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(b)
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.
Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 recite a limitation “one or more of …”. The plain meaning of phrase “one or more of A and B” is “one or more of A and one or more of B” (for more details please see Ex parte Jung, 2016-008290 (PTAB Mar. 22, 2017) and/or SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). According to the disclosure of the specification, Applicant’s intended meaning of the limitation should be any combination of recited elements. For continuing examination purpose, this limitation in the claims has been construed as "one or more of A or B”. For example, the corresponding limitation in claim 2 has been construed as “wherein one or more of the following are predetermined and stored for access by the controller: the identification of the cluster at a plurality of different wind directions; the energy cost for different yaw steers; [[and]] or the increased energy production of the cluster for different yaw steers at a plurality of different wind directions”.
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 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, 3, 4, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Franke (US 20170284368 A1, hereinafter as “Franke”).
Regarding claim 1, Franke teaches:
A method for operating a wind farm having a plurality of wind turbines (FIG. 1), the method comprising performing via a controller ([0021]):
determining a wind direction of a wind affecting the wind farm ([0011] and [0022]. Energy is power multiplies time. The “net energy gain” in the claim depends on a time window, so wind condition should be determined/forecasted for a time window to be able to compare the “net energy gain” and the “energy cost” in the claim);
based on the wind direction, identifying at least one upwind turbine that produces a wake effect on one or more downwind wind turbines, the upwind wind turbine and affected downwind wind turbines defining a cluster (FIG. 1 and [0012]);
based on a current yaw position of the upwind turbine and the wind direction, determining a yaw steer for the upwind turbine to reduce the wake effect on the downstream wind turbines in the cluster (FIG. 1 and [0012]);
wherein the yaw steer is based on increasing a net energy gain from the cluster, the net energy gain determined by subtracting an energy cost of the yaw steer from an increased energy production of the cluster resulting from the yaw steer ([0013], [0015], [0016]); and
controlling the upwind wind turbine to change yaw position in accordance with the yaw steer when the net energy gain satisfies a minimum threshold level ([0016]; [0021]).
Franke teaches specifically (underlines are added by Examiner for emphasis):
PNG
media_image1.png
436
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0011] Obtaining, for each time interval, or time step, of a sequence of time intervals of a forecast time period, forecast wind conditions at the upstream wind turbine and at the downstream wind turbine.
[0012] Determining a candidate upstream operation parameter sequence with an upstream operation parameter value for each of the time intervals of the sequence of time intervals that minimizes, if the upstream turbine is operated accordingly, a wake effect at the downstream turbine over the forecast time period and under the forecast wind conditions.
[0013] Estimating a parameter change expense indicative of, or incurred by, a change from the current upstream operation parameter value to a first upstream operation parameter value of the candidate upstream operation parameter sequence and optionally indicative of further parameter value changes in the candidate upstream operation parameter sequence. The parameter change expense may include an energy required to operate a driving motor or other actuator for incrementally moving or adjusting turbine parts such as the nacelle (yaw angle) or rotor blades (pitch angles) according to the change in the operation parameter, or include a corresponding cost. The parameter change expense may be respective of component wear, including fatigue effects, suffered by the driving motor and/or moving turbine parts, and may specifically include wear of yaw bearings resulting from mechanical load moments due to inertia, friction and gyro moments exerted on the yaw bearings in case of a yawing turbine rotor. Component wear may include a reduction in energy generated over a decreased lifetime of the driving motor and/or moving turbine parts, or include a corresponding reduction in earnings. Alternatively, the expense may include a cost for maintenance or premature replacement of the driving motor and/or moving turbine parts.
[0015] Calculating a wind farm productivity gain as a difference between the wind farm productivity according to the candidate upstream operation parameter sequence and the wind farm productivity with the current upstream operation parameter value.
[0016] Operating the upstream turbine, at a first time interval of the sequence of time intervals, according to at least a first upstream operation parameter value of the candidate upstream operation parameter sequence if the productivity gain exceeds the parameter change expense, and with the current upstream operation parameter value if the parameter change expense exceeds the productivity gain.
[0021] In a specific example, the present invention considers the yaw angle as the upstream operation parameter, and the upstream turbine is operated with a yaw angle Y0 under current wind conditions. A wind farm controller is adapted to communicate with a local controller at the upstream turbine and configured to receive future wind conditions for a predetermined time window based on a wind forecast for the wind farm. The wind farm controller is further adapted to calculate a yaw angle Yc for minimising wake effects of the downwind turbine under the future wind conditions, and to determine a cost for changing the yaw angle from Y0 to Yc under consideration of driving motor involvement as well as wear and fatigue effects at the upstream turbine. The wind farm controller is ultimately adapted to calculate power productions P0 and Pc of the wind farm under the future wind conditions in the predetermined time period, assuming the upstream turbine being operated with the yaw angle Y0 and Yc respectively, and to set the yaw angle to Yc if the cost is lower than a profit of a power production increment Pc-P0.
[0022] The present invention changes the conventional method of controlling a wind farm in several ways. While the existing methods focus mostly on controlling the current state of operation, the present invention proposes extending it to the near-term future too. This covers decisions made based on immediate future, e.g. seconds or minutes, but can also cover up to an hour and all time durations in between.
Regarding claim 3, Franke teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Franke further teaches:
the minimum threshold level is based at least in part on considerations of machinery wear and lifespan reduction caused by the yaw steers ([0013]: “The parameter change expense may be respective of component wear, including fatigue effects, suffered by the driving motor and/or moving turbine parts, and may specifically include wear of yaw bearings resulting from mechanical load moments due to inertia, friction and gyro moments exerted on the yaw bearings in case of a yawing turbine rotor. Component wear may include a reduction in energy generated over a decreased lifetime of the driving motor and/or moving turbine parts, or include a corresponding reduction in earnings”).
Regarding claim 4, Franke teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on.
Franke further teaches:
the increase in net energy gain is maximized by computing the net energy gain for a plurality of yaw steers for the cluster and selecting the yaw steer producing the highest net energy gain (FIG. 3 and [0039]: “In FIG. 3, the corresponding power productions and the sum are plotted as a function of the yaw angles of the upwind turbines. Since upwind turbines power decreases with the yaw angles and the downwind turbines power increases with the yaw angles, the total farm power goes through a maximum as a result of this trade-off. This demonstrates the achievable benefits”).
claim 11 recites a wind farm conducting the operational steps of the method in claim 4 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection of claims 1 and 4.
claims 13 and 14 recite a wind farm conducting the operational steps of the method in claims 3 and 4 respectively with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons recited in the rejection of claims 3 and 4, respectively.
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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franke in view of Brake (US 20180010576 A1, hereinafter as “Brake”).
Regarding claim 2, Franke teach(es) all the limitations of its base claim from which the claim depends on, but does not teach one or more of the following are predetermined and stored for access by the controller: the identification of the cluster at a plurality of different wind directions; the energy cost for different yaw steers; or the increased energy production of the cluster for different yaw steers at a plurality of different wind directions.
However, Brake teaches in an analogous art:
one or more of the following are predetermined and stored for access by the controller: the identification of the cluster at a plurality of different wind directions; the energy cost for different yaw steers; or the increased energy production of the cluster for different yaw steers at a plurality of different wind directions ([0064]: “the values stored in the yaw offset table are determined by a computerized simulation of the operation of an existing wind farm to evaluate the effect of different yaw offset values, as would be introduced by retrofitting yaw offset capabilities, in enhancing the power output of the existing windfarm in the presence of various wind directions. In another example, the values stored in the yaw offset table may be further enhanced by refinements to the values stored in the yaw offset table that are made by measuring and evaluating wind farm power output based upon adjustments to the values stored in yaw offset tables that are initially derived based on the computerized simulations or other approaches”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Franke based on the teaching of Brake, to make the method wherein one or more of the following are predetermined and stored for access by the controller: the identification of the cluster at a plurality of different wind directions; the energy cost for different yaw steers; or the increased energy production of the cluster for different yaw steers at a plurality of different wind directions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to “increase overall wind farm efficiencies”, as Brake teaches in [0001].
claim 12 recites a wind farm conducting the operational steps of the method in claim 2 with patentably the same limitations. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same reason recited in the rejection of claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7192. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES CAI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115