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 .
Preliminary Formalities
Applicant's amendments of 08/19/2025 to both the specification and claims do not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121. However, as the amendment of 08/19/2025 is an otherwise bona fide attempt to advance prosecution, it is being accepted and acted on (see MPEP 714.03).
Claim 10 has been canceled. Claims 1-9, as amended 08/19/2025, are pending.
Interview Practice
Beginning October 2025, the USPTO is implementing an updated interview practice for patent examination: One interview per new application or RCE (Request for Continued Examination, see 37 CFR 1.114 and MPEP 706.07(h)) will generally be granted. Additional interview(s) which serve to advance prosecution may be granted with supervisory approval.
To request an interview, Applicant may, preferably, contact the Examiner at the telephone number provided at the end of this Office Action and/or Applicant may file an Applicant Initiated Interview Request (AIR) form (PTOL-413A), which may be found here: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms.
It may be useful to also file an Authorization for Internet Communications form (PTO/SB/439, also found at the link provided above), which would allow the Examiner to substantively respond to Applicant using electronic communication (i.e., via email).
If an interview is desired, it is advisable to request the interview sufficiently ahead of the due date of any response to an outstanding Office Action, to allow adequate time to schedule, prepare for, and hold the interview. Submission of an Interview Agenda by Applicant is also generally required (see MPEP 713.01(IV)).
Requests for interviews after final rejection may be denied and generally will be denied in cases where the interview is merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search (see MPEP 713.09).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 with respect to claims 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Note that in their Remarks, Applicant has cited to various paragraphs in the specification (e.g., “paragraph [0003], page 11” [Rem. 11]). However, the specification as originally filed does not include any paragraph numbers and thus Applicant’s indications of alleged support are ineffectual. Applicant is kindly requested to indicate, using page and line numbers, where in the specification as originally filed support may be found for any amendments to the claims.
Note, too, that some of the previously-identified ambiguities have been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant. Where applicable, these have been maintained. Should Applicant request to continue examination, Applicant is earnestly encouraged to thoughtfully review their response prior to filing to ensure both compliance with filing requirements and clarity of claim language. Failure to do so may cause undue delay in prosecution.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A certified copy of CN 202410214034.4, filed in China on Feb. 27, 2024, has been received.
Specification
The amendment filed 08/19/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
Applicant appears to have deleted the entirety of the originally-filed specification and has wholly replaced it with a new specification. Furthermore, Applicant has failed to provide any discussion regarding what changes were made relative to the previous (i.e., original) version of the text, and where such changes were made—Applicant simply alleges that “the specification has been amended to fix the unclear equations and other informalities” (Rem. 9). Lastly, it should be noted that the amended specification fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(b)(1)(ii), which requires that amendments made to delete, replace, or add a paragraph “must be made by submitting […] The full text of any replacement paragraph with markings to show all the changes relative to the previous version of the paragraph” (emphasis added).
As such, it appears that Applicant has replaced the originally-filed specification with a new specification—i.e., the entirety of the newly-filed specification appears prima facie to comprise new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Should Applicant decide to request continued examination of the instant application, it is noted, however, that the previous issue of reproducibility has been appropriately addressed. That is, the new, clean version of the specification appears to present satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, lines 1-2, the limitation “A method for controlling power generation of a wind power generator unit, comprising: acquiring […]” should be amended to: —A method for controlling power generation of a wind power generator unit, the method comprising: acquiring […]—.
Regarding claim 1, line 3, the limitation “a operation” should be amended to: —an operation—.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claims 1-9, the claims remain generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The structure which goes to make up the claimed apparatus must be clearly and positively specified in such a manner as to present a complete operative device.
The following examples of language failing to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are given for Applicant’s benefit. The following, however, may not constitute a complete listing of ambiguous language present in the pending claim(s).
Due to the numerous instances of ambiguous language, should Applicant decide to pursue prosecution, a complete revision of the claims is recommended, to clearly and definitely set forth both the structure of the claimed invention as well as the structural and functional relationship(s) between the claimed features.
NOTE #1: In amending the claims, Applicant must ensure compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112(a); that is, support for any added subject matter must be present in the disclosure as originally filed, and Applicant is requested to indicate where such support exists.
NOTE #2: Applicant should note that the specification as originally filed on 08/19/2024 includes page numbers and line numbers, and fails to individually number any paragraphs. Citation to the originally-filed specification to indicate where support may be found for all amendments to the claims should therefore include page and line numbers, rather than paragraph numbers as Applicant provided in their Remarks filed 08/19/2025.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3-4, the limitation “a wind power generator unit” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear whether this “a wind power generator unit” is the same as, or separate and distinct from, the feature “a wind power generator unit” introduced in the preamble on lines 1-2.
Regarding claim 1, line 4, the limitation “a generated power” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear to what element(s) the “generated power” may belong—i.e., what element(s) is “generat[ing]” the “power,” including whether this “generated power” may be the same as that referred to by the term “power generation” set forth in the preamble.
Regarding claim 1, lines 4-5, the limitation “a speed increase ratio of a gearbox of a unit” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what “a unit” may comprise, including how such a “unit” may be related to the “wind power generator unit” set forth in the preamble or the “wind power generator unit” set forth on lines 3-4.
Regarding claim 1, lines 5-6, the limitation “an electromagnetic torque of a generator, a rotation speed of a fan wheel” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what relationship(s) either of the “generator” or the “fan wheel” may have with any of the other claim features, including—especially—either of the “wind power generator unit[s]” previously set forth.
Regarding claim 1, lines 7-11, the limitation “acquiring data of an influence factor of the wind power generator unit, wherein the data of the influence factor is data corresponding to each factor in an area where the wind power generator unit is located, wherein influence factors the wind power generator unit to generate electricity, wherein the data of the influence factor at least comprise wind power-related data and air density data of an area where the wind power generator unit is located” (underlining showing amendment) is generally narrative and, consequently, vague and indefinite. It is advised that the entire limitation be reviewed and amended. To assist Applicant, at least the following issues should be addressed.
First, the limitation “the wind power generator unit” (multiple recitations) is recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (as two separate “a wind power generator unit” features have been introduced), thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the limitation “the data of the influence factor is data corresponding to each factor in an area […]” fails to make clear both what the “influence factor” may be—e.g., what the “factor” is and what does the “factor” influence—and, consequently, what the “data of the influence factor” may be. The claim fails to make clear what “each factor in an area […]” may be—what is a “factor” and what are all the “factor[s]” (the claim recites “each factor,” thereby implicitly indicating there is a plurality of “factor[s],” without clearly setting forth what “each” of those “factor[s]” may be).
N.B. – The above issue was previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant in their Response of 08/19/2025.
Third, the phrase “wherein influence factors the wind power generator unit to generate electricity” is neither idiomatically nor grammatically incorrect (the phrase appears to be missing, at least, a verb) and is, consequently, vague and indefinite.
N.B. – The above issue was also previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant in their Response of 08/19/2025.
Fourth, the phrase “the data of the influence factor at least comprise wind power-related data and air density data of an area where the wind power generator unit is located” (emphasis added). The claim fails to make clear what “wind power-related data” may be (if this is just, e.g., wind —speed—, such should be made clear; otherwise, it is unclear what “wind power” may be).
Fifth, the phrase cited immediately above also recites “an” additional “area where the wind power generator unit is located”—is this the same “area” as introduced on line 8 or a different “area”?
Regarding claim 1, lines 12-15, the limitation “determining, according to the operation data and the data of influence factor, an electric power generation power regulation component of the wind power generator unit when the operation data of the wind power generator unit is separately adjusted” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the data of the influence factor,” “the wind power generator unit” (multiple recitations) are recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
N.B. – The above issue was previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant in their Response of 08/19/2025.
Second, in light of the lack of clear antecedent basis noted above, the claim fails to make clear how the “determining” step may be carried out.
Third, the claim fails to make clear what an “electric power generation power regulation component of the wind power generator unit” may comprise.
N.B. – The above issue was also previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant in their Response of 08/19/2025.
Fourth, the claim fails to make clear how the “data” may be “separately adjusted” as no “adjust[ing]” step or similar appears to be set forth. The claim also fails to make clear what being “separately adjusted” means—i.e., “separate” from what?
N.B. – The above issue was also previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant in their Response of 08/19/2025.
Regarding claim 1, lines 16-20, the limitation “determining, according to the electric power generation power regulation component, the data of influence factor and feature data of the wind power generator unit, the electric power generated by the wind power generator unit when running data of the wind power generator unit is separately adjusted” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the data of influence factor,” “the electric power generated,” “the wind power generator unit” (multiple recitations) are recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what either “feature data of the wind power generator unit” or “running data of the wind power generator unit” may comprise, including whether (and how) such “feature data” or “running data” may be different from the “data corresponding to each factor” or other “data” features set forth previously.
Third, the claim fails to make clear how the “data” may be “separately adjusted” as no “adjust[ing]” step or similar appears to be set forth. The claim also fails to make clear what being “separately adjusted” means—i.e., “separate” from what?
Fourth, the limitation “determining, according to the electric power generation power regulation component, the data of influence factor and feature data of the wind power generator unit” appears to contradict the previous limitation of “acquiring data of an influence factor […],” as best as it can be understood—if the “data of an influence factor” has already been “acquir[ed],” then why is there an additional step of “determining” the same “data”?
Regarding claim 1, lines 21-22, the limitation “determining a regulation and control manner of each piece of operation data according to the magnitude of the generated power” is vague and indefinite.
First, the claim fails to make clear what a “regulation and control manner of each piece of operation data” is and what it may comprise.
Second, the claim fails to make clear how such a “regulation and control manner” may be “determin[ed]”.
Third, the limitation appears to set forth circular/self-referencing logic: the limitation indicates that “each piece of operation data” is “determin[ed]” specifically “according to the magnitude of the generated power”. However, the “operation data” is defined as “compris[ing]: a generated power”; thus, the limitation could be read as: “determining a regulation and control manner of” the “generated power” specifically “according to the magnitude of the generated power”—i.e., the “regulation and control manner of” the “generated power” may be “determin[ed]” on itself.
Fourth, the limitation “the magnitude of the generated power” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, lines 23-25, the limitation “controlling an operating mode of the wind power generator unit according to the regulation and control mode, so that a power generation behavior of the wind power generator unit satisfies a power grid demand” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the wind power generator unit,” “the regulation and control mode” are recited. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the claim fails to make clear both what an “operating mode of the wind power generator unit” may be and what a “power generation behavior of the wind power generator unit” may be.
Third, the limitation “so that a power generation behavior of the wind power generator unit satisfies a power grid demand” (emphasis added) is vague and indefinite. The limitation sets forth an intended result (i.e., having a “power generation behavior […] satisfy[y]” a given “power grid demand”) without making clear how such a result may be achieved.
The limitation recites function rather than structure. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Furthermore, it must be noted that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2114(I).
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the acquiring operation data generated during operation of the wind turbine generator set” is vague and indefinite. The phrase is neither grammatically nor idiomatically correct and is, consequently, unclear.
N.B. – The above issue was also previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant in their Response of 08/19/2025.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “acquiring, by using an electric power Internet of Things system, the operation data generated in a running process of the wind power generator unit” is vague and indefinite.
First, the limitations “the operation data generated in a running process,” “the wind power generator unit” are recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, thereby rendering the claimed invention vague and indefinite.
Second, the claim fails to make clear what “an electric power Internet of Things system” may be or might comprise. The term is not a term of art and the specification also fails to make clear what this may be. Note that Applicant’s addition of “power” to the term without any explanation therefor fails to clarify the issue.
Third, the claim fails to make clear what either “a running process of the wind power generator unit” or “operation data generated in a running process” may be.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the acquiring data of an influence factor of the wind power generator unit” is vague and indefinite. The phrase is neither grammatically nor idiomatically correct and is, consequently, unclear.
N.B. – The above issue was also previously noted in the Non-Final Office Action but has been neither corrected nor addressed by Applicant in their Response of 08/19/2025.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “acquiring the data of the influence factor of the wind power generator unit via an power electric Internet of things system” is vague and indefinite. The claim fails to make clear what “an electric power Internet of Things system” may be or might comprise. The term is not a term of art and the specification also fails to make clear what this may be. Note that Applicant’s addition of “power” to the term without any explanation therefor fails to clarify the issue.
Regarding claims 4-9, the amendments to the equations are vague and indefinite. As discussed with Applicant’s Representative in the interview of 01/21/2026, it is unclear whether the equations are being underlined—and therefore indicated as inserted—or whether they are being struck through—and therefore indicated as deleted.
Furthermore, the use of double brackets is generally used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters (see 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2)), whereas in some cases, equations of substantially more than five consecutive characters are provided with double brackets. Without explicit discussion or explanation by Applicant, it is unclear whether Applicant intends to delete the greater-than-five-character text strings within the double brackets or not.
Lastly, it is noted that the equations themselves are pixelated and, therefore, i) are not legibly written and ii) are not in a form having sufficient clarity and contrast between the paper and the writing thereon to permit the direct reproduction of readily legible copies in any number by use of photographic, electrostatic, photo-offset, and microfilming processes and electronic capture by use of digital imaging and optical character recognition, as required by 37 CFR 1.52(a)(1)(iv) and (v), respectively.
Regarding claim claims 4-9, Applicant is advised to review the claim language and use the guidance provided above for claim 1 to ensure the metes and bounds of the patent protection sought are clear and definite.
Regarding claims 2-9, they are dependent on claim 1 and thereby inherit the deficiencies thereof.
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.
The Examiner requests, in response to this Office Action, that support be shown for all language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, to specifically note the page(s) and line number(s) in the original specification and/or drawing figure(s) where support for newly added claim language may be found. No new matter may be added.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. MIKAILOFF whose telephone number is (571) 270-7894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 10am - 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, T.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.
/S. MIKAILOFF/Examiner, Art Unit 2834
January 21, 2026
/TULSIDAS C PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights