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 .
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, 3, 5, 8-9, 11, 15, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kjaergaard (US 20210254599).
Regarding claims 1 and 28, Kjaergaard discloses a method of operating a wind power plant comprising a group of wind turbines (102) including at least one wind turbine designated as a verification turbine (the wind turbine operating as the non-controlled power generating unit with a non-curtailed power set-point; paragraphs 10-11) and at least one wind turbine designated as a non-verification turbine (the controlled power generating unit operated with a curtailed power set-point, paragraphs 10-11), the method comprising: operating the or each verification turbine to produce a maximised output (Paragraph 79); and operating the or each non-verification turbine to produce an output that is controlled in accordance with the output of the or each verification turbine (Paragraph 80), so that a combined output of the group of wind turbines aligns with a target power plant output (Paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 3, Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 1 above. Kjaergaard further discloses operating at least one of the verification turbines to produce its nominal power (Paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 5, Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 1 above. Kjaergaard further discloses operating at least one of the non-verification turbines to produce an output in accordance with a respective reference value, wherein the or each at least one of the reference values is determined in accordance with the output of at least one of the verification turbines (Paragraphs 67 and 81).
Regarding claims 8-9, 11, and 15, Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 1 above. Kjaergaard further discloses defining a minimum output for at least one of the non-verification turbines that is lower than a nominal power of the non-verification turbine (Paragraph 75, Figure 3), the minimum output for at least one of the non-verification turbines corresponds to a minimum controllable output of the non-verification turbine (Paragraph 105), and converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine during operation of the power plant (Paragraphs 34 and 92), and converting a non-verification turbine into a verification turbine during operation of the power plant (Paragraphs 34 and 93).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US 20210254599) in view of Zinck (US 20200200145).
Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 1above. Kjaergaard further discloses operating the verification turbine at its available/maximized output.
Kjaergaard fails to teach monitoring the power output by the or each verification turbine to verify the performance of the verification turbine.
Zinck teaches a wind turbine control method that monitors a non-curtailed turbine’s power output to verify its power production capability during non-curtailed operation (Paragraphs 41 and 45).
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 of Kjaergaard such that the power output by the or each verification turbine to verify the performance of the verification turbine as taught by Zinck for the purposes of obtaining and maintaining an accurate characterization of the available power of the turbine during non-curtailed operation.
Claims 4, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US 20210254599).
Regarding claim 4;
Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 3 above. Kjaergaard further discloses operating the verification (non-controlled) turbine at its rated power in full load a defined rated-power quantity, and a set-point dispatch architecture in which all of the turbines is operated according to a set-point from the central controller (Paragraphs 56, 69, 74).
Kjaergaard fails to teach determining a reference value for at least one of the verification turbines corresponding to a nominal power of the at least one of the verification turbine, and operating the at least one of the verification turbine in accordance with the reference value.
Under full-load conditions, Kjaergaard discloses the produced power of the non-controlled turbine is the rated power (Paragraph 79), and the controller operates the turbines through dispatch setpoints (Paragraphs 56 and 69). The determination of the verification of turbine’s dispatched reference value as its rated power expresses the stated full-load operating point through the setpoint mechanism. The utilization of a known technique (central set-point dispatch) to implement an operating condition the reference already prescribes, with a result that is not merely predictable but already described (Paragraph 79, the turbine produces rated power). 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 of Kjaergaard such that determining a reference value for at least one of the verification turbines corresponding to a nominal power of the at least one of the verification turbine, and operating the at least one of the verification turbine in accordance with the reference value for the purposes of implementing the full-load rated operation of the central controller’s existing setpoint dispatch and providing a defined stable output from the verification turbine (Paragraph 79).
Regarding claim 7;
Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 1 above. Kjaergaard further discloses determining setpoints from the production of non-curtailed turbines (Paragraphs 67 and 81), and a per-turbine minimum output limit, operating the verification turbine at its rated power in full load (Paragraph 75).
Kjaergaard fails to teach defining a minimum output for at least one of the verification turbines that corresponds to a nominal power of the verification turbine, and comprising defining a minimum output for at least one of the verification turbines that corresponds to a nominal power of the verification turbine.
Kjaergaard utilizes a dispatch determination that utilizes the power production of the non-curtailed wind turbines as the input (Paragraph 81). The generated power depends on the available power and wind turbine conditions (Paragraph 69). The plant controller knows the wind varying quantity by measuring it and then close the control loop based on the measurement. Applying a routine feedback measurement to supply the input that the equation Kjaergaard requires is the utilization of a known technique to a system ready for improvement with predictable results of establishing an accurate dispatch. The verification of the function of the turbine scheme is to run un-curtailed at its rated output in full load (Paragraph 79), the productions is the datum on which the curtailed set-points are computed (Paragraph 81), and Kjaergaard utilizes a per-unit minimum power floor below which the set-point cannot go (Paragraph 75). Applying the known floor mechanism to the designated verification turbine at the rated level guarantees that the turbine holds its rated output for as long as it is designated (In the full-load conditions in Paragraph 73) rather than inadvertently dispatched below it, utilizing a known technique (per-unit minimum limit as described in Paragraph 75) to another unit class in the same system achieving predictable results (guaranteeing designated verification turbine consistently holds its rated output and preserves reliability of the production sum).
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 of Kjaergaard such that defining a minimum output for at least one of the verification turbines that corresponds to a nominal power of the verification turbine, and comprising defining a minimum output for at least one of the verification turbines that corresponds to a nominal power of the verification turbine for the purposes of accurately forming the production of sum so that the total plant output tracks the measurement despite the wind driven variation in non-controlled turbine production (Paragraph 81) and defining a minimum output for at least one of the verification turbines that corresponds to a nominal power of the verification turbine, and comprising defining a minimum output for at least one of the verification turbines that corresponds to a nominal power of the verification turbine for the purposes of guaranteeing that a designated verification turbine consistently holds its rated output and thereby preserving the reliability of the production sum from which the curtailed set-points are determined.
Regarding claim 12;
Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 11 above. Kjaergaard further discloses converting turbines between two groups during operation (Paragraph 34), moving more turbines into the control mode as capability conditions require, and sizing the controlled fraction as a function of how far the plant reference has been reduced (Paragraphs 83, 92).
Kjaergaard fails to teach converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine if a minimum combined output from the group of wind turbines exceeds, or is within a threshold margin of, the target power plant output.
Kjaergaard further discloses that the sum of the minimum combined output of the group is the non-controlled turbine production (Paragraph 69) and the controlled turbines at their floors (Paragraph 75), and Kjaergaard computes other measurements of that quantity: the non-curtailed production (Paragraph 81), the per-turbine floor (Paragraph 75), and the negative capability separating current production from the floor (Paragraph 85). The stated objective is that total production meet the reference point (Paragraph 81) and adapts the number of controlled turbines to the depth of the reference reduction (Paragraph 83). When the target falls toward the minimum achievable with the current designations, the only action within the scheme that preserves target tracking is to convert a non-controlled (verification) turbine into a controllable one (Paragraphs 34 and 92). Utilizing the trigger for that conversion as a comparison of the achievable minimum against the target (with a threshold margin to act before the limit is reached) is the direct implementation of Kjaergaard’s requirement that production meet the reference utilizing the measurements already computed.
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 of Kjaergaard such that converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine if a minimum combined output from the group of wind turbines exceeds, or is within a threshold margin of, the target power plant output for the purposes of retaining the ability to track plant targets that approach the group’s achievable floor.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US 20210254599) in view of Yin (US 9541062).
Kjaergaard as modified teaches the method according to claim 12 above. Kjaergaard further discloses converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine based on the power capability (Paragraph 92).
Kjaergaard fails to teach converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine in dependence on a stability of a power grid to which the wind power plant is connected.
Yin teaches setting the degree of curtailment of a wind park in dependence on grid condition stability. The measured grid condition by the short circuit ratio and thus curtails the park on a weaker and more unstable grid and less on a strong grid (Col. 1, Lines 49-51 and Col. 2, lines 20-47).
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 of Kjaergaard such that converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine in dependence on a stability of a power grid to which the wind power plant is connected as taught by Yin for the purposes of stabilizing the grid and wind farm through curtailing the plant as much as grid conditions require and maintaining stable operation on a weak grid.
Claims 6, 18, 20, and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US 20210254599) in view of Grosseholz (US 11078887).
Regarding claim 6;
Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 1 above. Kjaergaard further discloses determining setpoints from the production of non-curtailed turbines (Paragraphs 67 and 81), and a per-turbine minimum output limit, operating the verification turbine at its rated power in full load (Paragraph 75).
Kjaergaard fails to teach measuring the output of the or each at least one of the verification turbines and/or the output of the group of wind turbines, and controlling the output of the or each at least one of the non-verification turbines in accordance with the measured output or outputs.
Grosseholz teaches measuring the output of the group and controlling the set points of the turbines setpoints in accordance with the measurement in a closed loop against the plant target (Col. 4, lines 4-16). The power measured at the grid connection point is the measured output of the group of wind turbines and the remaining power difference it compensates is the error in the quantity controlled by Grosseholz by dispatching the per turbine set point values.
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 of Kjaergaard such that measuring the output of the or each at least one of the verification turbines and/or the output of the group of wind turbines, and controlling the output of the or each at least one of the non-verification turbines in accordance with the measured output or outputs as taught by Grosseholz for the purposes of closing the dispatch loop so that the total plant output accurately tracks the Pplant_ref despite the wind driven variation in the non-controlled turbine production.
Regarding claim 18;
Kjaergaard discloses the method according to claim 1 above. Kjaergaard further discloses that the per-turbine minimum output that bounds how far any running turbine can be curtailed (Paragraph 75).
Kjaergaard fails to teach pausing a wind turbine of the group when a minimum combined output from the group of wind turbines exceeds, or is within a threshold margin of, the target power plant output.
Grosseholz teaches removing turbines from production when the sum of the individual minimum limits exceeds the farm set point (Col. 6, Lines 61-67). Grosseholz then acts when the minimum already exceeds the setpoint triggering the same removal when the minimum comes within a threshold margin of the target is an obvious margin of safety variant that starts the known response earlier with the predictable benefit of avoiding overshoot while the removal takes effect. The sum of the individual limits exceeding the farm set-point is the group’s minimum combined output exceeding the target, and the removal from production operation is pausing. Grosseholz then acts when the minimum already exceeds the setpoint, triggering the response slightly earlier before the limit is crossed as an obvious margin of safety measure.
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 of Kjaergaard such that pausing a wind turbine of the group when a minimum combined output from the group of wind turbines exceeds, or is within a threshold margin of, the target power plant output as taught by Grosseholz for the purposes of enabling the plant to meet target outputs below the group’s aggregate minimum running output.
Regarding claim 20;
Kjaergaard in view of Grosseholz teaches the method according to claim 18 above. Kjaergaard further discloses pausing a wind turbine of the group when the group’s minimum combined output exceeds or comes within a threshold margin of the target ad converting verification turbines into non-verification turbines during operation (Paragraphs 34, 92).
Kjaergaard fails to teach pausing a verification turbine when the target power plant output is below a level corresponding to a minimum combined output from the group of wind turbines when all turbines of the group are active and designated as non-verification turbines.
The recited level is the lowest output the group can produce with every turbine still running where each turbine curtailed to its floor (Kjaergaard, Paragraph 75). When the target lies above that level, no verification turbine needs to be stopped since any excess production can be eliminated by converting verification turbines into non-verification turbines (Kjaergaard status switching of the turbines, Paragraphs 34, 92) and by pausing the non-verification turbines (Kjaergaard as modified by Grosseholz in claim 18 above). The non-controlled turbines supply production datum from which the curtailed setpoints are computed (Kjaergaard, paragraph 81) so pausing one degrades the measurement the dispatch depends on, whereas a non-verification turbine is one of several fungible units already being reduced. Restricting the pausing to non-verification turbines is therefore the predictable operating policy of the combination of Kjaergaard and Grosseholz.
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 of Kjaergaard as modified by Grosseholz such that pausing a verification turbine when the target power plant output is below a level corresponding to a minimum combined output from the group of wind turbines when all turbines of the group are active and designated as non-verification turbines for the purposes of meeting the target while retaining every verification turbine production measurement.
Regarding claim 21;
Kjaergaard in view of Grosseholz teaches the method according to claim 18 above including the pausing of a wind turbine of the group when the minimum combined output exceeds or is within the threshold margin of the target.
Kjaergaard fails to teach when the target power plant output is above a level corresponding to a minimum combined output from the group of wind turbines when all turbines of the group are active and designated as non-verification turbines.
Grosseholz teaches a setpoint below the sum of all the minimum power limits (Col. 6, Lines 61-67) and its removal step places no designated based restriction on which turbines are removed (Col. 6, Line 67 to Col. 7, Line 3). Kjaergaard teaches the grouping of the turbines into non-controlled (verification) and controlled (non-verification) sets, the per turbine minimum output and the dynamic reassignment between groups (Paragraphs 67 and 79-81).
Below the recited level, the group overproduces even with every turbine active and curtailed to its floor, and stopping turbines is therefore unavoidable and is not confined to the non-verification set. When the target falls below the production that remains once the paused non-verification turbines are exhausted, the verification turbine’s own uncurtailed output stands between the plant and the target, and pausing it is the remaining action that reduces output. Applying the designation blind removal to a verification turbine as taught by Grosseholz in such a circumstance is then the predictable completion of the removal step in Grosseholz as combined with Kjaergaard.
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 of Kjaergaard as modified by Kjaergaard such that when the target power plant output is above a level corresponding to a minimum combined output from the group of wind turbines when all turbines of the group are active and designated as non-verification turbines for the purposes of reaching target output[uts that cannot be attained by curtailment and selective pausing of the non-verification turbines alone.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US 20210254599) in view of Grosseholz (US 11078887), and further in view of Yin (US 9541062).
Kjaergaard as modified by Grosseholz teaches the method according to claim 18 above. Kjaergaard further discloses converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine based on the power capability (Paragraph 92).
Kjaergaard fails to teach converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine in dependence on a stability of a power grid to which the wind power plant is connected.
Yin teaches setting the degree of curtailment of a wind park in dependence on grid condition stability. The measured grid condition by the short circuit ratio and thus curtails the park on a weaker and more unstable grid and less on a strong grid (Col. 1, Lines 49-51 and Col. 2, lines 20-47).
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 of Kjaergaard such that converting a verification turbine into a non-verification turbine in dependence on a stability of a power grid to which the wind power plant is connected as taught by Yin for the purposes of stabilizing the grid and wind farm through curtailing the plant as much as grid conditions require and maintaining stable operation on a weak grid.
Claims 23-24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kjaergaard (US 20210254599) in view of Grosseholz (US 11078887), and further in view of Roark (US 10364799).
Kjaergaard as modified by Grosseholz teaches the method according to claim 18 above.
Kjaergaard fails to teach releasing one or more paused wind turbines when the target power plant output rises, and releasing all paused wind turbines when the target power plant output rises to a level above the resulting minimum combined output from the group of wind turbine.
Roark teaches a method of controlling wind turbines such that they start and stop to hold the farm at a setpoint (Col. 7, Lines 1-7). The start commands restore turbines to production as the set-point demands, and releasing all paused turbines when the target rises above the resulting minimum combined output is after the pause condition according to the combination of claim 18 above.
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 of Kjaergaard as modified by Grosseholz such that releasing one or more paused wind turbines when the target power plant output rises, and releasing all paused wind turbines when the target power plant output rises to a level above the resulting minimum combined output from the group of wind turbine as taught by Roark for the purposes of restoring plant output to follow the increasing target.
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