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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group 2 (claims 1, 5-10) in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant’s arguments are directed to that Ravindra does not teach “a wind direction predicted to result in the defined wake condition”. The argument is not persuasive because Ravindra discloses (e.g. para 0032, 0035) considering wind direction including information such as wind experienced and/or expected at the turbines within the process of continually estimating aerodynamic interactions between turbines and determining various wake effects between turbines in order to control those turbines according to those anticipated interactions and effects (anticipated because, for example, the entire disclosure is directed towards considering/discovering/handling such interactions and effects). This is entirely within the breadth of the Applicant’s limitation as written, even if Ravindra does not use Applicant’s exact choice of words. “A wind direction predicted to result in” something is merely an anticipated/expected/predicted wind direction, one which is anticipated/expected/predicted to then result in that something. Ravindra addresses expected wind information, as addressed above.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to that Ravindra does not teach determining a difference between "a wind direction predicted to result in the defined wake condition" and "received wind direction determined to result in the defined wake condition." The argument is not persuasive because Ravindra considers (e.g. para 0035) “wind experienced and/or expected” at the turbines with regard to wind direction, therefore since both are obtained and considered any difference between them is inherently determined.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim(s) 2-4, 11-14, 16 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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(s) 1, 5-10 is/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.
Claim 1 (line 5) recites the limitation “the vicinity” which lacks proper antecedent basis and thus renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested that the limitation be rewritten as -- a vicinity --.
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
In view of the 112(b) rejections set forth above, the claims are rejected below as best understood.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20160146190 A1 (hereinafter Ravindra).
Regarding claim 1, Ravindra discloses:
A method for controlling a wind turbine of a wind park comprising a plurality of wind turbines (abstract), the method comprising:
retrieving a predefined wake loss control strategy for the wind turbine (para 0026-0027 and claim 1 disclose a “farm-level wake model that continually adapts” used to control the wind turbines, wherein a continually adapting element inherently comprises a predefined element which is then subsequently adapted/updated),
receiving, from the further wind turbine, a signal indicative of a wind direction determined to result in a defined wake condition at the further wind turbine;
(The limitation scope is directed to: receive a wind direction signal from a 2nd wind turbine.
Para 0035 discloses that sensors 110, disposed on the wind turbines 102, “may provide direct or indirect measurement of wake parameters such as… wind direction… of the wind turbines 102”, including measurement of information such as “wind experienced and/or expected at the different wind turbines”.
Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitation as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.)
determining a difference between a wind direction predicted to result in the defined wake condition at the further wind turbine and the received wind direction determined to result in the defined wake condition;
determining an adjusted wake loss control strategy that is for controlling the wind turbine to perform the one or more wake loss control actions of the predefined wake loss control strategy as a function of wind direction offset by the determined difference;
(The scope of the limitations is directed to: Determine a difference between an anticipated wind direction and the measured wind direction at the 2nd wind turbine; adjust the strategy based on the difference.
Para 0035 discloses that sensors 110, disposed on the wind turbines 102, “may provide direct or indirect measurement of wake parameters such as… wind direction… of the wind turbines 102”, including measurement of information such as “wind experienced and/or expected at the different wind turbines”, and this information is used by controllers 106 and 108 “to continually estimate the aerodynamic interactions between sets of” wind turbines, wherein controller 108 is descried to “develop a baseline farm-level wake model on historical wake parameters” which can be “continuously updated in real-time with updated sensor data”. Para 0032 discloses this is done “to continually adjust the farm-level wake model based on varying values of wake parameters such as wind velocity and direction in real-time such that farm-level performance goals are consistently achieved”.
Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitations as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.)
and, controlling the wind turbine in accordance with the adjusted wake loss control strategy.
(Fig 7, for example, which is described by para 0043-0050, discloses that the farm-level wake model controls (step 210) a set of wind turbines which “includes at least one upstream wind turbine and at least one downstream wind turbine experiencing the wake effects” (para 0046). Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitations as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the claim.)
Regarding the limitations:
the predefined wake loss control strategy being for controlling the wind turbine to perform one or more wake loss control actions as a function of wind direction in the vicinity of the wind turbine,
the predefined wake loss control strategy being for controlling operation of the wind turbine to adjust wake generated by the wind turbine at wind directions predicted to result in wake loss at a further wind turbine of the plurality of wind turbines;
These limitations are disclosed because the prior art’s wake loss control strategy is capable of being used as required by these limitations, for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 5, Ravindra discloses:
at the further wind turbine:
determining the wind direction resulting in the defined wake condition at the further wind turbine (para 0035 identifies wind direction which is experienced);
and, transmitting the signal indicative of the wind direction determined to result in the defined wake condition at the further wind turbine to the wind turbine (e.g., para 0037: measured inputs from a wind turbine can be forwarded as inputs to another turbine; Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6, Ravindra discloses:
the wind direction resulting in the defined wake condition at the further wind turbine is determined when the wind turbine is not performing the one or more wake loss control actions (the outputs 148 in Fig 3 are used for developing the online farm-level wake model, wherein the model ultimately controls the turbines; e.g., para 0035-0037, Fig 7).
Regarding claim 7, Ravindra discloses:
the wind direction resulting in the defined wake condition at the further wind turbine is determined during a training period in which the plurality of wind turbines of the wind park are operated for a plurality of different wind directions (the system is continually measuring wind data at various turbines and updating the farm-level wake model; e.g. para 0035, 0036, abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Ravindra discloses:
determining the wind direction resulting in the defined wake condition comprises, for a plurality of different wind directions:
receiving sensor signals from one or more sensors of the further wind turbine;
and, determining a parameter indicative of loading imbalance on a rotor of the further wind turbine based on the received sensor signals.
(sensors 110 at the turbines 102 are continually measuring data, which is used by farm controller 108 to determine aerodynamic interactions between interacting turbines which include turbulence and fatigue loads, e.g., para 0035, 0036, abstract, Fig 1, para 0002-0005)
Regarding claim 10, Ravindra discloses:
when the adjusted wake loss control strategy is activated at the wind turbine to perform the one or more wake loss control actions, wherein the method further comprises iteratively (the method is continuous, e.g. abstract):
at the further wind turbine: monitoring the parameter indicative of loading imbalance based on sensor signals from the one or more sensors; and; transmitting a signal indicative of the monitored parameter to the wind turbine (e.g., para 0037: measured inputs from a wind turbine can be forwarded as inputs to another turbine; Fig 3);
and, at the wind turbine: receiving the signal indicative of the monitored parameter from the further wind turbine; determining a further wind direction offset, based on the received monitored parameter, for reducing the loading imbalance on the rotor of the further wind turbine; determining a further adjusted wake loss control strategy that is for controlling the wind turbine to perform the one or more wake loss control actions of the predefined wake control strategy as a function of wind direction offset by the determined difference and the further wind direction offset (the farm controller 108 determines a wake offset angle between the interacting wind turbines, e.g. para 0048, 206 at Fig 7);
and, controlling the wind turbine in accordance with the further adjusted wake loss control strategy (e.g. step 210 in Fig 7).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art reference(s) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20240271597 A1 (hereinafter Andersen).
Regarding claim 9, Ravindra discloses all claim limitations (see above) except may not explicitly disclose:
the sensor signals from one or more sensors are blade load signals from one or more blade load sensors of rotor blades of the further wind turbine, and wherein the parameter is a yaw moment of the rotor of the further wind turbine, determined based on the received blade load signals.
However, Andersen, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
Using a blade load sensor configured for determining a rotor induced yaw load as an indication of a relative wind direction in order to supplement, cross-check or replace a wind direction signal provided by a wind sensor, wind direction sensor (para 0106-0107).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ravindra to include Andersen’s teachings as described above, having a blade load sensor configured for determining a rotor induced yaw load as an indication of a relative wind direction, in order to supplement, cross-check or replace a wind direction signal provided by a wind sensor, wind direction sensor (para 0106-0107).
This modification results in teaching the limitation above.
Conclusion
The following prior art, made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO 2020249173 A1 - cited for teaching controlling wind turbines in a wind farm by measuring wind direction between upstream and downstream wind turbines.
US 20220307468 A1 - cited for teaching wake control of a farm via yaw offset control.
WO 2015039665 A1 - cited for teaching a control method for a wind park taking into account wake effects between the turbines.
US 20210047999 A1 - cited for teaching reducing losses on downstream wind turbines caused by wakes of upstream turbines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Art Golik whose telephone number is (571)272-6211. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
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, Nathaniel 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.
/Art Golik/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745