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. Contingent Limitations Claim 6 comprises contingent limitations recited in phrase “if …”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. The conditions followed the phrase “if” may not be met, hence the corresponding steps may not be required to be conducted. Therefore, these limitations have no patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.04 (II) for details. Since Applicant’s intention is deemed to make the limitation to have patentable weight in the claims, for continuing examination purpose, the phrase “if the measured power reaches the switching power value” in claim 1 has been construed as “ in response to [[if]] the measured power reaches reaching the switching power value”. 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. Claims 2 and 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites a limitation “in particular over a period of at least 10 minutes, in particular of at least one hour, and/or wherein the boost power is at least 1%, preferably at least 5%, in particular at least 8%, of the nominal power”, which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrases “in particular” or “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. For continuing examination purpose, the limitation has been construed as “in particular over a period of at least 10 minutes , in particular or of at least one hour, and/or wherein the boost power is at least 1%, preferably at least 5%, in particular or at least 8%, of the nominal power”, Regarding claim 6, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For continuing examination purpose, the phrase "optionally" has been construed as being deleted. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-15 are allowed. Claims 2 and 6 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 112(b) rejections set forth in this Office action. Reason For Allowance The Office has conducted prior art search and found reference SPRUCE (US 20180171978 A1) which teaches a method to make wind turbine to produce over-rated power while mitigating the risk of overloading the wind turbine. The Office has found another reference KRÜGER (US 20160252075 A1) which teaches to measure flapwise bending of rotor blade of a wind turbine to determine its operational load. However, independent claim 1 recites limitations “for a wind speed above the nominal wind speed; operating the wind power installation at a power above the nominal power; the power being above the nominal power by a boost power; the wind power installation being operated in such a way that a flapwise torque remains below a predeterminable limit torque; and a prevailing power loss does not exceed a predeterminable power loss limit”. No prior arts have been found to, individually or in combination, teach or suggest the recited limitation in the context of other limitations of the claim as a whole. Therefore, independent claim 1, together with its dependent claims 3-5 and 7-15, is allowed. Claims 2 and 6 depend on claim 1, and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 112(b) rejection set forth in this Office action. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHARLES CAI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7192 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8-5 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, Kamini Shah can be reached on 571-272-2279. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CHARLES CAI/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115