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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
The rejections have been modified to address the amended.
The applicant argues the 35 U.S.C 112(a) and 112(b) rejection related to the language of “a respective operating condition”. This language is removed from the claim. A similar concept is added to the claims of “under the same operating conditions”. The applicant argues that there are environmental or external operating conditions that are inputs to the wind turbine control system which are separate from power production levels which can be independently varied for any given set of environmental operating conditions (see page 9 of the remarks). The applicant argues this is described on page 2 lines 14-17. The examiner finds that this paragraph of the specification and the specification as a whole provides minimal guidance as to what the term “operating conditions” means. The closest concept in the specification of “operation conditions” is only ever used once and is not used in the same context. In contrast, the applicant’s cited portion only mentions “operation set points” and are described solely with respect to power production.
The examiner finds that the applicant’s definition of operating conditions appears to be limited to only external / environmental factors (based on pages 9-10 of the remarks). This interpretation does not avoid indefiniteness or written description rejections. For example, two common control parameters for a wind turbine are pitch angle of the blades and the generator torque setpoint. Power production would be dependent on both of these control parameters. Depending on the combination of the two control parameters, multiple different values of loads on the wind turbine are produced for a single value of power production. The relationship as claimed is therefore still not a function, even under the applicant’s definition of operating conditions. The claimed comparison of predicted loads at adjacent power production levels and the concept of a local minima described in the specification can only be evaluated for a function.
The examiner also finds that “operating conditions” can be interpreted in a different manner which include both external (wind speed, wind direction, etc.) and internal conditions (pitch angle, generator torque, etc.). Under this definition of “operating conditions”, the examiner maintains that it is unclear how the wind turbine can have two different power production level at the same conditions as the systems would be identical. The two systems must differ in some manner to have different power productions, but it is unclear and not disclosed by the specification which is the physical parameter that differs. Power production is an output of a system of many parameters both external and internal. Predicted loads is also a value of the system that is influenced by many parameters both external and internal. There is no description or standard for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a singular analysis (e.g. an x-y graph) of predicted loads versus power production.
The examiner maintains the indefiniteness regarding the predicted loads for the reasons described. It is noted that the applicant’s response acknowledges there are different types of loading metrics which may be used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 10-12, 16-23 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16-18 each recite, “using a load model of the wind turbine that provides predicted loads as a function of power production level of power production level across a range of operating conditions, wherein each fallback set point of the set of fallback set points corresponds to a power production level at which the predicted load is less than predicted loads at adjacent power production levels under the same operating conditions”.
The above limitation is never explicitly recited or shown in the disclosure. The examiner finds the most closely related concepts in the disclosure to be page 2 lines 14-17 and page 5 line 19 to page 6 line 22. This is the only mention of a “load model” and “current operation conditions” of the wind turbine. In this portion of the disclosure, the concept of a local minimum is discussed which is related to the claimed fallback set point being less than the predicted loads at adjacent power production levels.
It is unclear what “under the same operating conditions” requires. For example does this mean only external conditions, only internal conditions, or both external and internal conditions. If it means both external and internal conditions what condition(s) is/are allowed to change for there to be different power production levels. No details are provided as the specification only mentions a local minimum for comparing loads on the wind turbine to power production but provides no details regarding the methodology of how a function is created or the fact that a function is even required.
There is no mention of the load model providing the predicted loads as a function of power production level. A load model may be able to predict loads given a set of conditions about the wind turbine, but this does not mean these loads are a function of power level unless analyzed in a particular manner. The method of this analysis is not disclosed.
Claims dependent from claims 1 and 16-18 are also rejected due to their dependency.
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 as a function of power production level of power production level across a range of operating conditions, wherein each fallback set point of the set of fallback set points corresponds to a power production level at which the predicted load is less than predicted loads at adjacent power production levels under the same operating conditions”.
It is unclear what “under the same operating conditions” requires. For example does this mean only external conditions, only internal conditions, or both external and internal conditions. If it means both external and internal conditions what condition(s) is/are allowed to change for there to be different power production levels. No details are provided in the specification as it only mentions a local minimum for comparing loads on the wind turbine to power production but provides no details regarding the methodology of how a function is created or the fact that a function is even required.
Furthermore, the claimed concept is in contrast to the disclosed concept of a “local minimum determined for different operation set points” and selecting one of the set fallback set points “could be based on the current operation conditions of the wind turbine” on page 6 lines 9-14. One would not say that there are multiple local minimums and one is chosen based on the current operation conditions if all of the local minimums are calculated at the same operating conditions.
Additional indefiniteness arises based on the following. The claim requires “using a load model of the wind turbine that provides predicted loads across operating conditions and power production levels”. The claim requires that these loads are compared, “the predicted load is less than predicted loads at adjacent power production levels”. The examiner finds that the specific type of load of the claim or some manner of performing an overall loading is not specified. Wind turbine 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
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
Prosecution Insights