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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2: It appears line 3 should recite “converge to [a] speed”.
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 2, 4-9, and 11-20 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.
Regarding claim 2: Line 3 recites “a speed of the rotor”, however, “a rotor speed” has already been introduced in claim 1. It is unclear if this is the same or different rotor speed.
Line 10 recites “a rotor speed on the MPPT control curve”, this has already been introduced in the claim. Thus, it is unclear if it is the same or different.
The last line recites “a function of the rotor speed”, this has already been introduced in the claim. Thus, it is unclear if it is the same or different.
Regarding claim 4: Lines 3-4 have parentheses; this is narrative in nature and it is unclear why they are being used.
Line 6 recites “a speed of a rotor” and line 7 recite “a rotor speed”. See the rejection related to repeating “a rotor speed”, above. Further, “a rotor” has already been introduced in the claims.
Regarding claim 5: Lines 1-2 have parentheses; this is narrative in nature and it is unclear why they are being used.
Regarding claim 8: ωr is not introduced in this claim, as it is only introduced in claim 4, and claim 8 does not depend on claim 4.
Line 6 recites “a speed of a rotor” and line 5 recite “a rotor speed”. See the rejection related to repeating “a rotor speed”, above. Further, “a rotor” has already been introduced in the claims.
Regarding claim 9: for the variable ‘t’ , the equations states that it is between tc and tc , it is unclear if both these bounds were meant to be the same value.
Line 4 recites “a speed of a rotor” and line 8 recite “a rotor speed on the MPPT control curve”. See the rejection related to repeating “a rotor speed”, above. And lines 4-5 recite “an MPPT operation”, all of these limitations have already been introduced.
Regarding claim 11: Line 15 recites “a wind turbine generator” and line 20 recites “an active power reference value”, both these limitations have already been introduced in the claim.
Regarding claim 12: Line 3 recites “the second stage” and line 5 recites “the third stage”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Note, these are introduced later on in the claim. If amending, this should be changed too.
The last two lines recites “a rotor speed on the MPPT control curve”, this has already been introduced in the claim. Thus, it is unclear if it is the same or different.
Regarding claim 14: Lines 3-4 have parentheses; this is narrative in nature and it is unclear why they are being used.
Line 6 recites “a speed of a rotor” and line 7 recite “a rotor speed”. See the rejection related to repeating “a rotor speed”, above. Further, “a rotor” has already been introduced in the claims.
The last line recites “a first time period”, this has already been introduced in claim 11.
Regarding claim 15: Lines 1-2 have parentheses; this is narrative in nature and it is unclear why they are being used.
Regarding claim 18: ωr is not introduced in this claim, as it is only introduced in claim 14, and claim 18 does not depend on claim 14.
Line 6 recites “a speed of a rotor” and line 5 recite “a rotor speed”. See the rejection related to repeating “a rotor speed”, above. Further, “a rotor” has already been introduced in the claims.
Regarding claim 19: for the variable ‘t’ , the equations states that it is between tc and tc , it is unclear if both these bounds were meant to be the same value.
Line 4 recites “a speed of a rotor” and line 8 recite “a rotor speed on the MPPT control curve”. See the rejection related to repeating “a rotor speed”, above. And lines 4-5 recite “an MPPT operation”, all of these limitations have already been introduced.
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency to a rejected claim.
Note, the claims repeatedly reintroduce the same limitations, making it unclear whether or not they are the same or new limitations. The examiner attempted to point out as many instances as possible, but due to the amount, some may have been missed. It is suggested for Applicant to go through the claims and insure all are corrected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are allowed.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2, 4-9, and 12-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not explicitly teach, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan the control method of claim 1, specifically comprising:
an active power reference value that is increased from an original reference value according to the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) control at the conversion time point, and wherein the increased active power reference value according to the temporary frequency support (TFS) control is calculated as a function of the frequency deviation and a rotor speed of the wind turbine generator, in the context of the other components in the claim.
Claim 11 is allowable for reciting a similar limitation.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are allowable due to their dependency on an allowed claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN GUGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-5343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, 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.
/SEAN GUGGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834
Prosecution Insights