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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the prior 112(b) rejections regarding the term “atmospheric instability”, in para 3 of page 6 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that the specification para 0015 identifies that the term atmospheric instability “may indicate the likelihood of air rising or descending due to buoyancy”. Upon further consideration it is determined that the specification provides the required information and thus the related rejections are withdrawn.
Regarding the other prior 112(b) rejections, and the prior 112(a) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejections with respect to claim 16. With respect to claim 30, although Applicant arguments (para 2 of page 6 of Applicant’s remarks) are directed to that that the limitation “not suffering a wake or other acute instability” has been removed from claim 30, that limitation has in fact not been removed from claim 30, thus the related 112(a) rejections and the related 112(b) rejections as they pertain to claim 30 are still maintained.
Regarding the prior 112(d) rejections, Applicant’s amendments overcome all prior rejections.
Regarding the prior art rejection of independent claims 16 and 30, in paragraph 4 of page 7 through paragraph 3 of page 8 of Applicant's Remarks, Applicant's arguments are directed to that the prior art fails to disclose, teach, or suggest features of Applicant's invention.
Particularly, Applicant’s arguments are directed to that:
Marco does not disclose “selecting a fixed number or fixed percentage of operational wind turbines of the plurality of wind turbines” (former dependent claim 21 now incorporated into amended independent claim 16) because “Marco discloses selecting wind turbines that are directly in front of, or directly behind, another wind turbine based on the wind direction” (para 1 of page 8 of Applicant's Remarks).
This is not persuasive because Marco selecting wind turbines that are directly in front of, or directly behind, another wind turbine inherently meets the “selecting a fixed number or fixed percentage of operational wind turbines of the plurality of wind turbines” requirement, as Marco also identifies for example that some wind turbines may be not selected (page 12 lines 11-14).
Controlling wind turbines when a wind speed threshold is exceeded is not synonymous with selecting wind turbines based on the metric meeting a threshold (para 2 of page 8 of Applicant's Remarks).
This is not persuasive because controlling wind turbines inherently requires first selecting those wind turbines for controlling.
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 § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 30, 31, 32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 30 (line 8) identifies “selecting a set of wind turbines of the plurality of wind turbines not suffering a wake or other acute instability effect based on the metric” whereas the original disclosure instead identifies “the wind turbines which are suffering consequence of a wake or other acute instability effect which may not be applicable to the whole wind farm, are not taken into account for selecting the set of wind turbines and for determining the atmospheric instability” (para 0060), which is not the same. The original disclosure also instead identifies “The wind turbines giving the lowest values of the atmospheric instability metric are selected” (para 0013) which is also not the same as what is claimed.
There is no support in the original disclosure for the limitation(s) as claimed.
Therefore, the limitation(s) add(s) new matter and fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement wherein it appears this invention has not been described with sufficient particularity in the original disclosure such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
Claim(s) 31, 32, 34 is/are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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) 30, 31, 32, 34 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 30 recites the limitations
(line 6) determining a metric that is indicative of atmospheric instability for the plurality of wind turbines in the wind farm;
(line 8) selecting a set of wind turbines of the plurality of wind turbines not suffering a wake or other acute instability effect based on the metric;
(line 12) determining an actual atmospheric instability for the selected set of wind turbines based on one or more wind conditions;
which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how an instability can be determined for wind turbines which are not experiencing an instability.
The line 8 limitation establishes that the set of wind turbines is not experiencing an instability, then the line 12 limitation requires determining an instability for that set of wind turbines.
Applicant is requested to explain clearly in detail.
Claim(s) 31, 32, 34 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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 24-25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020249173 A1 (hereinafter Marco).
Regarding claim 16, Marco discloses:
A method for determining wake behavior in a wind farm, the method comprising:
determining a metric that is indicative of atmospheric instability for a plurality of wind turbines in the wind farm;
The scope of the limitation is directed to identifying a metric that indicates atmospheric instability. Marco discloses measuring wind speed (e.g. page 12 line 24: “These measurements could, e.g., include wind speed, wind direction, temperature, etc.”; page 16 lines 18-26: “wind speed”) as part of a process to identify turbulent wind conditions (abstract). Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitation as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the limitation.
selecting a set of wind turbines of the plurality of wind turbines based on the metric meeting a threshold,
The scope of the limitation is directed to selecting wind turbines based on the metric meeting a threshold. Marco discloses that specific wind turbines are selected for comparison, based on measured wind speeds, in order to determine from that comparison if turbulent conditions exist within the farm at certain turbines (e.g., page 1 lines 16-22; page 16 line 27 – page 17 line 3) with the premise being that “variations in the wind pattern will not reach the wind turbines simultaneously. Normally, a variation in the wind pattern will reach the upstream wind turbines before it reaches the downstream wind turbines” (page 1 lines 16-22). Page 5 lines 21-27, for example, identifies that controlling operations may be based on only wind turbines which exceed a threshold. Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitation as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the limitation.
wherein selecting the set of wind turbines comprises selecting a fixed number or fixed percentage of operational wind turbines of the plurality of wind turbines (page 12 lines 11-14 identifies for example that some wind turbines may be not selected)
determining an actual atmospheric instability for the selected set of wind turbines based on one or more wind conditions;
The scope of the limitation is directed to determining an actual instability for the wind turbines based on wind conditions. Marco discloses that actual wind speeds are determined, actual wind speed variance is determined, wind turbulence is determined at the wind turbines being compared (e.g. page 16 line 27 – page 17 line 10; page 8 lines 22-24). Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitation as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the limitation.
determining the wake behavior in the wind farm based on the actual atmospheric instability;
The scope of the limitation is directed to determining the wake behavior in the wind farm based on the determine instability. Marco’s disclosure is entirely directed towards controlling upstream wind turbines based on downstream wind turbines, wherein the turbines are repeatedly described as arranged upstream and downstream, specifically in front of and behind of one another one, such that they are related and such that the specific stream and wind pattern from the upstream wind turbine reaches the downstream wind turbine; thus while the disclosure may not specifically use the term “wake” to describe this relation, it is clear that the wind turbines disclosed encompass those wherein the downstream wind turbine is in the wake of the upstream wind turbine; see, for example, page 1 lines 9-22, Fig 1 and associated descriptions; in this configuration it is inherent that wake behavior at the downstream wind turbine from the upstream wind turbine is encompassed and thus determined. This is all done via the actual wind speed measurements at the 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 limitation.
and controlling one or more of the plurality of wind turbines of the wind farm based on the wake behavior by changing one or more of the following of the one or more wind turbines: a pitch angle, a rotor speed, a yaw angle, a tip speed ratio, or a power or tilt angle of a nacelle of one or more of the plurality of wind turbines (Marco discloses that a wind turbine may be derated, stopped; e.g. page 5 line 31; page 6 lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 17, Marco discloses:
determining the metric that is indicative of atmospheric instability comprises measuring one or more wind conditions at the plurality of wind turbines (“wind speed measurements”; page 16 lines 18-26).
Regarding claim 18, Marco discloses:
the selected set of wind turbines comprises one or more wind turbines that are not at a front of the wind farm when taking into account an instantaneous wind direction (“at least one downstream wind turbine”; page 16 line 27 – page 17 line 10).
Regarding claim 24, Marco discloses:
the metric that is indicative of the atmospheric instability comprises one or more of the following: turbulence intensity, wind shear, wind direction variability, variance or standard deviation of a rotor speed, or variance or standard deviation of one or more blade loads (page 16 line 18 – page 17 line 19 discusses that turbulence is assessed by comparing wind speeds).
Regarding claim 25, Marco discloses:
the plurality of wind turbines comprises all wind turbines of the wind farm (the disclosure is clearly directed towards considering all wind turbines within a farm, e.g. as indicated by page 16 lines 1-17).
Regarding claim 27, Marco discloses:
identifying upstream wind turbines and downstream wind turbines, wherein the upstream wind turbines cause a wake that affects one or more of the downstream wind turbines (the disclosure is entirely directed towards controlling upstream wind turbines based on downstream wind turbines, wherein the turbines are repeatedly described as arranged upstream and downstream, specifically in front of and behind of one another one, such that they are related and such that the specific stream and wind pattern from the upstream wind turbine reaches the downstream wind turbine; thus while the disclosure may not specifically use the term “wake” to describe this relation, it is clear that the wind turbines disclosed encompass those wherein the downstream wind turbine is in the wake of the upstream wind turbine; see, for example, page 1 lines 9-22, Fig 1 and associated descriptions; in this configuration it is inherent that wake behavior at the downstream wind turbine from the upstream wind turbine is encompassed and thus determined.).
Regarding claim 28, Marco discloses:
controlling one or more of the plurality of wind turbines of the wind farm based on the wake behavior by changing one or more of the following of the one or more wind turbines: the pitch angle, the rotor speed, the yaw angle, the tip speed ratio, or the power or tilt angle of the nacelle of one or more of the plurality of wind turbines further comprises changing at least one of setpoints for one or more of the upstream wind turbines or setpoints for one or more of the downstream wind turbines (page 17 lines 16-19, wherein a change in a setpoint is inherent in a change in 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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco in view of US 20200088167 A1 (hereinafter Ganireddy).
Regarding claim 20, Marco discloses:
determining the actual atmospheric instability for the selected set of wind turbines based on the one or more wind conditions further comprises determining a plurality of the metrics indicative of the atmospheric instability for the selected set of wind turbines (page 16 line 27: “e.g. wind speed measurements performed by the individual wind turbines”).
Marco may not explicitly disclose:
determining an average of a plurality of the metrics
However, Ganireddy, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
In paragraph 0065 determining wind speed metrics corresponding to a cluster of wind turbines within the wind farm, including an average wind speed within the respective wind turbine station clusters.
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 Marco to include Ganireddy’s teachings as described above, determining an average of a plurality of metrics, in order to simultaneously consider the data of a cluster of downstream wind turbines (2b in Marco Fig 1) which are downstream of a single upstream wind turbine (2a in Marco Fig 1).
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco in view of US 20240328387 A1 (hereinafter Bachant).
Regarding claim 30, Marco discloses:
A wind farm, comprising:
a plurality of wind turbines (page 16 lines 18-26);
a farm controller for controlling the plurality of wind turbines (page 17 lines 11-21: “the wind turbines of the wind farm are controlled”),
the plurality of operations comprising:
determining a metric that is indicative of atmospheric instability for a plurality of wind turbines in the wind farm;
The scope of the limitation is directed to identifying a metric that indicates atmospheric instability. Marco discloses measuring wind speed (e.g. page 12 line 24: “These measurements could, e.g., include wind speed, wind direction, temperature, etc.”; page 16 lines 18-26: “wind speed”) as part of a process to identify turbulent wind conditions (abstract). Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitation as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the limitation
selecting a set of wind turbines of the plurality of wind turbines not suffering a wake or other acute instability effect based on the metric meeting a threshold;
The scope of the limitation is directed to selecting wind turbines not experiencing instability/the metric. Marco discloses that specific wind turbines are selected for comparison, based on measured wind speeds, in order to determine from that comparison if turbulent conditions exist within the farm at certain turbines (e.g., page 1 lines 16-22; page 16 line 27 – page 17 line 3; ) with the premise being that “variations in the wind pattern will not reach the wind turbines simultaneously. Normally, a variation in the wind pattern will reach the upstream wind turbines before it reaches the downstream wind turbines” (page 1 lines 16-22). This inherently identifies that certain wind turbines are selected which are not affected by the wind “variation”. Page 5 lines 21-27, for example, identifies that controlling operations may be based on only wind turbines which exceed a threshold. Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitation as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the limitation.
wherein selecting the set of wind turbines comprises selecting a fixed number or fixed percentage of operational wind turbines of the plurality of wind turbines (page 12 lines 11-14 identifies for example that some wind turbines may be not selected)
determining an actual atmospheric instability for the selected set of wind turbines based on one or more wind conditions;
The scope of the limitation is directed to determining an actual instability for the wind turbines based on wind conditions. Marco discloses that actual wind speeds are determined, actual wind speed variance is determined, wind turbulence is determined at the wind turbines being compared (e.g. page 16 line 27 – page 17 line 10; page 8 lines 22-24). Therefore, the prior art reads on the limitation as currently written, insofar as the prior art teaches an arrangement within the breadth of the limitation.
determining the wake behavior in the wind farm based on the actual atmospheric instability;
The scope of the limitation is directed to determining the wake behavior in the wind farm based on the determine instability. Marco’s disclosure is entirely directed towards controlling upstream wind turbines based on downstream wind turbines, wherein the turbines are repeatedly described as arranged upstream and downstream, specifically in front of and behind of one another one, such that they are related and such that the specific stream and wind pattern from the upstream wind turbine reaches the downstream wind turbine; thus while the disclosure may not specifically use the term “wake” to describe this relation, it is clear that the wind turbines disclosed encompass those wherein the downstream wind turbine is in the wake of the upstream wind turbine; see, for example, page 1 lines 9-22, Fig 1 and associated descriptions; in this configuration it is inherent that wake behavior at the downstream wind turbine from the upstream wind turbine is encompassed and thus determined. This is all done via the actual wind speed measurements at the 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 limitation.
and controlling one or more of the plurality of wind turbines of the wind farm based on the wake behavior by changing one or more of the following of the one or more wind turbines: a pitch angle, a rotor speed, a yaw angle, a tip speed ratio, or a power or tilt angle of a nacelle of one or more of the plurality of wind turbines (Marco discloses that a wind turbine may be derated, stopped; e.g. page 5 line 31; page 6 lines 12-15).
Marco may not explicitly disclose:
the farm controller comprising at least one processor configured to perform a plurality of operations,
However, Bachant, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
In paragraph 0055 a controller (wind farm controller, individual turbine control units) comprising a processor.
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 Marco to include Bachant’s teachings as described above, having the farm controller comprising at least one processor configured to perform a plurality of operations, in order to have a computer as a user interface for controlling wind turbines.
Regarding claim 31, Marco, as modified above, discloses:
determining the metric that is indicative of atmospheric instability comprises measuring one or more wind conditions at the plurality of wind turbines (“wind speed measurements”; page 16 lines 18-26).
Regarding claim 32, Marco, as modified above, discloses:
the selected set of wind turbines comprises one or more wind turbines that are not at a front of the wind farm when taking into account an instantaneous wind direction (“at least one downstream wind turbine”; page 16 line 27 – page 17 line 10).
Regarding claim 33, Marco, as modified above, discloses:
the determination of the atmospheric instability based on the wind conditions at the selected set of wind turbines is based on a metric that is indicative of atmospheric instability for the selected set of wind turbines (page 16 line 27 – page 17 line 10, indicates wind speeds, wind speed variance, wind turbulence).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marco in view of Bachant as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of US 20200088167 A1 (hereinafter Ganireddy).
Regarding claim 34, Marco discloses:
determining the actual atmospheric instability for the selected set of wind turbines based on the one or more wind conditions further comprises determining a plurality of metrics indicative of the atmospheric instability for the selected set of wind turbines (page 16 line 27: “e.g. wind speed measurements performed by the individual wind turbines”).
Marco may not explicitly disclose:
determining an average of a plurality of the metrics
However, Ganireddy, in the same field of endeavor, wind turbines, teaches:
In paragraph 0065 determining a wind condition measurement corresponding to a cluster of wind turbines within the wind farm.
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 Marco to include Ganireddy’s teachings as described above, determining an average of a plurality of metrics, in order to simultaneously consider the data of a cluster of downstream wind turbines (2b in Marco Fig 1) which are downstream of a single upstream wind turbine (2a in Marco Fig 1).
Conclusion
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
