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 .
This office action is a response to an amendment filed 11/24/2025.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1-12 are amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim the claim recites the limitation “i.- exclusively proposing a single linear internal model for the MPC, leaving aerodynamic behavior of the rotor out of such internal model throughout an operating range of a wind turbine and defining…” (Emphasis added by the Examiner). There has been no prior mention of “a rotor,” and it is not clear what this refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim the claim recites the limitation “two inputs, one of them being aerodynamic torque that affects a rotor of the wind turbine, defined as a disturbance and, the other, a "set-point" introduced for the generator torque, defined as a manipulated variable;” (Emphasis added by the Examiner). There has been no prior mention of “a generator torque,” and it is not clear what this refers to, especially since no “generator” or “a torque” has been previously defined. While a wind turbine is a generator, mere mention of “the generator” is unclear as whether this would refer to the wind turbine or some other generator. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is also noted, that while not incorrect, the underlined and italicized phrases emphasized above, could be more clearly worded. For example, the limitation could read for those portions “two inputs, a first input being aerodynamic torque…, and, a second input being a set point… “ (Or a variation thereof. Emphasis added)
Regarding claim 1, the claim the claim recites the limitation “;ii.- obtaining the parameters of the mentioned linear internal model from experimental data, previously measured in the turbine;” (Emphasis added by the Examiner). There has been no prior mention of “parameter,” and it is not clear what this refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim the claim recites the limitation “iii.- choosing time values for control and prediction horizons, in order so as to balance a feedback control action and an open-loop action and keeping the to keep the computational load as low as possible, …” (Emphasis added by the Examiner). There have been no prior mention of a computational load, and it is unclear what this refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim the claim recites the limitation “…the feedback control action is based on measurements obtained directly from the turbine during operation of the controller;“ (Emphasis added by the Examiner). There has been no prior mention “a controller,” and it is not clear what this refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim the claim recites the limitation “adjusting weights of a cost function of the MPC controller to set a degree of aggressiveness of the control action by the manipulated variable, as well as expected performance in achieving the control objective; “ (Emphasis added by the Examiner). It is unclear if “the control action” refers to the previously defined “feedback control action,” if it refers to the “open-loop action,” which would be recognized by a person of ordinary skill as a control action, or if it refers to some other “control action.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim the claim recites the limitation “adjusting the state observer used by the MPC controller to set a speed of estimation of unmeasured internal states of the system, as well as a sensitivity of the observer to measurement noise of a measured angular speed of a generator” (Emphasis added by the Examiner). There has been no prior mention “a state observer,” and it is not clear what this refers to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim the claim recites the limitation “carrying out an implementation test to verify feasibility of executing the designed MPC controller designed on a control platform” (Emphasis added by the Examiner). There has been no prior mention “a designed MPC controller,” and it is not clear what this refers to, or if it meant to be “the adjusted MPC controller.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicants' arguments filed 11/24/2025 been fully considered in view amended claim 1, and subsequent to an updated search of relevant prior art, are persuasive. Applicants' arguments on pages 7-9 form the basis of the reasons for indicating allowable subject matter.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miranda et al., US. Patent Publication No. 2018/0100488 teaches control of a wind turbine with a model predictive controller in view of calculated local control objectives.
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 EMILIO J SAAVEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-5617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30am-5:30pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert E Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/EMILIO J SAAVEDRA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117