DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under 35 USC 112a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) “method for predictive monitoring of the condition of wind turbines … comprising: selecting at least one wind turbine … acquiring SCADA data … processing SCADA data … defining a monitoring time period … extracting features [by] … calculating at least one predetermined statistic of the differential data [and] … testing if at least one monitoring feature exceeds a threshold value … calculating at least one predetermined statistic of the differential data … identifying failure patterns based on the extraction of the features … releasing an alarm … triggering service … perform risk management” which are a combination of mathematical concepts including mathematical calculations (i.e., calculating at least one predetermined statistic of the differential data which comes from the acquiring/processing SCADA data; and calculating at least one predetermined statistic of the differential data), mathematical relationships (i.e., testing is at least one monitoring feature exceeds a threshold value, identifying failure patterns based on the extraction of the features); and certain methods of organizing human activity by fundamental economic principles or practices, i.e., mitigating risk (risk management). With respect to releasing an alarm and triggering service (interpreted, as supported by the application disclosure, as a maintenance signal but not as any physical maintenance transformation), these limitations encompass signals per se, which is mere information in the form of data.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims don’t include additional elements to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and the claim 15 only recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in combination with a computer which are generic computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea (mathematical concepts) because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere manipulation of basic mathematical constructs (i.e., mathematical calculations and relationships, and methods of organizing human activity) do not amount to a particular transformation of the claimed wind turbine thereby resulting in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological field of use in the wind turbine/farm field.
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 JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights