wherein the limitations of claim 3 are now found within amended claim 1, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At pages 11-12 of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to teach or suggest the following feature(s) of claim 3: the throttling down is controlled in dependence on a thermal stratification so that an area surrounding the wind turbine is classified as flat land or mountainous land, wherein, in the case of classification as flat land, throttling down is increased when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable, and wherein, in the case of classification as mountainous land, throttling down is reduced when the mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable.
(i) Specifically, at page 11, second full paragraph: one skilled in the relevant art at the time of filing would not have been motivated to cause the throttling down to be based on the type of land surrounding the wind farm, as local weather conditions are commonplace for consideration when controlling a wind farm.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive because Schram teaches at para. 0022 that the control unit uses knowledge of the terrain topography during processing to further determine movement of wind flows around the windpark. Thus, Schram suggests the terrain topography is determined, or classified according to the surrounding natural features (e.g. flat plain or mountainous), prior to operation of the wind park, such that the terrain topography is stored in the control unit for use in determining movement of the wind flows around the windpark.
Furthermore, as evidenced by “Wind Turbine Wake Mitigation through Blade Pitch Offset” by Dilip et al., a wake mitigation strategy that considers terrain topography includes determination of surface roughness such that the land type is classified according to the amount of smoothness, e.g. as flat (see page, 4, partial first paragraph: These chosen values of turbulence are within the range observed upwind of wind farms located on flat and relatively smooth terrains).
(ii) Specifically, at pages 11-12, bridging paragraph: Brath teaches a wind turbine wake management strategy which considers ambient temperature distortion in the atmosphere without classification of a terrain type, so there is no motivation for one skilled in the relevant art to consider the terrain type.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument not persuasive because Schram is relied upon for teaching, at para. 0022, that the control unit uses knowledge of the terrain topography during processing to further determine movement of wind flows around the windpark. Thus, Schram is relied upon for suggesting the terrain topography is determined, or classified according to the surrounding natural features (e.g. flat plain or mountainous), prior to operation of the wind park, such that the terrain topography is stored in the control unit for use in determining movement of the wind flows around the windpark. Furthermore, Brath teaches that throughout the day, at a wind turbine site, the ambient temperature distortion in the atmosphere varies (Brath para. 0003). Thus, Brath suggests that regardless of the terrain topography classification the atmosphere can be classified as neutral, stably stratified, or unstable (Brath para. 0003). Therefore, the Office maintains it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider, along with the terrain topography of Schram, the atmospheric condition, i.e. thermal stratification, of Brath in order to manage wake loss and thereby achieve the predictable result of improving performance of the wind turbines (Brath para. 0003).
Furthermore, as evidenced by “Wind Turbine Wake Mitigation through Blade Pitch Offset” by Dilip et al., the wake mitigation strategy takes into account the terrain, i.e. surface roughness, at a given atmospheric condition (see page 4, partial first paragraph: These chosen values of turbulence are within the range observed upwind of wind farms located on flat and relatively smooth terrains during a typical diurnal cycle…under stably stratified conditions).
The rejection of claim(s) 5-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram in view of Bower are withdrawn due to dependence from claim 1. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding the rejection of claim(s) 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram in view of Betran Palomas, the applicant(s) submit the following remark(s)/argument(s):
(A) At page 13, of the submitted Reply:
The cited art fails to disclose the following features of claim 13: the throttling down is controlled in dependence on a thermal stratification so that an area surrounding the wind turbine is classified as flat land or mountainous land, wherein, in the case of classification as flat land, throttling down is increased when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable, and wherein, in the case of classification as mountainous land, throttling down is reduced when the mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable. Specifically, Schram discloses information considered during the regulation of the wind farm does not include thermal stratification.
In reply, the Office respectfully considers this argument persuasive. Therefore, the rejection(s) is/are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The rejection of claim(s) 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schram in view of Betran Palomas are withdrawn due to dependence from claim 13. However, upon further consideration a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-12, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0124025 to Schram et al. (hereinafter “SCHRAM”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0230741 to Brath et al. (hereinafter “BRATH”) as evidenced by “Wind Turbine Wake Mitigation through Blade Pitch Offset” by Dilip et al., Energies, 29 May 2017, 10, 757 (hereinafter “DILIP”).
(A) Regarding Claim 1:
SCHRAM teaches:
A method for operating a wind turbine for generating a settable turbine power, wherein the wind turbine (Abstract):
includes a rotor having rotor blades having a blade angle, each rotor blade configured such that the blade angle of the respective rotor blade is adjustable (paragraph 0033),
is operable at a settable rotor speed (paragraph 0033), and
is installed at an installation site at a distance to an obstacle (paragraph 0033: a first, upstream, wind turbine),
wherein the method comprises:
the obstacle causing a wind disturbance, which, in dependence on current wind direction and wind velocity, can reach the wind turbine as a wind wake (paragraph 0033), and
the wind turbine reducing its turbine operation by throttling down for protection against loads due to the wind wake (paragraph 0033),
wherein the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the current wind direction and the current wind velocity (paragraph 0033),
wherein a weather prediction is used in order to take into consideration at least one further weather property in addition to the wind direction and wind velocity (paragraph 0038: e.g. temperature), and
wherein the throttling down is additionally controlled in dependence on the weather prediction (paragraph 0038).
However, the difference(s) between SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that SCHRAM does not explicitly teach the weather property is a thermal stratification of atmospheric boundary layers, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the thermal stratification.
BRATH teaches:
Wind turbine wake management strategy includes consideration of ambient temperature distribution in the atmosphere and time of day, wherein the atmosphere is classified as neutral, stably stratified, or unstable (paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the weather prediction of SCHRAM take into consideration the thermal stratification of atmospheric boundary layers such that the atmosphere is determined to be mixed and/or stable, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the thermal stratification, as taught by BRATH, in order to manage wake loss and thereby achieve the predictable result of improving performance of the wind turbines at different atmospheric conditions throughout the day (BRATH paragraph 0003).
However, the difference(s) between modified SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that modified SCHRAM does not explicitly teach the area surrounding the wind turbine is classified as flat land or mountainous land, wherein in the case of classification as flat land, throttling down is increased when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable, and wherein, in the case of classification as mountainous land, throttling down is reduced when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable.
Though modified SCHRAM does not explicitly state the amount of throttling down with respect to land classification, SCHRAM identifies the wake mitigation strategy includes consideration of the movement of wind flows around the park, which can be predicted by stored knowledge of terrain topography (SCHRAM para. 0022). Thus, Schram suggests identification terrain natural features prior to operation of the wind park, wherein identification of terrain natural features includes determination of land surface roughness such that the land is classified as flat or not, as evidenced by DILIP, at page 4, first partial paragraph, which teaches a wake mitigation strategy considers the terrain surface roughness, wherein the surface roughness falls under a classification of land type, e.g. flat. SCHRAM further teaches the terrain topography has an effect on the turbulence directed toward downstream wind turbines (SCHRAM paras. 0005 and 0024). BRATH teaches the turbulence from upstream wind turbines results in fatigue loads downstream (BRATH para. 0002). BRATH further teaches throttling down has an effect on the fatigue loads at given atmospheric condition, e.g. a neutral and/or stable stratified (para. 0001, 0003, 0010 and 0037), as further evidenced by DILIP, at page 4, first partial paragraph, which teaches the wake mitigation strategy considers turbulence an expression of the terrain, i.e. surface roughness, at a given atmospheric condition, e.g. stably stratified, wherein the throttling is increased at lower turbulence and reduced at higher turbulence, i.e. as the land becomes flatter the throttling down may be increased. Therefore, the amount of throttling during a particular atmospheric condition, e.g. stably stratified, for a particular land type, e.g. flat, is considered a result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the amount of throttling down be increased or reduced depending on the stored knowledge of the terrain and the classification of the thermal stratification for the surrounding land area, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
(B) Regarding Claim 2:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
the weather property is a thermal stratification of atmospheric boundary layers (BRATH paragraph 0003).
(C) Regarding Claim 4:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
Wherein for throttling down: the turbine power is reduced, the rotor speed is reduced, and/or the blade angle of each rotor blade is adjusted in the direction toward a vane position (paragraphs 0033 and 0038).
(D) Regarding Claim 7:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
Flow states at the wind turbine, which are influenced by the wind wake, are estimated in dependence on the weather prediction, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the estimated flow states (paragraph 0033 and 0038).
(E) Regarding Claim 8:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
The flow states at the wind turbine are estimated in dependence on the weather property (paragraph 0038: e.g. temperature).
(F) Regarding Claim 9:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
Flow states which are estimated in dependence on the weather prediction (paragraphs 0033 and 0038) are additionally estimated in dependence on at least one local weather model, wherein: a local weather model describes a relationship between the weather prediction and flow states expected at the wind turbine (paragraph 0026: stored data relative to local and meteorological conditions).
(G) Regarding Claim 10:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
If the wind turbine is installed in a wind park, wakes within the wind park are taken into consideration (paragraph 0022: wake interactions).
(H) Regarding Claim 11:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
The wind turbine is one of multiple wind turbines of a wind park, and one of the other wind turbines, depending on the wind direction, forms the obstacle (paragraph 0033: a first, upstream, wind turbine or turbine group and a downstream wind turbine).
(I) Regarding Claim 12:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
The throttling down is additionally controlled in dependence on the further weather property (paragraph 0038: e.g. temperature).
(J) Regarding Claim 16:
SCHRAM teaches:
A wind turbine for generating a settable turbine power, and the wind turbine comprising:
a rotor having rotor blades adjustable in their blade angle (SCHRAM paragraph 0033),
wherein the wind turbine is operable at a settable rotor speed (SCHRAM paragraph 0033), and
wherein the wind turbine is installed at an installation site at a distance to an obstacle (SCHRAM paragraph 0033: a first, upstream, wind turbine);
wherein:
the obstacle can cause a wind disturbance which, in dependence on current wind direction and wind speed, can reach the wind turbine as a wind wake (SCHRAM paragraph 0033),
wherein the wind turbine is configured to be operated using a method in which:
the wind turbine reduces its turbine operation by throttling down for protection against loads due to the wind wake (SCHRAM paragraph 0033), wherein
the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the current wind direction and the current wind velocity (SCHRAM paragraph 0033),
a weather prediction is used in order to take into consideration at least one further weather property in addition to the wind direction and wind velocity (SCHRAM paragraph 0038: e.g. temperature), and
the throttling down is additionally controlled in dependence on the weather prediction (SCHRAM paragraphs 0033 and 0038), wherein:
the control of the throttling down is implemented on a throttling down control unit and the wind turbine includes this throttling down control unit or is coupled thereto or includes an interface for coupling with the throttling down control unit (SCHRAM paragraph 0009: central processing and control unit and paragraph 0020: control mechanism).
However, the difference(s) between SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that SCHRAM does not explicitly teach the weather property is a thermal stratification of atmospheric boundary layers, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the thermal stratification.
BRATH teaches:
Wind turbine wake management strategy includes consideration of ambient temperature distribution in the atmosphere and time of day, wherein the atmosphere is classified as neutral, stably stratified, or unstable (paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the weather prediction of SCHRAM take into consideration the thermal stratification of atmospheric boundary layers such that the atmosphere is determined to be mixed and/or stable, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the thermal stratification, as taught by BRATH, in order to manage wake loss and thereby achieve the predictable result of improving performance of the wind turbines at different atmospheric conditions throughout the day (BRATH paragraph 0003).
However, the difference(s) between modified SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that modified SCHRAM does not explicitly teach the area surrounding the wind turbine is classified as flat land or mountainous land, wherein in the case of classification as flat land, throttling down is increased when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable, and wherein, in the case of classification as mountainous land, throttling down is reduced when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable.
Though modified SCHRAM does not explicitly state the amount of throttling down with respect to land classification, SCHRAM identifies the wake mitigation strategy includes consideration of the movement of wind flows around the park, which can be predicted by stored knowledge of terrain topography (SCHRAM para. 0022). Thus, Schram suggests identification terrain natural features prior to operation of the wind park, wherein identification of terrain natural features includes determination of land surface roughness such that the land is classified as flat or not, as evidenced by DILIP, at page 4, first partial paragraph, which teaches a wake mitigation strategy considers the terrain surface roughness, wherein the surface roughness falls under a classification of land type, e.g. flat. SCHRAM further teaches the terrain topography has an effect on the turbulence directed toward downstream wind turbines (SCHRAM paras. 0005 and 0024). BRATH teaches the turbulence from upstream wind turbines results in fatigue loads downstream (BRATH para. 0002). BRATH further teaches throttling down has an effect on the fatigue loads at given atmospheric condition, e.g. a neutral and/or stable stratified (para. 0001, 0003, 0010 and 0037), as further evidenced by DILIP, at page 4, first partial paragraph, which teaches the wake mitigation strategy considers turbulence an expression of the terrain, i.e. surface roughness, at a given atmospheric condition, e.g. stably stratified, wherein the throttling is increased at lower turbulence and reduced at higher turbulence, i.e. as the land becomes flatter the throttling down may be increased. Therefore, the amount of throttling during a particular atmospheric condition, e.g. stably stratified, for a particular land type, e.g. flat, is considered a result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the amount of throttling down be increased or reduced depending on the stored knowledge of the terrain and the classification of the thermal stratification for the surrounding land area, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
(K) Regarding Claim 17:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
The throttling down is additionally controlled in dependence on the further weather property (paragraph 0038: e.g. temperature).
(L) Regarding Claim 18:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
A throttling down control unit, prepared to control the throttling down of the wind turbine (paragraph 0009: central processing and control unit, paragraph 0020: control mechanism).
(M) Regarding Claim 19:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
A wind park having multiple wind turbines, the wind park comprising: at least one wind turbine as claimed in claim 16 (paragraph 0033), and a park controller, which comprises a throttling down control unit prepared to control throttling down of the wind turbines (paragraph 0009: central processing and control unit).
(N) Regarding Claim 20:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
The park controller is configured to communicate with the wind turbines, in order to control the throttling down of a first wind turbine in dependence on a second wind turbine, if the second wind turbine forms the obstacle for the first wind turbine (paragraph 0009: central processing and control unit and paragraph 0033: first and second turbines).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified SCHRAM, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0103202 to Bowyer et al. (hereinafter “BOWER”).
(A) Regarding Claim 5:
Modified SCHRAM teaches:
Wind wake is estimated in dependence on the weather prediction, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the wind wake (paragraph 0033 and 0038).
However, the difference(s) between modified SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that modified SCHRAM does not explicitly teach a length of the wind wake is estimated, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the estimated length of the wind wake.
BOWER teaches:
A fatigue damage estimator estimates the effect of measured wake, including estimating if the wake does not extend as far as the downstream turbine, and altering the operation of a wind turbine in response to the output of the fatigue damage estimator (paragraph 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate a length of the wake through a fatigue damage estimator, as taught by BOWER, in order to determine if the wake will reach the downstream turbine and thereby achieve the predictable result of altering the operation of the wind turbine to achieve a maximum power output given the anticipated effects of the wake on the downstream turbine (BOWER paragraph 0031).
(B) Regarding Claim 6:
Modified SCHRAM further teaches:
The length of the wind wake is estimated in dependence on the weather property (SCHRAM paragraphs 0033 and 0038: wake estimation based on weather properties; BOWER paragraph 0031: fatigue estimator estimates wake length based on input derived from the measured wake).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified SCHRAM in view of BRATH, as evidenced by DILIP and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/027297 to Betran Palomas (hereinafter “BETRAN PALOMAS”).
(A) Regarding Claim 13:
SCHRAM teaches:
A method for planning a wind park including multiple wind turbines, comprising:
operation of a wind turbine for generating a settable turbine power, wherein the wind turbine,
includes a rotor having rotor blades adjustable in their blade angle (paragraph 0033),
is operable at a settable rotor speed (paragraph 0033), and
is installed at an installation site at a distance to an obstacle (paragraph 0033: a first, upstream, wind turbine),
wherein the method comprises:
the obstacle causing a wind disturbance, which, in dependence on current wind direction and wind velocity, can reach the wind turbine as a wind wake (paragraph 0033), and
the wind turbine reducing its turbine operation by throttling down for protection against loads due to the wind wake (paragraph 0033),
wherein the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the current wind direction and the current wind velocity (paragraph 0033),
wherein a weather prediction is used in order to take into consideration at least one further weather property in addition to the wind direction and wind velocity (paragraph 0038: e.g. temperature), and
wherein the throttling down is additionally controlled in dependence on the weather prediction (paragraph 0038).
However, the difference(s) between SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that SCHRAM does not explicitly teach the weather property is a thermal stratification of atmospheric boundary layers, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the thermal stratification.
BRATH teaches:
Wind turbine wake management strategy includes consideration of ambient temperature distribution in the atmosphere and time of day, wherein the atmosphere is classified as neutral, stably stratified, or unstable (paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the weather prediction of SCHRAM take into consideration the thermal stratification of atmospheric boundary layers such that the atmosphere is determined to be mixed and/or stable, and the throttling down is controlled in dependence on the thermal stratification, as taught by BRATH, in order to manage wake loss and thereby achieve the predictable result of improving performance of the wind turbines at different atmospheric conditions throughout the day (BRATH paragraph 0003).
However, the difference(s) between modified SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that modified SCHRAM does not explicitly teach the area surrounding the wind turbine is classified as flat land or mountainous land, wherein in the case of classification as flat land, throttling down is increased when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable, and wherein, in the case of classification as mountainous land, throttling down is reduced when mixing between boundary layers is weaker and/or when the thermal stratification is more stable.
Though modified SCHRAM does not explicitly state the amount of throttling down with respect to land classification, SCHRAM identifies the wake mitigation strategy includes consideration of the movement of wind flows around the park, which can be predicted by stored knowledge of terrain topography (SCHRAM para. 0022). Thus, Schram suggests identification terrain natural features prior to operation of the wind park, wherein identification of terrain natural features includes determination of land surface roughness such that the land is classified as flat or not, as evidenced by DILIP, at page 4, first partial paragraph, which teaches a wake mitigation strategy considers the terrain surface roughness, wherein the surface roughness falls under a classification of land type, e.g. flat. SCHRAM further teaches the terrain topography has an effect on the turbulence directed toward downstream wind turbines (SCHRAM paras. 0005 and 0024). BRATH teaches the turbulence from upstream wind turbines results in fatigue loads downstream (BRATH para. 0002). BRATH further teaches throttling down has an effect on the fatigue loads at given atmospheric condition, e.g. a neutral and/or stable stratified (para. 0001, 0003, 0010 and 0037), as further evidenced by DILIP, at page 4, first partial paragraph, which teaches the wake mitigation strategy considers turbulence an expression of the terrain, i.e. surface roughness, at a given atmospheric condition, e.g. stably stratified, wherein the throttling is increased at lower turbulence and reduced at higher turbulence, i.e. as the land becomes flatter the throttling down may be increased. Therefore, the amount of throttling during a particular atmospheric condition, e.g. stably stratified, for a particular land type, e.g. flat, is considered a result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the amount of throttling down be increased or reduced depending on the stored knowledge of the terrain and the classification of the thermal stratification for the surrounding land area, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
However, the difference(s) between modified SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that modified SCHRAM does not explicitly teach estimating an energy production to be expected of the wind park by simulating operation of the wind turbines for an estimation period of time and simulation of the operation of the wind turbine wake management strategy (i.e. the throttling down).
BETRAN PALOMAS teaches:
Estimating an energy production to be expected of the wind park by simulating operation of the wind turbines for an estimation period of time and simulation of the operation of the wind turbine (paragraph 0005 and paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to estimate energy production to be expended of the wind park by simulating operation of the wind turbines for a period of time, as taught by BETRAN PALOMAS, in order to establish predetermined directions for the wind capable of generating wake effects and thereby achieve the predictable result of providing wind direction data to be compared with sensed data during operation so as to adjust power of the wind turbine in potential wake situations (BETRAN PALOMAS paragraph 0005).
(B) Regarding Claim 15:
Modified SCHRAM, being further modified by BETRAN PALOMAS, teaches:
For the simulation of an operation of a wind turbine (BETRAN PALOMAS paragraph 0005), in each case: historic weather data are used for the weather prediction, a local weather model is trained or adapted in dependence on historic data (SCHRAM paragraph 0026: measured values and stored data relative to local and meteorological conditions).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified SCHRAM in view of BETRAN PALOMAS, as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of a design choice.
(A) Regarding Claim 14:
Modified SCHRAM teaches:
Estimating an energy production to be expected of the wind park by simulating operation of the wind turbines for an estimation period of time and simulation of the operation of the wind turbine (BETRAN PALOMAS paragraph 0005 and paragraph 0030), and the throttling down is additionally controlled in dependence on the further weather property (SCHRAM paragraph 0038), wherein the throttling down takes into consideration data on local and meteorological conditions (SCHRAM paragraph 0026).
However, the difference(s) between modified SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that modified SCHRAM does not explicitly teach the estimation period of time is one year.
Since applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results to suggest that having the period of time is one year provides an advantage, solves a stated problem, or is for a particular purpose above the fact that the period of time covers all four seasons at the wind site and it appears the simulation of modified SCHRAM would perform equally well with the time period of one year, as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to simulate operation of the wind turbine for one year, as claimed, for the purpose of simulating energy production across all four seasons which may have different local and meteorological conditions depending on the time of year.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified SCHRAM, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0050750 to Hays et al. (hereinafter “HAYS”).
(A) Regarding claim 21:
Modified SCHRAM teaches:
Flow states are estimated in dependence on local weather (para. 0026).
However, the difference(s) between modified SCHRAM and the claimed invention is that modified SCHRAM does not explicitly teach flow states are additionally estimated in dependence on a regional weather model.
HAYS teaches:
Flow states are estimated in dependence on local and regional weather provided by atmospheric data from an atmospheric measurement system (para. 0226: LIDAR systems 24 located kilometers away from the wind farm 12 can make atmospheric measurements that can be combined with measurements from other LIDAR systems 24 within the region of the wind farm 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an atmospheric data measurement system that includes both regional and local weather, as taught by HAYS, in order to provide a larger scale estimation of wind energy potential in an approaching air mass and thereby achieve the predictable result of extracting as much power as either possible or necessary from the wind field while protecting the associated wind turbines from damage (HAYS para. 0226).
Cited Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. “Wind Turbine Wake Mitigation through Blade Pitch Offset” by Dilip et al., Energies, 29 May 2017, 10, 757 teaches wake mitigation strategy includes consideration of terrain surface roughness, or turbulence, at a stable thermal stratification such that the amount of throttling is dependent on the amount of surface roughness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
KAYLA M. MCCAFFREY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/Kayla McCaffrey/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745