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
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 3, 5, 10, and 14 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 claim 3, Applicant recites similarity of elements “in the at least one of the comparison interval and the at least one further comparison interval” in multiple parts of the claim. The limitation is unclear because it is incoherent relative to the preceding limitations. As best understood by Examiner, these limitations seek to recite similarity of elements “in at least one of the comparison interval and the at least one further comparison interval….1” For purposes of examination, claim 3 has been interpreted such that elements are similar in at least one of the comparison interval and the at least one further comparison interval. Appropriate clarification is required.
Regarding claim 5, Applicant recites “the at least one of the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation are synchronously modified based on a changeover signal….” This limitation is deficient for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 3 above. The limitation is incoherent relative to its preceding limitations. It is unclear whether Applicant is attempting to reference the step of modifying at least one of the test and the comparison turbines, or is instead literally reciting “the at least one of the test wind power installation” and “the comparison wind power installation….” Moreover, it is unclear how many of the turbines are being modified; claim 1 does not require modification of both test and comparison turbines yet claim 5 appears to necessitate changes to both (in order to be a “synchronous” change, both turbines must be changed).
As the plain text of the limitations is unclear and, moreover, the functional limitations being recited are unclear in scope, Examiner is unable to reasonably ascertain the scope of claim 5 at this time. This is not an indication of allowable subject matter. Upon receipt of appropriate clarifying amendments, claim 5 will be evaluated in view of the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant recites “the power values or estimates of associated wind speed are recorded.” It is unclear what is meant to be conveyed by this limitation since the power values are already recorded within claim 10 itself. Moreover, it is unclear how recording of power values would generate a power curve absent another parameter against which the power is compared. Applicant recites no such parameter, at least not until after the curve is recorded and the recited parameter is only provided as an optional alternative to power. As such, it is entirely unclear what Applicant is attempting to recite with the quoted portion of claim 10 above. For purposes of examination, claim 10 will be read as if it omitted the quoted portion.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant recites “synchronous changing” of the wind turbines. Notably, claim 12 does not require both turbines to be modified, thus it is unclear whether claim 14 is attempting to recite that both turbines are modified, or is merely providing an element that facilitates changing of parameters for one or more of the turbines. Appropriate clarification is required. For purposes of examination, claim 14 will be interpreted as merely requiring a device that facilitates changing of parameters for one or more turbines.
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, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0170119 (“Nielsen”).
Regarding claim 1, Nielsen discloses:
A method for assessing a wind power installation, based on a comparison between a test wind power installation and a comparison wind power installation (para. [0004]), comprising:
synchronously operating the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation in an adjustment interval in an adjustment mode (“monitoring two identical turbines during a reference time period”), in which the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation have matching operating settings (inherent; in order to be “identical,” the turbines must be operated according to the same settings);
synchronously recording performance data relating to the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation in the adjustment interval in the adjustment mode (inherent; in order to perform the disclosed comparison, one must record data from the first time interval);
modifying at least one of the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation in a modification step such that the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation differ from one another (“[t]hen, the improvement to be tested is implemented on one of the turbines”);
synchronously operating the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation, which differ from one another, at least in a comparison interval in a comparison mode (“and the turbines are again monitored during a test period of similar length” to the reference time period);
synchronously recording performance data in the comparison mode (inherent; in order to perform the disclosed comparison, one must record data from the second time interval); and
evaluating the performance data recorded in the adjustment mode and the comparison mode (“[a]t the end of the test period, the difference in measured power output of the turbine undergoing the test is compared to the difference in measured power output of the reference turbine during the same period in order to determine whether there is an actual difference in power output due to the implementation of the test setting”).
Regarding claim 12, Applicant merely recites a wind power installation having the necessary elements to implement the method of claim 1. As Nielsen discloses the method as well as the necessary turbines and, furthermore, inherently discloses a means for implementing the disclosed control, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant merely recites a controller for implementing the method of claim 1. As Nielsen discloses the method as well as the necessary turbines and, furthermore, inherently discloses a means for implementing the disclosed control, Examiner finds that the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to the subject matter of claim 13.
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) 2-5, 7-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of common knowledge in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose a further change to the at least one of the operating settings of the test and/or comparison turbines in at least one further comparison interval, recording of performance data during the at least one further comparison interval, and evaluation of the performance data collected during the at least one further comparison interval.
This difference, however, is nothing more than the well-understood and frequently applied process of iteratively changing operational parameters. Indeed, all claim 2 effectively recites is iterative optimization of wind turbine parameters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify the disclosure of Nielsen to implement further modification, measurement, and evaluation cycles for the purposes of iteratively optimizing the power output of the wind turbines, as is well-understood in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation are structurally identical in the at least one of the comparison interval and the at least one further comparison interval, and the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation are operated with different operating settings in the at least one of the comparison interval and the at least one further comparison interval to determine different performance data caused by the different operating settings (para. [0004]; identical turbines are provided, with a test turbine receiving improvement settings to determine whether the improvement settings amount to improved performance compared to the reference settings).
Regarding claim 4, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses the test wind power installation and the comparison wind power installation having different operating settings in the comparison interval (para. [0004]), but does not explicitly disclose the test wind power installation being structurally modified in the modification step. Nielsen does, however, disclose the broad concept of modifying the turbines such that they are no longer identical. While Examiner has initially interpreted this modification to be a modification of parameters, the actual disclosure of Nielsen also encompasses structural improvements. Thus, the disclosure of Nielsen, when properly considered for all that it discloses, anticipates structurally modifying the test wind power installation during the modification step.
Thus, the remaining question to address is whether the broad disclosure of Nielsen contemplates or suggests both structural modification of the test wind turbine in addition to modification of the operating settings. Examiner finds that it does.
Those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and appreciate that a number of structural modifications, such as provision of different turbine blades on the test wind turbine, would necessitate the adjustment of corresponding parameters (such as blade pitch) in order to keep the wind turbine within safe and appropriate operational parameters. For example, blades having a larger surface area to be impinged by the incoming wind will capture and transfer more mechanical energy. In order to keep the wind turbine under a rated operational speed, it logically follows that the blade pitch of the larger turbine blades would need to differ from a pitch angle of the smaller blades on the reference turbine.
Thus, Examiner finds that Nielsen inherently contemplates structurally modifying the test installation and, furthermore, that it is also inherent that the structurally modified test wind turbine would be operated at different operating settings relative to the reference turbine. As such, Nielsen discloses each and every limitation of instant claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose what modifications are made to the test wind turbine. Nielsen does, however, disclose modification for the purposes of comparing output power. Moreover, those of ordinary skill in the art, however, would recognize and appreciate that common parameters for iteratively optimizing wind turbine operations include target power values in dependence on other parameters, such as wind speed, rotor speed, wind turbulence, etc. 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 Nielsen to utilize target power values as the modified operation setting, due to Nielsen focusing on evaluation of output power changes, for the purposes of optimizing power output of the wind turbines.
Regarding claim 8, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose what modifications are made to the test turbine. Those of ordinary skill, however, may reasonably interpret that the modifications may include structural changes to the test wind turbine because Nielsen states that this type of testing may take “months at a time” or longer. As the goal of method disclosed by Nielsen is to determine changes in output power with the intent to improve power output, those of ordinary skill would make structural modifications that would alter the aerodynamic properties of the wind turbine, such as changing rotor blade properties by either replacing the blades with another type of blade or adding various structural modules to the blades that modify how the blades interact with the wind. As such, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Nielsen by swapping out rotor blades or adding elements to existing rotor blades that would modify wind interaction of the blades for the purposes of evaluating whether the structural differences achieve an improvement in output power of the test wind turbine relative to the reference wind turbine.
Regarding claim 9, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 2 and further discloses the wind turbines being structurally identical save for the modification made to the test wind turbine (para. [0004]).
Regarding claim 10, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 and further discloses the monitoring and comparison (and, as discussed above, inherently recording) output power values of the wind turbines. Nielsen’s comparison involves evaluating output power of the test wind turbine against the reference wind turbine, which may be reasonably understood to include comparison of power curves for each turbine.
As the instant claim recites recording of a power curve as a function of recording the power values, and as Nielsen monitors and records power values, Nielsen must inherently record a power curve for each installation. Thus, Nielsen discloses the instant limitations of claim 10, as best understood by Examiner.
Even assuming, arguendo, that Nielsen does not disclose generation of a power curve, converting the power values of Nielsen into a power curve that depicts power values as a function of wind speed, modifying Nielsen to utilize the power curves is nothing more than trivial conversion of data in one format to another format. As such, it would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Nielsen to generate appropriate power curves for each turbine based on the output power of each turbine as a function of wind speed, for the purposes of providing a better visual depiction of the wind turbine’s power output.
Regarding claim 11, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 1 but does not disclose a further test wind power installation or assignment of settings such that each of the test wind power installations differ from each other. This, however, is little more than obvious duplication of parts for the purpose of more quickly iterating on the power optimization method.
The courts have previously held that “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 (CCPA 1960). Here, the provision of an additional testing turbine has the obvious and expected outcome of enabling the system to more quickly iterate by including further testing data for the comparison step.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (prior to the effective filing date) to modify Nielsen to include a further testing wind turbine that utilizes operational settings different from the first testing wind turbine for the purposes of more quickly iterating to achieve optimized power output for the wind turbines.
Regarding claim 14, Nielsen discloses the limitations as set forth in claim 12, and furthermore inherently discloses a controller that facilitates synchronized changing of parameters on the test and comparison turbines (para. [0004] inherently contemplates a controller configured to adjust parameters of the turbines).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 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 6. More specifically, Examiner is unable to find any disclosure which suggests that the “months at a time” disclosed by Nielsen might be reduced to a maximum of 60 minutes.
Conclusion
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
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
1 That is, Examiner believes the first “the” in the quoted portion to be superfluous.