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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2025 (“the Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s substantive arguments begin on page 9 of the Remarks. Applicant cites to the instant Specification in support of the added subject matter, then contends that Hansen “does not teach or suggest such a wind speed trend or other parameter indicative of a magnitude and/or direction into which the wind speed is developing or changing.” Applicant has failed to consider the amended claim language under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation and, as a result, is incorrect in the asserted deficiency of Hansen.
As amended, claim 1 additionally recites “wherein a trend of the wind speed is indicative of a magnitude and/or a direction of wind speed development over time.” This language is indefinite because the amended language may be plausibly interpreted under at least two different ways. First, the limitation may be plausibly interpreted as reciting “a trend of the wind speed is indicative of a magnitude [over time] and/or a direction of wind speed development over time.” The limitation may also be plausibly interpreted as reciting “a trend of the wind speed is indicative of a magnitude [development over time] and/or a direction of wind speed development over time.”
“[I]f a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008). As shown above, there are at least two plausible claim constructions; as such, an appropriate rejection under §112 is provided below. Claim 14 recites an identical limitation, thus the above also applies to claim 14.
The issue of definiteness aside, the Hansen reference would nonetheless read on either claim construction. As cited by Examiner and explicitly stated by Hansen, a wind speed is monitored over a period of time to ensure that the wind speed remains above a respective threshold (para. [0090]). This is inherently evaluates whether the wind speed is developing or changing in a manner that it would no longer meet the threshold (i.e., whether the wind speed exceeds the wind speed threshold).
Applicant argues that Hansen “does not include any evaluation of whether the wind speed is increasing or decreasing and does not include any evaluation of a developing trend,” but the claim notably fails to recite any such requirement. A trend, when broadly construed, may be defined as “a general direction in which something is developing or changing.” As Hansen evaluates whether the wind speed decreases below a wind speed threshold, there is inherently a determination of a general direction in which something is developing or changing; more specifically, Hansen checks to ensure that there is not a negative trend, i.e., a wind speed that is below the wind speed threshold. In this manner, Hansen also inherently contemplates “a trend of the wind speed” that is indicative of a magnitude, the magnitude being a wind speed value equal to or greater than the wind speed threshold.
Thus, Applicant’s contention that “Hansen does not contemplate a trend” is incorrect and unpersuasive. Applicant presents no further arguments as to the propriety of Examiner’s prior interpretations of the instant claims or the prior art. There being no specific arguments for any of the dependent claims, Examiner finds that the corresponding rejections of the dependent claims remain proper, modified as necessary in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Applicant has amended each claim to recite “wherein a trend of the wind speed is indicative of a magnitude and/or a direction of wind speed development over time.” As discussed above, this limitation is subject to at least two plausible claim constructions, rendering the limitation indefinite. Appropriate clarification is required. The remainder of the pending claims depend from either of claim 1 or 14 and are rejected for at least the same reason.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0166017 (“Hansen”).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen discloses:
A method for transitioning the operation of a wind turbine (title, abstract) into an energy harvesting mode (“normal” or “self-powering” modes; see paras. [0090-91]) in which the wind turbine operates to generate electrical power from wind energy (power generation during “normal operation” is implicit to the reference; para. [0087] discloses power generation during “self-powering” mode), wherein an energy storage system (power storage unit 21) associated with the wind turbine is configured to supply electrical power to an auxiliary system of the wind turbine (paras. [0072], [0074-75]) when the wind turbine is not generating or receiving electrical power sufficient for supplying the auxiliary system (para. [0087-88]), wherein the method comprises:
operating the wind turbine in a first operating mode (“sleep mode” as discussed in paras. [0088-90]) in which the wind turbine is not generating electrical power from wind energy (“in addition to stopping the rotor” implies that no power is being generated from wind energy), wherein in the first operating mode, an electrical power supply to a first group of one or more auxiliary power consumers of the auxiliary power system is ceased (paras. [0087-90]; in self-powering mode, power is ceased to the “second” group of auxiliaries discussed by Hansen; in sleep mode, power is further ceased to some or all of the first group, such that only a wake-up circuit remains powered), and in which a second group of one or more auxiliary power consumers of the auxiliary system is supplied with electrical power from the energy storage system (a “wake-up circuit” is an auxiliary power consumer that remains powered during sleep mode);
obtaining environmental data including at least one of wind data (e.g., para. [0090] discusses detecting and/or monitoring wind speed in sleep mode) and meteorological data;
determining if the obtained environmental data meets a predefined condition (“detect the wind speed and compared the wind speed with a wind speed threshold”), wherein the predefined condition includes at least one of a wind speed threshold (para. [0090]), a wind speed range in which the wind turbine is operable to generate electrical power, a wind speed trend threshold (“ensure that the wind speed has been above the wind speed threshold for a prolonged period of time” may be broadly construed as observing a wind speed trend and comparing the trend to a trend threshold), or a predetermined energy threshold for an expected energy generation; and
if the predefined condition is met, causing a transition of the operation of the wind turbine into the energy harvesting mode (para. [0091]), wherein the transitioning the operation into the energy harvesting mode comprises supplying electrical power from the energy storage system to the one or more of the auxiliary power consumers of the first group (inherent; in self-powering and normal modes, power is delivered to auxiliary consumers of the first group from the energy storage means; see para. [0070]), and
wherein the predefined condition includes the wind speed trend threshold (see above), wherein a trend of the wind speed is indicative of a magnitude and/or a direction of wind speed development over time (inherent; Hansen’s contemplation of “a trend of the wind speed” is indicative of a magnitude, the magnitude being a wind speed value equal to or greater than the wind speed threshold, as discussed in the Response to Arguments above).
Regarding claim 2, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a wind speed threshold being sufficient to exit sleep mode. In context of the reference, such a threshold must be sufficient to allow the system to operate at least in self-powering mode. Hansen discloses that, in self-powering mode, the wind speed (or periods thereof) must be sufficient to maintain a minimum voltage threshold.
Thus, one of ordinary skill would reasonably interpret Hansen as disclosing a wind speed threshold which corresponds to the wind turbine being able to produce electrical power sufficient to maintain voltage of the power storage unit in excess of a minimum voltage. Thus, the wind speed threshold inherently “includes a minimum cut-in wind speed threshold” in the sense that the wind turbine of Hansen must experience or operate at a wind speed threshold in excess of “a minimum cut-in wind speed threshold at or above which the wind turbine is operable to produce electrical power.”
As such, Hansen inherently discloses the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses that obtaining the environmental data comprises obtaining wind speed data (para. [0090]) and time-filtering the wind speed data (inherent; as wind speeds are measured over a period of time, the measured wind speeds may be reasonably construed as being “time-filtered” because Hansen measures for “a prolonged period,” indicating that not all measured values are utilized for wind speed evaluation), wherein determining if the predefined condition is met comprises comparing the time-filtered wind data to the wind speed threshold (“to ensure that the wind speed has been above the wind speed threshold for a prolonged period of time”).
Regarding claim 4, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses comparing a trend of the wind speed derived from the obtained wind data (para. [0090]; wind speed is evaluated over a prolonged period to determine a “trend” of the wind speed and whether it is stable) to the wind speed trend threshold (if the wind speed is stable, then it meets the trend threshold).
Regarding claim 6, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a wind speed condition including the wind speed threshold (para. [0090]) and further comprises a wind speed trend condition including the wind speed trend threshold (the wind speed measured over a period of time to determine stability), wherein the predefined condition is met if the wind speed condition and the wind speed trend condition are met (when wind speed is both high enough and stable enough, sleep mode is ended; see para. [0090]).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses a first wind speed condition including a wind speed threshold (para. [0090]; “compare the wind speed with a wind speed threshold) and further comprises a second wind speed condition including a second wind speed threshold (“upon detection of the wind speed being above a second wind speed threshold, the sleep mode may be ended”),
wherein the second wind speed threshold is higher than the wind speed threshold if the wind speed threshold is a minimum threshold, and wherein the second wind speed threshold is lower than the wind speed threshold if the wind speed threshold is a maximum threshold (inherent; see discussion below), wherein the predefined condition is met if the second wind speed condition is met (para. [0090]; when the second wind speed threshold is met, sleep mode is ended).
With respect to the second wind speed threshold vis-à-vis the first wind speed threshold, Examiner finds that the second threshold is inherently higher than the first threshold and that the first threshold represents a minimum threshold. "In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (BPAI 1990).
Paragraph [0090] contemplates when to end sleep mode. Hansen provides a step to “detect the wind speed and compare the wind speed with a wind speed threshold.” Hansen also provides that when wind speed is “above a second wind speed threshold, the sleep mode may be ended.” This distinction is elaborate, where sleep mode may be ended based on the wind speed threshold when “the wind speed has been above the wind speed threshold for a prolonged period of time, to ensure that the wind speed is stable.”
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the “wind speed threshold” represents a minimum threshold for operation. In order to ensure stability, the wind speed must remain above the minimum for a predetermined time; however, when the second wind speed threshold is exceeded, sleep mode may be immediately ended. Thus, one of ordinary skill would understand that the second wind speed threshold is sufficiently higher than the first wind speed threshold that the predetermined time period is not necessary to end sleep mode.
Thus, Hansen discloses each and every limitation of instant claim 7. Because the first wind speed threshold is not a maximum threshold, it is not necessary to the claim and need not be taught by the prior art; the same may be said of ranges.
Regarding claim 12, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the obtained environmental data being local to a location of the wind turbine (inherent; the wind speed is used to determine mode altering functions and, thus, must be local to the wind turbine), wherein the transition is performed individually (inherent; control disclosed by Hansen is performed for a wind turbine, not a plurality of wind turbines) based on the local environmental data for the respective wind turbine (inherent, as above).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Applicant does nothing more than recite a system and a computer readable medium for storing and implementing the method of claim 1. Hansen discloses the method of claim 1, a system corresponding to the method (claim 23) and a computer readable medium (claim 24). As such, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matters of claims 14 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses that “wind speed need not constantly be above a certain level” but that “periods of sufficient wind need to be present to keep the voltage level of the power storage unit above a minimum threshold.” Thus, Hansen explicitly correlates wind speed to an amount of energy storage in the energy storage system. Hansen does not explicitly disclose that the wind speed threshold is variably determined based on the amount of energy stored.
However, “the wind speed threshold” of Hansen represents a minimum speed for stable operation (para. [0090]). In context, this means that the wind speed threshold may be variable if there is sufficient power in the energy storage to provide for stable operation in, for example, self-powering mode. To this end, the wind turbine may be allowed to continue operating at lower speeds if the energy storage may continue providing stable power to the wind turbine in self-powering mode. As the energy storage decreases, the minimum wind speed threshold may be increased to ensure stable operation. At a period where energy storage is so low that stable operation may no longer be provided at the current wind speed (i.e., a minimum wind speed threshold exceeds a current wind speed), the system would be shut-down as stable power output is no longer possible.
Thus, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Hansen to include a variable wind speed threshold that corresponds to the amount of power in the energy storage means for the purposes of allowing continued operation of the wind turbine during lower wind speeds by supplementing generator output with power from energy storage for the purposes of avoiding unnecessary shutdown of the wind turbine.
Regarding claim 13, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses operation in the energy harvesting mode (in this case, “self powering” mode) and transitioning to the first mode (“sleep mode”) if a second predefined condition is met (“second voltage threshold”) and further discloses the use of weather forecasting (para. [0040]) for a future period of time (inherent to the definition of a “forecast”) to control operation of the system, but does not explicitly disclose determining the second condition is met by comparing forecast conditions to a cut-out wind speed range and determining a second period in which forecast conditions are outside the cut-out wind speed range, wherein if the second time period is shorter than a maintaining time period, the wind turbine remains in the energy harvesting mode during the second time period.
Hansen does, however, contemplate that wind speed need not be constantly above a designated threshold (i.e., a cut-out wind speed) so long as it remains above the threshold for periods sufficient to maintain the energy storage above the second voltage threshold (para. [0088]). Thus, Hansen discloses that if the wind turbine is operating in the energy harvesting mode and a second time period for which the wind speed is below a designated threshold (i.e., a cut-out wind speed or “outside a cut-out wind speed range”) and the second time period is shorter than a time period corresponding to stable operation (i.e., “a maintaining time period”), the wind turbine will remain in the energy harvesting mode.
Thus, the sole difference between the explicit disclosure of Hansen and the instant claims is performance of the method in Hansen based on forecast weather conditions. As Hansen already discloses use of forecast weather to control the system, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Hansen to compare a forecast weather condition to a wind speed cut-out range to determine whether the wind speed will remain in the cut-out wind speed range for a period of time that would prohibit stable operation of the wind turbine during the forecast period for the purposes of planning future operations of the wind turbine during the forecast period.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 103
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hansen in view of common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the use of weather forecasting (para. [0040]) for a future period of time (inherent to the definition of a “forecast”) but does not explicitly disclose comparing the forecast conditions to the wind speed threshold to determine if the predefined condition is met at a future point in time.
However, Hansen inherently discloses such in providing that a time interval at which to detect wind speed during sleep mode “may be based on weather forecast information…prior to entering the sleep mode” in order to avoid “unnecessary energy drain from the power storage unit.” Stated another way, Hansen relies upon the weather forecast to determine at what point the wind speed will be sufficient to exit sleep mode. This inherently requires comparison of the forecast conditions to appropriate thresholds to determine if conditions for operation are met (i.e., comparison of forecast wind speed to a wind speed threshold). Thus, Hansen inherently discloses the limitations of claim 10.
Even assuming, arguendo, that such is not inherent, the use of forecasts to predict when a power station may be operable in the future is nonetheless ubiquitously well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Hansen to utilize forecast weather conditions and compare such to wind speed thresholds to determine whether the wind turbine will meet a predefined condition at a future point in time for the purposes of planning appropriate operational response to future changes in weather conditions.
Regarding claim 11, Hansen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the use of weather forecasting (para. [0040]) for a future period of time (inherent to the definition of a “forecast”) but does not explicitly disclose determining a continuous time period over which the forecasted wind conditions are within the wind speed range, wherein determining if the predefined condition is met further comprises: determining that the condition is met if the continuous time period exceeds a predetermined duration threshold.
However, Hansen inherently discloses such in providing that a time interval at which to detect wind speed during sleep mode “may be based on weather forecast information…prior to entering the sleep mode” in order to avoid “unnecessary energy drain from the power storage unit.” Stated another way, Hansen relies upon the weather forecast to determine at what point the wind speed will be sufficient to exit sleep mode. This inherently requires comparison of the forecast conditions to appropriate thresholds to determine if conditions for operation are met (i.e., comparison of forecast wind speed to a wind speed threshold).
As Hansen further discloses that wind speed must remain above a minimum threshold for stable operation when it is not in sleep mode, it follows that the forecast weather conditions must include a continuous period of time over which the forecasted wind conditions are within a speed range banded by the minimum threshold and a maximum operational threshold. Thus, Hansen inherently discloses use of forecast data to determine a continuous period of time where the wind speed exceeds a wind speed threshold, wherein the continuous period is longer than a predetermined duration threshold that represents stable operation, in order to determine when sleep mode may be exited.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the above is not inherent, it would nonetheless be obvious to one of ordinary skill. Hansen explicitly contemplates the use of forecast weather data to determine when “normal” operation may be performed. Hansen also explicitly contemplates the need for wind speeds to exceed a minimum threshold over a time period such that wind speeds during that time period are sufficient to maintain a minimum charge for the energy storage. The wind speed threshold is therefore linked to the energy storage charge as a matter of a minimum necessary duration for a minimum wind speed to maintain stable operation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Hansen to determine the predetermined condition is met when a continuous period of forecast of minimal or higher wind speed exceeds a predetermined duration threshold for the purposes of ensuring that the wind turbine is only restarted when wind conditions will permit stable operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, taken alone or in reasonable combination with others, fails to disclose the limitations of instant claim 5. While Hansen discloses a wind speed trend threshold as discussed above, the trend of the wind speed is not evaluated as a first average at a first point in time compared to a second average at a second point in time. There is no clear motivation to modify Hansen to achieve such, thus the instant claim distinguishes over the applied prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS K QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4050. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, TULSIDAS PATEL can be reached at 571-272-2098. 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.
/THOMAS K QUIGLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
/VIET P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834