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 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Remarks directed to claims 7-12 (see page 8) are not persuasive as claim 7 is in independent form, there are no amendments, and no remarks directed thereto “Dependent claims 2, 6-8, and 12 are believed to be allowable as depending from what are believed to be allowable independent claim 1”.
Therefore the rejections of claims 7-12 will be maintained by the Examiner.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually (see page 10), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner respectfully notes Applicant’s remarks (page 8) assert “EP’253, as best understood, is discloses periodically changing blade pitch of one or more blades of a first upstream wind turbine to accelerate wake recovery” then further asserts, “Applicant submits that the combination of references fails to disclose Applicant’s invention in amended claim 1 as the combination of references fails to disclose “periodically changing” pitch as a result of the upstream wind velocity measurement but would set the pitch as a result of the upstream measurement but would then not periodically change pitch”
However, EP’253 [0084] teaches “collective blade pitch or rotor speed offset periodic variation (pulsing) in order to vary the overall thrust of the rotor, in order to increase the turbulence in the wake” [0078] further teaches, “a floating wind turbine may take as input parameter combinations of inclinations and amplitudes of each of the floating motions indicated in figure 1 and input parameters related to wind conditions (inflow wind speed, direction and turbulence intensity)”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3 (which is presently cancelled by the Applicant); for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will assume claim 4 is dependent on currently amended claim 1 (which includes the subject matter of now cancelled claim 3).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 4141253 A1 (EP’253 hereinafter).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, EP’253 discloses a controller (180), comprising:
a module that includes a processor (181) comprising a non-transitory storage medium (182) for providing instructions to a turbine blade pitch actuator (not shown, but present in the blade pitch pulsing paragraph [0084]), the instructions comprising:
periodically changing blade pitch of one or more blades (113) of a first wind turbine (110) to accelerate wake recovery ([0069], [0084]).
Regarding claim 8, EP’253 discloses all of claim 7 as above, wherein the first wind turbine is a member of a wind farm comprising two or more wind turbines (110, 120) of which a second wind turbine (120) is downstream the first wind turbine ([0006], Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 12, EP’253 discloses all of claim 7 as above, further comprising: using pulse, rotor speed, and/or helix forcing controls in combination with periodically changing blade pitch ([0084], the Examiner respectfully notes that pulsing of the blade pitch is a form of helix forcing control).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 4141253 A1 (hereinafter EP’253) in view of Wingerden et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0412310 A1).
Regarding claim 1, EP’253 discloses an active wake control method, comprising:
periodically changing blade pitch of one or more blades (113) of a first wind turbine (110) to accelerate wake recovery (“The wind turbine 110 rotates around the floater pitch axis of the coordinate system fc. As the rotor blade 113 begins to move backwards with the floater pitch motion, it interacts with its own wake which leads to a development of a turbulence region with circulations in the flow. The turbulence increases the wake recovery rate as it flows downstream. A higher floater pitch amplitude of an upstream turbine enhances thus the wake recovery due to the resulting large scale turbulence mixing the wake flow with ambient flow. The effective wind speed deficit experienced by the downstream turbine is accordingly reduced” [0069]);
However, EP’253 does not disclose,
“measuring a wind measurement upstream of the first wind turbine or using a measure representing an upstream wind measurement from the first wind turbine; and
determining a blade pitch control of the first wind turbine to minimize, reduce or eliminate downstream wake produced by the first wind turbine; and determining an optimal pitch schedule.”
PNG
media_image2.png
258
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Van Wingerden et al. teaches, in the field of wind turbine wake control, a wind turbine wake mixing method and arrangement, comprising measuring wind measurement upstream of a first wind turbine (101) or using a measure representing an upstream wind measurement from the first wind turbine (“Generally, the induction factor is determined by dividing the difference of the velocity of the wind upstream of a rotor plane V.sub.∞ and the velocity of the wind at the rotor plane (i.e. rotor disc) V.sub.d by the velocity of the wind upstream V.sub.∞” [0012]) and determining a blade pitch control of the first wind turbine operation to minimize, reduce or eliminate downstream wake produced by the first wind turbine; and determining an optimal pitch schedule. By also displacing the respective rotational positions of the first blade at which the blade is at the first pitch angle and, preferably, second pitch angle in time, the induction-variations (i.e. the varying induction factor) of the blade occur at different angular positions in the rotor plane over time. Hereby the location of a wake formed downstream of the wind turbine is also dynamically changing with respect to the rotor of the wind turbine. Such variations of the location of the wake increase the turbulent mixing, such that the distance required to transfer the kinetic energy into the wake is decreased and any turbines that might be arranged downstream of the wind turbine are thereby much less affected by the wake. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of reducing the wake effects downstream of the wind turbine (paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the active wake control method of EP’253 with measuring a wind measurement upstream of the first wind turbine or using a measure representing an upstream wind measurement from the first wind turbine; and determining a blade pitch control of the first wind turbine operation to minimize, reduce or eliminate downstream wake produced by the first wind turbine; and determining an optimal pitch schedule, and to form the controller such that it further comprises: measuring a wind measurement upstream of the first wind turbine or using a measure representing an upstream wind measurement from the first wind turbine; and determining a blade pitch control of the first wind turbine operation to minimize, reduce or eliminate downstream wake produced by the first wind turbine; and determining an optimal pitch schedule, as taught by Van Wingerden et al., for the purpose of reducing the wake effects downstream of the wind turbine.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of EP’253 and Van Wingerden et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the first wind turbine (EP’253, 110) is a member of a wind farm (EP’253, [0006] discloses a wind park) comprising two or more wind turbine (EP’253, [0006] “plurality of floating wind turbines”) of which a second wind turbine (EP’253, 120) is downstream the first wind turbine (EP’253, [0006] “upstream wind turbine and a downstream wind turbine”)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of EP’253 and Van Wingerden et al. teach all of claim 3 (the subject matter of which is now amended into claim 1) as above,
wherein the blade pitch control adjusts at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of frequency, amplitude, and shape of a wave form, the waveform being a time series of the periodic variation in blade pitch (EP’253, “The amplitude and/or frequency of a monitored parameter may for example be determined based on a frequency spectrum or its respective amplitude and phase spectrum, the frequency spectrum or its respective amplitude and phase spectrum being derived from a time series of the monitored parameter. It may for example be derived by applying a fast Fourier transform to the time series.” [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of EP’253 and Van Wingerden et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein periodically changing blade pitch is determined by the following steps:
a. determining frequency and amplitude of blade pitch periodic changes by measurements of inflow or emulations of inflow at the first wind turbine (Van Wingerden et al., [0042]);
b. employing individual pitch control (IPC) to the one or more blades to excite perturbations in wind flow to improve downstream wake recovery while minimizing blade loading (Van Wingerden et al., “Furthermore, a pitch mechanism 8 is comprised (at least partially) in the hub 54, wherein the pitch mechanism 8 is arranged for pitching the blades 51, 52, 53. In the current embodiment of the turbine 1, the pitch mechanism 8 comprises three pitch drives 81, 82, 83 that are arranged to drive the ends of blade root sections 55, 56, 57 of the respective blades 51, 52, 53. The pitch drives 81, 82, 83 are arranged to individually drive the pitch rotations of the respective blades 51, 52, 53, such that the blades 51, 52, 53 can all have different pitch angles at any given time. Such a pitch mechanism 8 is also referred to as an individual pitch mechanism and controlling the individual pitch mechanism for minimizing the fatigue loading on a turbine is referred to as Individual Pitch Control (IPC).” [0042]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of EP’253 and Van Wingerden et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, further comprising:
using pulse, rotor speed and/or helix forcing controls (EP’253, [0084]; the Examiner additionally notes that pulsing of the blade pitch is a form of helix forcing control).
Regarding claim 9, EP’253 discloses all of claim 7 as above.
However, EP’253 does not disclose, “further comprising: measuring a wind measurement upstream or using a measure representing an upstream wind measurement from the first wind turbine; and determining a blade pitch control of the first wind turbine to minimize, reduce or eliminate downstream wake produced by the first wind turbine; and determining an optimal pitch schedule”
Van Wingerden et al. teaches, in the field of wind turbine wake control, a wind turbine wake mixing method and arrangement, comprising measuring wind measurement upstream of a first wind turbine (101) or using a measure representing an upstream wind measurement from the first wind turbine (“Generally, the induction factor is determined by dividing the difference of the velocity of the wind upstream of a rotor plane V.sub.∞ and the velocity of the wind at the rotor plane (i.e. rotor disc) V.sub.d by the velocity of the wind upstream V.sub.∞” [0012]) and determining a blade pitch control of the first wind turbine operation to minimize, reduce or eliminate downstream wake produced by the first wind turbine; and determining an optimal pitch schedule. By also displacing the respective rotational positions of the first blade at which the blade is at the first pitch angle and, preferably, second pitch angle in time, the induction-variations (i.e. the varying induction factor) of the blade occur at different angular positions in the rotor plane over time. Hereby the location of a wake formed downstream of the wind turbine is also dynamically changing with respect to the rotor of the wind turbine. Such variations of the location of the wake increase the turbulent mixing, such that the distance required to transfer the kinetic energy into the wake is decreased and any turbines that might be arranged downstream of the wind turbine are thereby much less affected by the wake. The arrangement is provided for the purpose of reducing the wake effects downstream of the wind turbine (paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the active wake control method of EP’253 with measuring a wind measurement upstream of the first wind turbine or using a measure representing an upstream wind measurement from the first wind turbine; and determining a blade pitch control of the first wind turbine operation to minimize, reduce or eliminate downstream wake produced by the first wind turbine; and determining an optimal pitch schedule, and to form the controller such that it further comprises: measuring a wind measurement upstream of the first wind turbine or using a measure representing an upstream wind measurement from the first wind turbine; and determining a blade pitch control of the first wind turbine operation to minimize, reduce or eliminate downstream wake produced by the first wind turbine; and determining an optimal pitch schedule, as taught by Van Wingerden et al., for the purpose of reducing the wake effects downstream of the wind turbine.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of EP’253 and Van Wingerden et al. teach all of claim 9 as above, wherein the blade pitch control adjusts at least one parameter selected from the group consisting of frequency, amplitude, and shape of a waveform, the waveform being a time series of the periodic variation in blade pitch (EP’253, “The amplitude and/or frequency of a monitored parameter may for example be determined based on a frequency spectrum or its respective amplitude and phase spectrum, the frequency spectrum or its respective amplitude and phase spectrum being derived from a time series of the monitored parameter. It may for example be derived by applying a fast Fourier transform to the time series.” [0021]).
Regarding claim 11, EP’253 discloses all of claim 7 as above.
However, EP’253 does not disclose,
“wherein the periodically changing blade pitch is determined by the following steps:
a. determining frequency and amplitude of blade pitch periodic changes by measurements of inflow or emulations of inflow at the first wind turbine;
b. employing individual pitch control (IPC) to the one or more blades to excite perturbations in wind flow to improve downstream wake recovery while minimizing blade loading.”
Van Wingerden et al. shows a wind turbine 1, 101, 102 with variable pitch blades 51, 52, 53, with periodically changing blade pitch which is determined by the following steps: determining frequency and amplitude of blade pitch periodic changes by measurements of inflow or emulations of inflow at the first wind turbine. The predetermined frequency is preferably determined at least in dependence of an inflow wind speed that is determined upstream of the wind turbine. The predefined periodic function is customized to different operational conditions or turbine sizes, such that an increased wake mixing can be obtained for the different operational conditions and turbine sizes ([0024]). The controller is arranged for varying an induction factor of the first blade over time by dynamically changing a pitch angle of the first blade according to a predefined periodic function such that the pitch angle of the first blade periodically varies between a first pitch angle and a second pitch angle while the first blade is rotating, wherein the first pitch angle is different from the second pitch angle ([0027]); employing individual pitch control (IPC) to the one or more blades to excite perturbations in wind flow to improve downstream wake recovery while minimizing blade loading. Pitch drives 81, 82, 83 are arranged to individually drive the pitch rotations of the respective blades 51, 52, 53, such that the blades 51, 52, 53 can all have different pitch angles at any given time. A pitch mechanism 8 is also referred to as an individual pitch mechanism and controlling the individual pitch mechanism for minimizing the fatigue loading on a turbine is referred to as Individual Pitch Control (IPC), ([0042]). The arrangement is for the purpose of controlling the wind turbine such that the wake effects downstream of the wind turbine are reduced ([0007]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the active wake control method and the controller of EP’253 with the periodically changing blade pitch which is determined by the following steps: a. determining frequency and amplitude of blade pitch periodic changes by measurements of inflow or emulations of inflow at the first wind turbine; b. employing individual pitch control (IPC) to the one or more blades to excite perturbations in wind flow to improve downstream wake recovery while minimizing blade loading, as taught by Van Wingerden et al., for the purpose of controlling the wind turbine such that the wake effects downstream of the wind turbine are reduced.
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 NATHANIEL EDWARD WIEHE whose telephone number is (571)272-8648. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 7-4:30 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, Alford Kindred can be reached at (571) 272-4037. 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.
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights