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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 19-28, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach the wake severity level exceeds the acceptable limit for more than a specified time period, and controlling one or more operational parameters includes changing an induction factor and a yaw angle, wherein the yaw angle oscillates periodically according to sinusoidal signals. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2021/0079892 to Messing and US 10,677,221 to Westergaard. Messing teaches measuring wake turbulence over a specified time period. Westergaard teaches controlling one or more operational parameters of a wind turbine by changing an induction factor (by changing the blade pitch), and changing a yaw angle, wherein the yaw angle oscillates periodically according to sinusoidal signals.
The corrections to the claims are noted with appreciation. The rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted February 2, 2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 9-13, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,617,975 to Attia in view of “Wakes in very large Wind Farms and the Effect of Neighbouring Wind Farms” to Nygaard (hereafter “Nygaard”) (this non-patent literature was provided by the applicant in the IDS filed October 26, 2023) and in further view of US 2021/0079892 to Messing and US 10,677,221 to Westergaard.
In Reference to Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 15
Attia teaches:
A method for controlling a first wind turbine (501) comprising:
quantifying a wake effect of the first wind turbine on an operational performance of a second wind turbine (504) (see steps 1200 and 1300 in Figure 9, column 14, lines 6-45), wherein the quantifying comprises modelling the wake effect of the first wind turbine on the second wind turbine based on one or more wind flow conditions associated with the first wind turbine (wake models (wake detecting algorithm) determines wind speed deficits or wind turbulence, see column 14, lines 31-35),
determining a wake severity level (wind speed deficit or wind turbulence level) based on the quantified wake effect (column 14, lines 31-35),
when the wake severity level does not exceed an acceptable limit (wake severity level is compared to a given threshold, column 14, lines 29-30), redetermining the wake severity level until the wake severity level exceeds the acceptable limit (process is looped if the threshold is not exceeded and repeats until the threshold is exceeded, column 14, lines 46-49);
when the wake severity level exceeds the acceptable limit, controlling one or more operational parameters (yaw angle setpoint, see step 1500 in Figure 9 and column 14, line 55 through column 15, line 4, and pitch angle, column 13, lines 20-22) of the first wind turbine to improve a wake recovery of the first wind turbine, thereby to reduce the wake effect of the first wind turbine on the second wind turbine (power production is increased, column 15, lines 1-4) by changing a yaw angle (yaw angle setpoint), and by further changing:
a pitch angle (column 13, lines 20-22) (see column 13, lines 23-43 and Figures 3, 4, and 9).
Attia fails to teach:
The first wind turbine is part of a first wind turbine cluster and the second wind turbine is part of a second wind turbine cluster, the wake severity level exceeds the acceptable limit for more than a specified time period, changing an induction factor, and wherein the yaw angle oscillates periodically according to sinusoidal signals. Attia teaches a plurality of wind turbines which can be arranged in a wind farm (500, see Figure 4), and teaches the wind turbines can be grouped into clusters (column 13, lines 59-65), however Attia does not explicitly define how clusters are arranged and whether a second cluster is downstream of a first cluster as claimed.
Nygaard teaches:
An arrangement of wind turbines comprising a first wind turbine cluster (wind farm Rodsand II) and a second wind turbine cluster (wind farm Nysted), wherein the first wind turbine cluster is upstream of the second wind turbine cluster and creates a wake effect on the second wind turbine cluster (see page 8, line 7 through page 9, line 7 and Figure 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
1082
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Messing teaches:
A method of operating a wind turbine (100), the method comprising: determining a wake severity level (“turbulence measured value”, paragraph 49, lines 3-5, “turbulence” can include a change in wind speed, paragraph 9, lines 4-7), comparing the wake severity level to an acceptable limit (threshold values 322, 324, paragraph 61), wherein the wake severity levels are measured for more than a specified period of time (average values are measured over “a specific period of time”, paragraph 37).
Westergaard teaches:
A method of operating a wind turbine, the method comprising controlling one or more operational parameters (induction factor, yaw angle) of a wind turbine (902 in Figure 9A) by changing an induction factor (by changing the blade pitch, column 10, lines 4-7), and changing a yaw angle (column 11, lines 27-51), wherein the yaw angle oscillates periodically according to sinusoidal signals (see Figure 9A).
Figure 9A shows the wind turbines can change from one extreme yaw angle (904a) to another extreme yaw angle (904b) in the opposite direction (column 11, lines 27-51). The wind turbines can constantly change their yaw angles between the ends of this range (column 11, lines 52-57). The examiner considers the yaw angle to oscillate periodically according to sinusoidal signals (yaw angles).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Attia by organizing the first wind turbine into a first wind turbine cluster and organizing the second wind turbine into a second wind turbine cluster as taught by Nygaard as both references are directed to wind power systems which produce energy, and for the purpose of increasing the amount of power produced by using more wind turbines and optimizing the performance of the wind turbines by reducing the wake effect.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Attia by measuring the wake severity level over a specified time period as taught by Messing, as both references are directed to controlling wind power systems and their wakes, and for the purpose of reducing uncertainties due to measurement errors (paragraph 37, lines 10-12 of Messing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Attia by changing an induction factor via changing blade pitch and a yaw angle, wherein the yaw angle oscillates periodically according to sinusoidal signals as taught by Westergaard, as both references are directed to controlling wind power systems and their wakes, and for the purpose of increasing turbulent mixing and efficiency of the wind farm system (column 12, lines 34-41 of Westergaard).
Regarding claim 12, Attia teaches a controller (control system 200 having turbine controller 202, column 4, lines 46-50) which is configured to perform the above method. A controller of Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard would be configured to perform the claimed functions for first and second wind turbine clusters.
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 15, Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard teaches the claimed method and controller, and Nygaard further teaches the first wind turbine cluster has a characteristic cluster size which is a maximum distance between any two wind turbines in the first wind turbine cluster when taken in a direction that is aligned with the direction between the first and second wind turbine clusters (see annotated Figure 8 below). The characteristic cluster size is inherent since each cluster has multiple wind turbines and there is a distance between those wind turbines.
Further regarding claim 15, Attia teaches quantifying the wake effect includes modelling the wake effect of the first wind turbine on the second wind turbine based on one or more wind flow conditions (wind speed or wind turbulence) associated with the first wind turbine (column 14, lines 29-35). When modifying the method of Attia with the teachings of Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard, the wake effect of the first wind turbine cluster on the second wind turbine cluster would be quantified based on the one or more wind flow conditions associated with the first wind turbine cluster.
PNG
media_image2.png
402
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 4#
Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein quantifying the wake effect includes determining a difference in wind speed (wind speed deficit, column 14, lines 29-35 of Attia) between a wind speed position upstream of the first wind turbine cluster and a wind speed position upstream of the second wind turbine cluster.
In Reference to Claim 5#
Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein quantifying the wake effect includes determining a turbulence (turbulence intensity, column 14, line 34 of Attia) of a wind flow upstream of the second wind turbine cluster (see column 14, lines 29-35 of Attia).
In Reference to Claim 6#
Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein quantifying the wake effect includes modelling the wake effect of the first wind turbine cluster on the second wind turbine cluster based on one or more wind flow conditions (wind speed or wind turbulence) associated with the first wind turbine cluster. Attia teaches quantifying the wake effect includes modelling the wake effect of the first wind turbine on the second wind turbine based on one or more wind flow conditions (wind speed or wind turbulence) associated with the first wind turbine (column 14, lines 29-35). When modifying the method of Attia with the teachings of Nygaard, the wake effect of the first wind turbine cluster on the second wind turbine cluster would be quantified based on the one or more wind flow conditions associated with the first wind turbine cluster.
In Reference to Claims 9 and 18#
Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard teaches:
The method of claim 1 and method of claim 15, comprising the one or more operational parameters.
Westergaard teaches the one or more operational parameters are dynamically varying (induction factor changes dynamically, column 10, lines 51-55; pitch and yaw change dynamically, column 12, lines 38-42).
In Reference to Claim 10#
Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more dynamically changing operational parameters are applied by way of a periodically oscillating signal to respective wind turbines in the first wind turbine cluster. As explained with the rejection of claim 1 above, Westergaard teaches the yaw angle changes by way of a periodically oscillating signal. Westergaard also states the pitch can change according to periodically oscillating signals (column 9, line 21 through column 10, line 3).
In Reference to Claim 11#
Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the respective periodically oscillating signals applied to neighbouring wind turbines are out of phase to one another. Westergaard teaches the cyclic pitching makes the pitch angles out of phase (column 8, lines 45-47), and the yaw angles can be out of phase (column 11, lines 39-41 and Figure 9A).
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,617,975 to Attia as modified by Nygaard, US 2021/0079892 to Messing, and US 10,677,221 to Westergaard as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of case law.
In Reference to Claims 3 and 14#
Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard teaches:
The method of claim 2 and controller of claim 13, wherein the second wind turbine cluster is separated from the first wind turbine cluster by a distance, and the first wind turbine cluster defines the characteristic cluster size.
Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard fails to teach:
The distance is greater than 150% of the characteristic cluster size.
The Court has held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), see MPEP §2144.04 IV A for further clarification).
In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., Gardner received a patent for an apparatus used to dry ink applied to high-gloss papers by supporting the paper with wet ink over a field of static air. The applied prior art taught the claimed apparatus except for dimensional limitations. The trial Court held the opinion that the dimensional limitations had no impact on the function of the apparatus and no evidence was shown that departing from the claimed dimensions would cause the apparatus to fail.
In the instant case, Nygaard shows the second wind turbine cluster is spaced from the first wind turbine cluster. The distance along the X-axis shows the maximum turbine separation distance is greater than the distance between the clusters. The distance between the clusters affects the performance of the clusters, where a longer distance lessens the wake effect on the second wind turbine cluster (“the wake effect from these turbines is diminished by the large separation”, page 8, lines 14-15 of Nygaard).
There is a reasonable expectation of success that increasing the distance between the first and second clusters would be successful because the wake effect would be diminished and the power generation of both wind farms would be increased.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and controller of Attia as modified by Nygaard, Messing, and Westergaard by sizing the distance to be 150% of the characteristic cluster size in view of case law for the purpose of improving the energy output of the second wind turbine cluster by increasing the distance separating the wind turbine clusters to diminish the wake effect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON GREGORY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3289. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00-5:00, F: 8:00-12:00.
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, Nathan Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JASON G DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745