DETAILED ACTION
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 10-11 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Limitation
Claims
Interpretation/Support
“an acquisition unit configured to . . .”
9
See the acquisition unit 11 as illustrated in figure 6 and as described in paragraph 0076
“a calculation unit configured to . . .”
9, 10
See the calculation unit 12 as illustrated in figure 6 and as described in paragraphs 0077, 0080-0083
“a modification unit configured to . . .”
9
See the modification unit 13 as illustrated in figure 6 and as described in paragraphs 0078, 0085-0089
“an outputting unit configured to . . .”
9
See the outputting unit 14 as illustrated in figure 6 and as described in paragraphs 0079, 0097-0099
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8-9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0168963 (Garcia) (cited by Applicant).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a method for adjusting a reactive power in a wind farm, comprising: (Garcia: “The present invention relates to a method of controlling an electric output of a wind park which, for example, is jointly carried out by wind turbines with their local wind-turbine controllers and a central wind-park controller.” Paragraph 0001; “generating, by the central wind-park controller, at least one of a voltage-reference value and a reactive-power-reference value for a wind turbine, based on the measured value of the electric quantity at the point of common measurement, and providing the at least one of a voltage-reference value and a reactive-power-reference value to the local wind-turbine controller of the wind turbine; causing the wind turbine, by the local wind-turbine controller, to produce at least one of a voltage and a reactive-power in the electric grid at the location of the wind turbine which corresponds to the at least one of a voltage-reference value and a reactive-power-reference value” paragraph 0006)
acquiring a wind farm reactive control parameter issued by a grid to the wind farm; (Garcia: “In other embodiments, the central target value is a prescription externally provided by a grid provider, e.g. a reactive-power prescription which may vary slowly over the day.” Paragraph 0030)
calculating an average reactive control parameter for each of wind turbines in the wind farm according to the wind farm reactive control parameter; (Garcia: “The reference output 30 by the central wind-park controller 22 is, in some embodiments, a common reference value to all the wind turbines 1.1 to 1.5. In those embodiments, all the wind turbines 1 of the wind park 2 are requested to produce the same voltage or reactive power, according to the common reference value.” Paragraph 0074; “In some embodiments, the reference values generated by the central wind-park controller are the same values for all the wind turbines of the wind park. In some embodiments, all the wind turbines get the same reference value, but the reference value is a relative parameter (e.g. a relative parameter indicative of reactive power, such as a power factor). The parameter can be, e.g. relative to a nominal parameter, such as the nominal power of a wind turbine, so that the same reference value sent to all wind turbines causes wind turbines of different nominal power (e.g. different types) in the wind park to accordingly produce electricity of different absolute magnitude. For example, wind turbines with a higher nominal power then produce more reactive power than those with a lower nominal power. In still other embodiments the central wind-park controller assigns individual values to different wind turbines of the wind park. For example, when some wind turbines in the wind park (that is to say the turbines in the first row) are already producing nominal active power while others (in the rear rows) are producing less, the individual set-points are provided by the wind-park controller such that the turbines working at lower power provide a larger part of the required reactive power than those that are producing nominal power already.” Paragraph 0026)
modifying, for each of the wind turbines, the average reactive control parameter according to a difference between a voltage of the wind turbine at a point of common coupling and a preset voltage limit to obtain wind turbine reactive control parameters of the respective wind turbines; and (Garcia: “Correspondingly, in the V control embodiment of FIG. 5 the analogy to the Q controller 46 of FIG. 4 is a V controller 146; it determines the difference between V.sub.ref and the voltage V.sub.m produced by the wind turbine 1 and measured at its terminals 6, by means of a local subtractor 147. The resulting local V-error signal 148 is scaled and integrated by the local PI processor 149. The voltage at the wind turbine's terminals 6 is controlled by the amount of reactive current I.sub.q produced by the wind turbine 1. Therefore, the local PI processor's output is a (still uncorrected) reference signal 50 for the reactive current I.sub.q to be produced by the wind turbine 1. As regards all the remaining elements 51-62 and their functionalities, including the local correction 52 and the P controller 46', 54'-56', reference is made to the description of FIG. 4 which also applies to the embodiment of FIG. 5.” Paragraph 0094)
outputting the wind turbine reactive control parameters to the respective wind turbines. (Garcia: “The corrected local controller's reference signal 54 causes the converter 38 to produce electricity with V or Q at the terminals 6 in accordance with the reference value represented by the corrected local controller's reference value 54.” Paragraph 0087)
Claim 8:
The cited prior art describes the method according to claim 1, wherein the outputting of the wind turbine reactive control parameters to the respective wind turbines comprises:
adjusting, by a fourth proportional integral controller, a difference between the wind turbine reactive control parameter of each of the wind turbines and a reactive parameter collected at the point of common coupling for the wind turbine to obtain a reactive current target value of the wind turbine; and (Garcia: “Correspondingly, in the V control embodiment of FIG. 5 the analogy to the Q controller 46 of FIG. 4 is a V controller 146; it determines the difference between V.sub.ref and the voltage V.sub.m produced by the wind turbine 1 and measured at its terminals 6, by means of a local subtractor 147. The resulting local V-error signal 148 is scaled and integrated by the local PI processor 149. The voltage at the wind turbine's terminals 6 is controlled by the amount of reactive current I.sub.q produced by the wind turbine 1. Therefore, the local PI processor's output is a (still uncorrected) reference signal 50 for the reactive current I.sub.q to be produced by the wind turbine 1. As regards all the remaining elements 51-62 and their functionalities, including the local correction 52 and the P controller 46', 54'-56', reference is made to the description of FIG. 4 which also applies to the embodiment of FIG. 5.” Paragraph 0094)
controlling a reactive current of the wind turbine by taking the reactive current target value as a target. (Garcia: “The corrected local controller's reference signal 54 causes the converter 38 to produce electricity with V or Q at the terminals 6 in accordance with the reference value represented by the corrected local controller's reference value 54.” Paragraph 0087; “Since--in some embodiments--the current provided by the converter 38 is controlled by voltage modulation, the corrected local controller's reference signal 54, or I.sub.qref, is transformed by a reactive-current controller 55 into a reactive-voltage reference signal 56, or V.sub.qref.” paragraph 0090)
Claim 9:
Claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as described herein.
9. An apparatus for adjusting a reactive power in a wind farm, comprising:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire a wind farm reactive control parameter issued by a grid to the wind farm;
a calculation unit configured to calculate an average reactive control parameter for each of wind turbines in the wind farm according to the wind farm reactive control parameter;
a modification unit configured to modify, for each of the wind turbines, the average reactive control parameter according to a difference between a voltage of the wind turbine at a point of common coupling and a preset voltage limit to obtain wind turbine reactive control parameters of the respective wind turbines;
an outputting unit configured to output the wind turbine reactive control parameters to the respective wind turbines.
Claim 12:
The cited prior art describes an electronic device, comprising: (Garcia: see the local wind turbine controller 14 as illustrated in figure 3)
a processor and (Garcia: see the processors 49 as illustrated in figure 3; “The central wind-park controller and the local wind-turbine controllers computers, e.g. microcontrollers, with memories able to store computer code. The method carried out by the controllers is preferably provided in the form of a computer program for the wind-park controller and a computer program for the local wind-turbine controllers stored in the memory of the wind-park controller and the local wind-turbine controllers, respectively.” Paragraph 0048)
a memory storing program instructions; (Garcia: “The central wind-park controller and the local wind-turbine controllers computers, e.g. microcontrollers, with memories able to store computer code. The method carried out by the controllers is preferably provided in the form of a computer program for the wind-park controller and a computer program for the local wind-turbine controllers stored in the memory of the wind-park controller and the local wind-turbine controllers, respectively.” Paragraph 0048)
wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions to implement the method for adjusting a reactive power in a wind farm according to claim 1. (Garcia: “The present invention relates to a method of controlling an electric output of a wind park which, for example, is jointly carried out by wind turbines with their local wind-turbine controllers and a central wind-park controller.” Paragraph 0001; “generating, by the central wind-park controller, at least one of a voltage-reference value and a reactive-power-reference value for a wind turbine, based on the measured value of the electric quantity at the point of common measurement, and providing the at least one of a voltage-reference value and a reactive-power-reference value to the local wind-turbine controller of the wind turbine; causing the wind turbine, by the local wind-turbine controller, to produce at least one of a voltage and a reactive-power in the electric grid at the location of the wind turbine which corresponds to the at least one of a voltage-reference value and a reactive-power-reference value” paragraph 0006)
Claim 13:
The cited prior art describes the electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the electronic device is provided in a wind farm controller or a wind turbine converter. (Garcia: see the local wind turbine controller 14 as illustrated in figure 3)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0003333 describes voltage control in renewable energy power plants.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0337808 describes controlling voltage at a point of common coupling of a wind farm.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0268393 describes regulating the energy feed from a wind farm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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 E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights