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 July 29, 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejections are withdrawn based on the amendments.
The aspect of the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection related to “under the same operating conditions” limitation is withdrawn based on the amendments.
An additional aspect to the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection is added due to the “under the same operating conditions” limitation being removed. This is due to the indefiniteness of comparing a set of values as “less than” with other sets of values (rather than singular value comparisons).
The applicant argues that the aspect of the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection related to the lack of definition of the load is not indefinite as a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that this is an aggregate structural measure throughout. The examiner disagrees and finds that there are different ways of interpreting and comparing aggregate loads, see the discussion in the rejection regarding Golysheva and Santos.
The rejections have been modified as necessitated by amendment and are therefore final.
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 1-4, 10-12, 16-23 and 25-27 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.
Claims 1 and 16-18 recite, “using a load model of the wind turbine that provides predicted loads across a range of possible set points representing different operating conditions of the wind turbine, and wherein each fallback set point of the set of fallback set points corresponds to a respective power production level at which the predicted load is less than predicted loads for the possible set points having adjacent power production levels”.
Indefiniteness arises based on the following. The claim requires “using a load model of the wind turbine that provides predicted loads across a range of possible set points representing different operating conditions of the wind turbine”. The claim requires that these loads are compared, “the predicted load is less than predicted loads for the possible set points having adjacent power production levels”. First, it is unclear what adjacent power production levels refers to. There is the concept of a local minimum disclosed, but for reasons discussed in previous rejections, the application does not describe how a function is created when comparing power production levels to loads. A similar issue still applies to the load comparison of the claimed adjacent power production levels. Without a function, single power production levels will have multiple load values (as there is more than one set of conditions/settings to achieve a single value of power production). There is no clear or disclosed way of comparing multiple sets of values.
In addition, the examiner finds that the specific type of load of the claim or some manner of performing an overall loading is not specified. Wind turbines experience a variety of different types of loads across numerous components. Golysheva et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20190242364) and Santos (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20080086281) describe load models having results for different types of loading {Golysheva Figure 1, (110); [0010]} across different load paths / components {Santos [0064]-[0065]}. It is unclear how to compare loads at one power production level to another power production level as some loads experienced across the wind turbine may increase while others decrease. It is unclear if the claim is so broad as to mean any specific load may be compared to the load of the same type. Or the claim could require some overall comparison of the loads which the examiner and one of ordinary skill in the art would be unsure how that would be defined.
Claims dependent from claims 1 and 16-18 are also rejected due to their dependency.
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 MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 p.m.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
