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 remarks filed 6/17/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of claim 1, in paragraph 1 of page 9 through paragraph 4 of page 10 of Applicant’s Remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the amended limitations of amended claim 1.
Support for the instant amendment appears provided in para 0086 of this application’s publishing (US 20250382943 A1).
The arguments are not persuasive because each limitation is mapped to the same prior art of the previous office action. Please see mapping of amended limitations to prior art below for details.
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, 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 first wind turbine and a second 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 first 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 second wind turbine, a signal indicative of a wind direction determined to result in a defined wake condition at the second 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 at the first wind turbine, wherein the wind direction is predicted to result in the defined wake condition at the second wind turbine and the received wind direction at the second wind turbine, wherein the received wind direction is determined to result in the defined wake condition;
determining an adjusted wake loss control strategy that is for controlling the first 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 at the first wind turbine, and the measured wind direction at the 2nd wind turbine; adjust the strategy based on the difference.
Ravindra’s disclosure is entirely directed at this.
The abstract makes clear that his entire disclosure is directed towards optimizing operation of a wind farm via providing a farm-level wake model corresponding to reference sets of interacting wind turbines in the wind farm, monitoring one or more real-time wake parameters for the wind turbines and identifying at least two interacting wind turbines, continuously updating the wake model, and controlling the interacting wind turbines based on all this. The disclosure as a whole makes it clear that these wake parameters are for wake interactions between upstream and downstream wind turbines, e.g. para 0026, 0035.
Paragraphs 0032 through 0045 particularly identify details directed at the claimed subject matter above. They identify that:
Sensors measure wake parameters such as wind direction at the wind turbines (para 0035) wherein the wake parameters information includes wind experienced and/or expected at the wind turbines (para 0035); the wake parameters include any parameter that may affect operational efficiency (para 0044); a controller uses this information to continually estimate the interactions between sets of interacting upstream and downstream wind turbines and determine various wake effects experienced between the turbines (para 0035); sensors monitor multiple wake parameters simultaneously (para 0035, 0044, 0045) and the controller continually processes the wake parameters (para 0032, 0035); the farm-level wake model is continually adjusted based on varying values of wake parameters such as wind direction in real-time such that farm-level performance goals are consistently achieved (para 0032).
Ravindra discloses that wake parameters such as wind direction, experienced and expected, are continually and simultaneously measured and considered at the various interacting wind turbines. Because the system is continually and simultaneously obtaining and considering, processing, these various parameters, the system is inherently continually identifying/determining differences between them.
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 first 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 first wind turbine to perform one or more wake loss control actions as a function of wind direction in a vicinity of the first wind turbine,
the predefined wake loss control strategy being for controlling operation of the first wind turbine to adjust wake generated by the first wind turbine at wind directions predicted to result in wake loss at the second 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 second wind turbine:
determining the wind direction resulting in the defined wake condition at the second 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 second wind turbine to the first 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 second wind turbine is determined when the first 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 second 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 second wind turbine;
and, determining a parameter indicative of loading imbalance on a rotor of the second 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 first 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 second 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 first 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 first wind turbine: receiving the signal indicative of the monitored parameter from the second wind turbine; determining a second wind direction offset, based on the received monitored parameter, for reducing the loading imbalance on the rotor of the second wind turbine; determining a further adjusted wake loss control strategy that is for controlling the first 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 and the second 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 first 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 second wind turbine, and wherein the parameter is a yaw moment of the rotor of the second 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
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 9:00-5:30.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 571-270-3508. 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
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights