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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 6th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 22nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Ambekar discloses the aspect of the wake model storing wake-effected wind information in the form of coefficient of thrust curves for decision variables and storing performance data in the form of coefficient of power curves and that there is no language cited that discloses determining a first value for a power coefficient and a second value for a thrust coefficient that minimizes aggregated wake loss. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection is not relying on the storage of coefficient curves. The stored curves establish that coefficient of power and thrust are functions of the decision variables: blade pitch angle and tip speed ratio. The determining occurs in the farm level optimization: the farm controller iteratively increases the wake penalties applied to wake producing turbines (Col. 17, Line 60 to Col. 18, Line 5). The coefficient values corresponding to the converged decision variable solution are thereby determined, and they are values that minimize aggregated wake loss for a wind farm, reached through an express, iterative wake loss reduction mechanism.
Applicant further argues that Ambekar recited objective is either maximizing farm level power capture or minimizing farm level fatigue loads and that a converged solution for power is not mathematically or logically identical to a determined value for coefficients specifically optimized for wake minimization. This argument is directed to a limitation the claims do not contain. The claims do not require that wake loss minimization be the sole or top level optimization objective, or that the coefficients be specifically optimized for wake minimization to the exclusion of power capture. What is required is that the determining coefficient values that minimize aggregated wake loss. Ambekar optimization does that by absent the wake penalty “high wake losses can be expected and farm behavior is non-optimal” so the penalty is incremented to drive down the coefficient of thrust of wake producing turbines until wake losses at the farm level are reduced (Col. 17, line 33 to Col. 18, line 5).
Applicant argues that there is no language in the cited passages that discloses instructing a wind turbine controller to change a pitch angle and a tip speed ratio for the wind turbine in the wind farm using external stimuli and that Ambekar merely calculates and stores coefficient values in model curves. This argument is not persuasive. Ambekar teaches the converged decision variables are “converted into physical parameters such as fine pitch angle rotor speed set point, torque/power set point, tip speed ratio factor set point” and “these physical parameter values are transmitted to the turbine controller 104” and “the turbine controller processes the physical parameters to alter the operation of the wind turbines”. Additionally, “using external stimuli” under BRI encompasses electrical transmission. The electrical control set point signals transmitted to the turbine controller and applied to the pitch and torque actuators are external stimuli which the pitch angle and tip speed ratio are changed. The coefficient of thrust and power are stored as functions of the decision variables (Col. 9, lines 1-43) and the determined pitch/TSR setpoints causes the turbine’s coefficient values to correspond to the determined first and second values.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ambekar (US 9201410).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Ambekar discloses a system comprising a memory for storing a computer program for minimizing wake loss in wind farms and a processor connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program product for minimizing wake loss in wind farms the computer program comprising one or more computer readable storage mediums (“In certain embodiments, the computer executable instructions may be located in computer storage media, such as a memory and in operative association with a processing subsystem. In certain other embodiments, the computer executable instructions may be located in computer storage media, such as memory storage devices, that are removed from the farm controller 108 or the turbine controller 104. Moreover, the method for optimizing a wind farm metric includes a sequence of operations that may be implemented in hardware, software, or combinations thereof”) having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising programming instructions for: determining a first value for a power coefficient and a second value for a thrust coefficient for a wind turbine in a wind farm that minimize aggregated wake loss for said wind farm (coefficient of power as first value, retrieved as a function of blade pitch angle and tip sped ratio in power capture lookup table 216; coefficient of thrust stored/retrieved as a function of pitch angle and tip speed ratio in wake model 222; farm level optimization increases the wake penalty to reduce the coefficient of thrust of wake producing turbines, resulting in smaller wake losses at the farm level; Col. 9, lines 1-43 and Col. 17, Line 33 to Col. 18, line 5); and instructing a wind turbine controller (104) to change a pitch angle and a tip speed ratio (TSR and pitch angle are decision variables converted to physical set points and applied to alter turbine operation) for said wind turbine in said wind farm using external stimuli (farm controller transmits physical parameter set point signals (electrical control signals) to the turbine controller to change the pitch/torque actuators) cause a value of said power coefficient and a value of said thrust coefficient for said wind turbine in said wind farm to correspond to said first value and said second value, respectively (coefficient of power and thrust are functions of pitch and TSR, applying the optimal pitch/TSR set points causes the turbine’s actual coefficient of power/thrust to take the determined values; see Col. 9, Lines 1-53, Col. 13, Lines 31-57, Col. 14, Lines 39-64, Col. 15, lines 45-60).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16, and 18, Ambekar discloses the method, computer program, and system according to claims 1, 8, and 15 above. Ambekar further discloses determining a value for said external stimuli for said wind turbine in said wind farm to cause said value of power coefficient and said value of said thrust coefficient for said wind turbine in said farm to correspond to said first value and said second value, respectively, said external stimuli comprises “electricity” (the “value” of the external stimuli is implicit in the value itself; the controller needs to know the “values” of the respective pitch angle/tip-speed-ratio and their affects on respective thrust/power coefficients, and those values as read by the controller are the implicit values; since the controller operates through electrical signals, the “stimuli” value is considered to be electricity).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Ambekar discloses the method, computer program, and system according to claims 1, 8, and 15 above. Ambekar further discloses analyzing a wind profile, weather parameters, and a layout of said wind farm; and determining said first value for said power coefficient and said second value for said thrust coefficient for said wind turbine in said wind farm that minimize aggregated wake loss for said wind farm based on said analysis (wind turbine farm modeling takes into account the layout of the farm (“…layout parameters may also be part of the wind field model 220”), the weather/climate (climate database 204), and the wind profile (wind field model 220)).
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 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambekar (US 9201410) in view of Gregory (US 20190323485).
Ambekar discloses the method, computer program, and system according to claims 1, 8, and 15 above.
Ambekar fails to teach said value for said external stimuli is determined considering a tradeoff between an additional increase in aggregated power generated for said wind turbine versus energy lost in modifying said external stimuli to said value for said wind turbine.
Gregory teaches determining a wind turbine blade control action such as a blade-heating action that modifies the thermal stimulus applied to the blade by weighing electrical power the blade produces against the energy consumed by heating the blade, selecting the action the minimizes the net power production loss (Paragraphs 5 and 53). The blade control value (how to modify the heating applied to the blade) by netting the additional power the blade generates against the energy expended in modifying the thermal stimulus (628a minus 628b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, computer program, and system of Ambekar such that said value for said external stimuli is determined considering a tradeoff between an additional increase in aggregated power generated for said wind turbine versus energy lost in modifying said external stimuli to said value for said wind turbine as taught by Gregory for the purposes of selecting the control value that yields the greatest net power after accounting for the energy consumed in modifying the stimulus.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambekar (US 9201410) in view of Nanukuttan (US 20110255974).
Ambekar discloses the method, computer program, and system according to claims 1, 8, and 15 above.
Ambekar fails to the external stimuli is heat, wherein said heat modifies a thermodynamic shape of one or more blades of said wind turbine which changes said pitch angle and said tip speed ratio.
Nanukuttan teaches the utilization of memory shape alloys (see Figures with the blade shape changing) in the construction of wind turbine blades which can adjust the pitch angle and tip speed ratio and therefore the power coefficient/thrust coefficient is plotted against the tip speed ratio and pitch angles (FIG. 8 is a plurality of plots showing varied pitch angles of a blade for coefficient of power against tip speed ratio; FIG. 9 is a plot of the maximum coefficient of power across the tip speed ratio domain obtained at different pitch angles as derived from FIG. 8), and the value of temperature (external stimuli) for the respective type of shape memory alloy is placed into a table (Paragraph 29 and subsequent table). Nanukuttan teaches the utilization of such materials has other benefits such as noise reduction and reduced wake width.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, computer program, and system of Ambekar such that the external stimuli is heat, wherein said heat modifies a thermodynamic shape of one or more blades of said wind turbine which changes said pitch angle and said tip speed ratio as taught by Nanukuttan for the purposes of reducing noise and wake width in the wind turbine farm.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambekar (US 9201410) in view of Nanukuttan (US 20110255974), and further in view of da Silva (US 11912397) and Gregory (US 20190323485).
Ambekar discloses the method and computer program product according to claims 1 and 8 above. Ambekar further discloses determining and storing the power and thrust coefficients as functions of the decision variables in lookup tables (216, 222; Col. 9, lines 1-53).
Ambekar fails to teach an amount of said external stimuli required to cause said value of said power coefficient and said value of said thrust coefficient for said wind turbine in said wind farm to correspond to said first value and said second value, respectively, is determined from a 3D lookup table containing a profile of said power coefficient, said thrust coefficient, and an amount of energy used for heating said blades based on a type of shape memory alloy used to manufacture 4D printed blades of said wind turbine in said wind farm to modify a thermodynamic shape of said 4D printed blades.
Nanukuttan teaches the utilization of memory shape alloys (see Figures with the blade shape changing) in the construction of wind turbine blades which can adjust the pitch angle and tip speed ratio and therefore the power coefficient/thrust coefficient is plotted against the tip speed ratio and pitch angles (FIG. 8 is a plurality of plots showing varied pitch angles of a blade for coefficient of power against tip speed ratio; FIG. 9 is a plot of the maximum coefficient of power across the tip speed ratio domain obtained at different pitch angles as derived from FIG. 8), and the value of temperature (external stimuli) for the respective type of shape memory alloy is placed into a table (Paragraph 29 and subsequent table). Nanukuttan teaches the utilization of such materials has other benefits such as noise reduction and reduced wake width.
da Silva teaches an aerodynamic structure formed by additive layer manufacturing (3D printing) of shape-memory-alloy particles whose shape is changed by thermal input (a 3D printed shape memory alloy structure that morphs with heat which is interpreted as 4D printed; Col. 4, Lines 3-18 and Col. 5, Lines 37-59).
Gregory teaches determining a wind turbine blade control action such as a blade-heating action that modifies the thermal stimulus applied to the blade by weighing electrical power the blade produces against the energy consumed by heating the blade, selecting the action the minimizes the net power production loss (Paragraphs 5 and 53). The blade control value (how to modify the heating applied to the blade) by netting the additional power the blade generates against the energy expended in modifying the thermal stimulus (628a minus 628b).
Ambekar and Nanukuttan are wind turbine art with da Silva directed to a morphable aerodynamic airfoil structure formed by additively manufactured shape-memory-alloy; da Silva is pertinent to the fabrication of the SMA morphing blade of Nanukuttan showing that such winglet architecture is known to be produced by 3D printing (resulting in a “4D printed blade” as it is morphable 3D printed); Gregory recognizes that the energy utilizes to heat a wind turbine blade is quantified control variable to be computed and used in blade control; it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and computer-program product of Ambekar such that an amount of said external stimuli required to cause said value of said power coefficient and said value of said thrust coefficient for said wind turbine in said wind farm to correspond to said first value and said second value, respectively, is determined from a 3D lookup table containing a profile of said power coefficient, said thrust coefficient, and an amount of energy used for heating said blades based on a type of shape memory alloy used to manufacture 4D printed blades of said wind turbine in said wind farm to modify a thermodynamic shape of said 4D printed blades as taught by Nanukuttan, da Silva and Gregory for the purposes of fabricating a one-piece stimulus responsive morphing blade and scheduling the heating energy required to obtain the desired aerodynamic shape, thereby selecting the control value that yields the greatest net power after accounting for the energy consumed in modifying the stimulus.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights