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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSes) submitted on 04/03/2024 and 02/14/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
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:
In claim 5, “an inertia response demand power determination unit” is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “determine, in response to detecting a change in a power grid frequency, an inertia response demand power …” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed determination. Inertia response demand power determination functions are described with respect to inertia response demand power determination unit 501 and implemented in controller 600. Accordingly, “inertia response demand power determination unit” is interpreted inertia response demand power determination unit 501 and equivalents.
In claim 5, “an energy storage and rotor control unit” is generic placeholder for “means,” followed by the functional language “control, based on the determined inertia response demand power…” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed control. Energy storage and rotor control functions are described with respect to energy storage and rotor control unit 502 and implemented in controller 600. Accordingly, “energy storage and rotor control unit” is interpreted energy storage and rotor control unit 502 and equivalents.
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 § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites “a wind turbine; an energy storage apparatus connected to the wind turbine; and the wind turbine and energy storage combined inertia response apparatus of claim 5 the wind turbine and energy storage combined inertia response apparatus of claim 5; or a controller ….” It is unclear and thus indefinite as to whether the “or” in front of “controller” means that the “controller” is an alternative to just the “inertia response apparatus” or is an alternative to all the preceding elements that are grouped with an “and.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao, L., Wen, J., Xie, H., Yue, C., & Lee, W. J. (2015), Coordinated control strategy of wind turbine generator and energy storage equipment for frequency support. IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, 51(4), 2732-2742 (“Miao”) in view of Othman, M.H., Mokhlis, H., Mubin, M., Talpur, S., Ab Aziz, N.F., Dradi, M. and Mohamad, H. (2020), Progress in control and coordination of energy storage system-based VSG: a review. IET Renewable Power Generation, 14: 177-187. (“Othman”) (Both references submitted in Applicant’s IDS of 12/14/2025).
Regarding claim 1:
A wind turbine and energy storage combined inertia response method (See Miao at Figs. 1 and 2.), comprising:
determining, in response to detecting a change in a power grid frequency, an inertia response demand power of a wind turbine and energy storage combined system (Miao discloses that, when the system frequency changes, the equivalent power output of the DFIG-ES is ΔP = ΔPWF + kESΔPES (“inertia response demand power”). See Miao at Sec. II, equation 5.),
wherein the wind turbine and energy storage combined system comprises a wind turbine and an energy storage apparatus connected to the wind turbine (See Miao at Fig. 1); and
controlling, based on the determined inertia response demand power and by a mixed feedforward and feedback control manner, the energy storage apparatus and a rotor of the wind turbine to generate a power increment, so as to satisfy the inertia response demand power (While Miao discloses controlling the wind turbine based on ΔP = ΔPWF + kESΔPES (“inertia response demand power”), Miao does not explicitly disclose its controlling is based on “a mixed feedforward and feedback control manner.” However, in a same field of endeavor, control of a wind turbine (and thus analogous art), Othman discloses an active power control for controlling the frequency of the wind turbine that is based on feedforward Kff and feedback (P*-Pg) signals to output voltage angle δ (“power increment”). See Othman at Fig. 11. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the active power controller with feedforward of Othman so that the “dynamic response becomes faster.” See Othman at p. 181, 2nd column at top. Because both Miao and Othman relate to controlling wind turbines, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 2, which is dependent on claim 1:
wherein the step of determining the inertia response demand power of the wind turbine and energy storage combined system comprises: determining the inertia response demand power of the wind turbine and energy storage combined system based on a change rate of the power grid frequency, a power grid rated frequency, an inertia constant of the wind turbine and a grid-connected rated power ((Miao discloses that ΔP = ΔPWF + kESΔPES (“inertia response demand power”) is based on the inertia constant HDFIG_ES of the DFIG-ES (“an inertia constant of the wind turbine”) and the rated grid synchronous rotor speed ωg (“power grid rated frequency”). See Miao at Sec. II, equations 4-7. Miao does not explicitly indicate that the inertia constant can be based on a rate of change of the power grid frequency. However, Othman discloses that dω/dt (“change rate of the power grid frequency”) is based on measured power Pg (“grid-connected rated power”) and that the inertia constant J (“an inertia constant of the wind turbine”) can be changed based on the whether dω/dt (“change rate of the power grid frequency”) is accelerating or decelerating. See Othman at Section 3.3. Accordingly, by combining the teachings with respect to the inertia constant, Miao in view of Othman discloses that claimed “determining.” It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to increase the value of inertia constant J as taught by Othman in order to reduce acceleration of the wind turbine during a period of acceleration and to reduce the value of inertia constant J to boost deceleration of the wind turbine during a deceleration period. See Othman at Section 3.3. Because both Miao and Othman relate to controlling wind turbines, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 3, which is dependent on claim 1:
wherein the step of controlling, based on the determined inertia response demand power and by the mixed feedforward and feedback control manner, the energy storage apparatus and the rotor of the wind turbine comprises: calculating a first control component through a proportional-integral-derivative operation (In the controller of Fig. 11 of Othman, the output of the function (1/s) corresponds to the “first control component”), which is calculated using a PID (“a proportional-integral-derivative operation”). See Othman at p. 181, top of 2nd column (discusses adding a “differential term” to the controller and Fig. 11.),
by using the determined inertia response demand power as a given value (See Fig. 11 of Othman, the point after the function Kw will correspond to the “determined inertia response demand power.”), and
using a difference between a real-time grid-connected power value of the wind turbine and a grid-connected power value when determining the inertia response demand power of the wind turbine and energy storage combined system as a feedback value (See Fig. 11 of Othman, which discloses a calculating a difference (“feedback value”) between Pg (“a real-time grid-connected power value of the wind turbine”) and P* (“grid-connected power value when determining the inertia response demand power of the wind turbine and energy storage combined system”);
calculating a sum of a feedforward amount and the first control component as an energy storage and rotor hybrid control target by using the determined inertia response demand power as the feedforward amount (See Fig. 11 of Othman, a summation function calculates a sum of the output of the feedforward function Kff and the output of the function (1/s) (“first control component”); and
controlling, based on the calculated energy storage and rotor hybrid control target, the energy storage apparatus and the rotor to generate the power increment (The combined system of Miao in view of Othman will perform the claimed controlling. See Fig. 11 of Othman and Fig. 2 of Miao.).
Regarding claim 5:
A wind turbine and energy storage combined inertia response apparatus (See Miao at Fig. 1, DFIG-ES system.), comprising:
an inertia response demand power determination unit (See Miao at Sec. II and Fig. 2, “DFIG-ES system can support the frequency when the system frequency is abnormal.” Thus, the DFIG-ES system includes “an inertia response demand power determination unit.”) configured to:
determine, in response to detecting a change in a power grid frequency, an inertia response demand power of a wind turbine and energy storage combined system (Miao discloses that, when the system frequency changes, the equivalent power output of the DFIG-ES is ΔP = ΔPWF + kESΔPES (“inertia response demand power”). See Miao at Sec. II, equation 5.),
wherein the wind turbine and energy storage combined system comprises a wind turbine and an energy storage apparatus connected to the wind turbine (See Miao at Fig. 1); and
an energy storage and rotor control unit (See Miao at Figs. 2, 3, and 8 which shows control of an energy storage ES and rotor speed ωr. Thus, the DFIG-ES system includes “an energy storage and rotor control unit.”) configured to:
control, based on the determined inertia response demand power and by a mixed feedforward and feedback control manner, the energy storage apparatus and a rotor of the wind turbine to generate a power increment, so as to satisfy the inertia response demand power (While Miao discloses controlling the wind turbine based on ΔP = ΔPWF + kESΔPES (“inertia response demand power”), Miao does not explicitly disclose its controlling is based on “a mixed feedforward and feedback control manner.” However, in a same field of endeavor, control of a wind turbine (and thus analogous art), Othman discloses an active power control for controlling the frequency of the wind turbine that is based on feedforward Kff and feedback (P*-Pg) signals to output voltage angle δ (“power increment”). See Othman at Fig. 11. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the active power controller with feedforward of Othman so that the “dynamic response becomes faster.” See Othman at p. 181, 2nd column at top. Because both Miao and Othman relate to controlling wind turbines, there would have been a reasonable chance of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 6, which is dependent on claim 5:
wherein the energy storage and rotor control unit is configured to: calculate a first control component through a proportional-integral-derivative operation, by using the determined inertia response demand power as a given value and using a difference between a real-time grid-connected power value of the wind turbine and a grid-connected power value when determining the inertia response demand power of the wind turbine and energy storage combined system as a feedback value; calculate a sum of a feedforward amount and the first control component as an energy storage and rotor hybrid control target by using the determined inertia response demand power as the feedforward amount; and control, based on the calculated energy storage and rotor hybrid control target, the energy storage apparatus and the rotor to generate the power increment (The recited features are substantively the same as those given above in with respect to claim 3 and thus are rendered obvious by Miao in view of Othman for the reasons given above with respect to claim 3.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Othman and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0052292 to Howard et al. (“Howard”).
Regarding claim 11:
A wind turbine and energy storage combined system comprising: a wind turbine; an energy storage apparatus connected to the wind turbine (See Miao at Fig. 1.); and
the wind turbine and energy storage combined inertia response apparatus of claim 5 (See analysis in claim 5); or
a controller, wherein the controller comprises: a processor; and a memory storing a computer program that, when executed by the processor, implements the wind turbine and energy storage combined inertia response method of claim 1 (See analysis in claim 1. In addition, Miao discloses that the functions of Fig. 2 are performed by a controller, but Miao in view of Othman does not explicitly disclose the structure of the controller. However, in a same field of endeavor, control of a wind turbine (and thus analogous art), Howard discloses a controller with a processor and memory for implementing the control functions for a wind turbine. See Howard at Fig. 8. Because Miao discloses a controller but not the structure, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to look for structures, such as the controller of Howard, to implement the control functions in Miao in view of Othman. Because Howard is in the same filed of endeavor, implementing the functions of Miao in view of Othman in the controller of Howard would have been done using known methods that yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143.I.A.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 7 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 8 includes allowable subject based on its dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wie, J., Liu, L., & Wang, B. (2020, July). Research on Inertia Support Control Strategy Based on Energy Storage Dynamic Compensation. In 2020 39th Chinese Control Conference (CCC) (pp. 5264-5269). IEEE, discloses an inertia support control strategy.
Duckwitz, D., Shan, M., & Fischer, B. (2014, November). Synchronous inertia control for wind turbines. In 13th Wind Integration Workshop, Conf. Proc., Berlin, discloses an active power controller with feedforward and feedback dampening.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200072194 to Christoph Schulten discloses stabilizing the grid by providing a required additional power output.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights