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 Objections
The claims are objected for the following informalities:
The preamble of Claims 2-11 should recite “The method for controlling the power generating asset of claim …” & the preamble of Claims 13-20 should recite “The system for operating the power generating asset of claim …”
The last limitation of Claim 1 should recite “applying, via the controller, the one or more dynamic decoupling factors to a current command calculation logic to mitigate a coupling effect of one or more current command components.”
Claim 12 preamble should recite “A system for operating a power generating asset …”
Appropriate correction is required. The applicant is advised to review the claims for other similar instances as suggested by the examiner.
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 1-20 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 (similarly in Claim 12), the applicant recites:
“using, via a controller an angle of a phase-locked loop (PLL) reference signal…". Determining a PLL signal before use is essential to ensure its accuracy and reliability in various applications (similarly to determining the more dynamic decoupling factors in the following step in the claim). The claim appears to be missing a step for the controller before “using the signal”. Therefore, it is unclear how the PLL reference signal can be use as recited.
“x and y components of at least one of voltage and current”. What are the “components” regarded to? The claim also recites “two-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system”. Are the components referring to coordinate’s axis as x-axis and y-axis? Clarification is required. Moreover, the depending claims should reflect the examiner’s suggestions.
“determining, via the controller, one or more dynamic decoupling factors as a function of one or more of the x and y components of voltage and current”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “one or more dynamic decoupling factors” & “one or more of the x and y components of voltage and current” limitations in the claim. Moreover, “one or more dynamic decoupling factors” correspond to “one or more of the x and y components of voltage and current”. Are one, some or all the “factors” regarded to just voltage, just current, or both? & Are one, some or all the “factors” regarded to just component x for voltage, just component x for current, component y for voltage, just component y for current or both XY for voltage or both XY fore current? It appears to be multiple permutations of the recited limitation. Therefore, it is unclear what is or are the dynamic decoupling factor(s) and is included or not.
Claims 2-6 & 13-17 are also unclear to what the applicant is referring to. Claim 2-6 and 13-17 depends from Claim 1 or 12. However, Claims 2-6 and 13-17 recites a different function compared to the function recited in Claim 1 and at the same time the “the x and y components of voltage” recited in claim 1 is regarded to the function “one or more dynamic decoupling factors”. Therefore, all the recited functions are all unclear.
Claims 2-11 & 13-20 are rejected based on the dependency from Claim 1 or claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Howard (US 2020/191116) discloses all the recitations od claim 1 (similarly claim 12) with the exception to “determining one or more dynamic decoupling factors as a function of one or more of the x and y components of at least one of voltage and current; and applying the one or more dynamic decoupling factors to current command calculation logic to mitigate a coupling effect of one or more current command components.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH ORTEGA whose telephone number is (469) 295-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, TULSIDAS C. PATEL can be reached at (571)272-2098. 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.
/JOSEPH ORTEGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights