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 1/20/2026, with respect to drawing and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing and claim objections of 7/2/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the abstract specification objection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The correction in the specification objection was not argued or corrected.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Yoshida teaches the amended language in paragraph 24. Yoshida teaches that “suppress(ion of the) yaw motion of the nacelle by suitably calculating and applying a resistance torque that acts against the yaw motion of the nacelle according to the rate of change of the azimuth angle of the nacelle.” This teaches the amended language.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/10/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because in lines 7-8, “where the control parameters enable determining one or more yawing parameters may be described” is non-idiomatic, because in line 10, “the a” should be changed to -- a --, and because in the last line, “(Fig. 2)” should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a pitch system” (claims 1 and 11).
“a yawing section” (claims 1-3 and 10-13).
“a yaw system” (claims 3-4 and 13-14).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida 2011/0299986 in view of von Mutius 2006/0099075 and Baun et al. 2018/0180022.
Yoshida discloses a method for controlling a rotor R on a wind turbine substantially as claimed, wherein the rotor comprises one or more blades B1 or B2 or B3, and wherein the wind turbine comprises a pitch system C, the method comprising: operating the rotor; receiving one or more control parameters (the azimuth angles of the nacelle N); determining one or more yawing parameters (pitch angle setpoint values e1, e2, e3) based on the one or more control parameters, wherein the one or more yawing parameters comprise an angular yawing velocity (the rate of change of the rotor azimuth angle) of a yawing section (the interface between the nacelle and the tower T that permits yawing); and pitching, based on the one or more control parameters, a subset of the one or more blades B1 or B2 or B3 of the rotor to a larger extent than the remaining blades (the other blades of B1 or B2 or B3) of the rotor with the pitch system so as to control the one or more yawing parameters (note paragraph [0024], for example, suppress(ion of the) yaw motion of the nacelle by suitably calculating and applying a resistance torque that acts against the yaw motion of the nacelle according to the rate of change of the azimuth angle of the nacelle. (claim 1)).
Pitching the subset of the one or more blades increases or reduces an aerodynamically induced yaw moment applied by aerodynamic forces on the yawing section, depending on the pitch angles which occur during moving the pitch setting to 90 degrees (claim 2).
The wind turbine further comprises a yaw system (the component(s) between the nacelle and the tower that permit yawing) for yawing the yawing section of the wind turbine (claim 3).
Yoshida also discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer C, cause the computer to perform an operation (note, for example, paragraphs [0040] and [0042] which refer to calculation, and paragraph [0045] which refers to calculation processing, which inherently includes a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions) substantially as claimed comprising: operating the rotor on the wind turbine; receiving the one or more control parameters; determining the one or more yawing parameters based on the one or more control parameters, wherein the one or more yawing parameters comprises the angular yawing velocity of the yawing section; and pitching, based on the one or more control parameters, the subset of the one or more blades of the rotor to a larger extent than the remaining blades of the rotor with a pitch system so as to control the one or more yawing parameters (note paragraph [0024], for example, suppress(ion of the) yaw motion of the nacelle by suitably calculating and applying a resistance torque that acts against the yaw motion of the nacelle according to the rate of change of the azimuth angle of the nacelle. And it is an inherent pitch change element within C) of the wind turbine (claim 11).
Pitching the subset of the one or more blades increases or reduces the aerodynamically induced yaw moment applied by aerodynamic forces on the yawing section (claim 12).
The wind turbine further comprises the yaw system for yawing the yawing section of the wind turbine (claim 13).
A set of the one or more control parameters is related to exactly one set of the one or more yawing parameters (note paragraph [0024], for example, suppress(ion of the) yaw motion of the nacelle by suitably calculating and applying a resistance torque that acts against the yaw motion of the nacelle according to the rate of change of the azimuth angle of the nacelle. (claim 20)).
However, Yoshida does not disclose that the rotor is on a multi-rotor wind turbine (claims 1 and 11), and does not disclose operating the rotor in a standstill or idling operating state (claims 1 and 11).
Von Mutius shows a wind turbine control method and a wind turbine control system whereby a wind turbine 1 having a rotor 4 with rotor blades 5 is controlled so that one rotor blade is pitched to an angle of more than 90 degrees and another rotor blade is pitched to an angle of less than 90 degrees (paragraph [0009], for example), in a parked position, which is the same as a standstill operating state, for the purpose of reducing damage at high wind speeds by setting the wind turbine in the standstill position of the rotor and setting the pitch angle at different values.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the wind turbine arrangement of Yoshida such that it includes operating the rotor in a standstill operating state, as taught by Von Mutius, for the purpose of reducing damage at high wind speeds by setting the wind turbine in the standstill position of the rotor and setting the pitch angle at different values.
Baun et al. shows a wind turbine 2 having multiple rotors 6, for the purpose of increasing the amount of electrical power generated based on the footprint of the wind turbine.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified control method and the modified computer program product of Yoshida such that these are used on a multi-rotor wind turbine, as taught by Baun et al., for the purpose of increasing the amount of electrical power generated based on the footprint of the wind turbine.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida 2011/0299986 and von Mutius 2006/0099075 and Baun et al. 2018/0180022 as applied to claims 3 and 13 respectively above, and further in view of Dharmadhikari et al. 2019/0101101.
The modified control method and the modified computer program product of Yoshida show all of the claimed subject matter except for the method further comprises detecting a failure in the yaw system (claim 4), and except for the operation further comprises detecting a failure in the yaw system (claim 14).
Dharmadhikari et al. shows a wind turbine control method and a wind turbine 10 having a yaw system 40, 44, 45, 46, whereby at step 202, the yaw system is monitored for failure, and a protective control strategy is implemented in response, for the purpose of implementing a protective control strategy for the yaw system in response to the detected failure.
It would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the modified control method and the modified computer program product of Yoshida such that the method further comprises detecting a failure in the yaw system, and such that the operation further comprises detecting a failure in the yaw system, as taught by Dharmadhikari et al., for the purpose of implementing a protective control strategy for the yaw system in response to the detected failure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida 2011/0299986 in view of von Baun et al. 2018/0180022
Yoshida discloses a wind turbine substantially as claimed, comprising a control system C arranged for: receiving one or more control parameters (the azimuth angles of the nacelle N); determining one or more yawing parameters (pitch angle setpoint values e1, e2, e3) based on the one or more control parameters, wherein the one or more yawing parameters comprises an angular yawing velocity (the rate of change of the rotor azimuth angle) of a yawing section (the interface between the nacelle and the tower T that permits yawing) and determining and outputting the one or more pitch angle set point values based on the control parameters for a subset of one or more blades B1 or B2 or B3 of the rotor of the wind turbine to a larger extent than the remaining blades (the other blades of B1 or B2 or B3) of the rotor so as to control the one or more yawing parameters (note paragraph [0024], for example, suppress(ion of the) yaw motion of the nacelle by suitably calculating and applying a resistance torque that acts against the yaw motion of the nacelle according to the rate of change of the azimuth angle of the nacelle (claim 10)).
However, Yoshida does not disclose that the rotor is on a multi-rotor wind turbine.
Baun et al. shows a wind turbine 2 having multiple rotors 6, for the purpose of increasing the amount of electrical power generated based on the footprint of the wind turbine.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to form the wind turbine control system of Yoshida such that it is used on a multi-rotor wind turbine, as taught by Baun et al., for the purpose of increasing the amount of electrical power generated based on the footprint of the wind turbine.
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 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 COURTNEY D HEINLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00am-5:00pm).
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.
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights