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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 November 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Presently, claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12 are pending.
The previous objections to the specification, drawings, and/or claims are withdrawn as moot in light of corrections made by Applicant.
Response to Arguments
Rejections over Imam and Beržonskis are overcome because Imam detects fatigue by analyzing vibration rather than rotational speed. However, in light of the teaching of Kar, a new rejection is made based on Imam.
Kar at ¶20 teaches “Each of the monitors 105-140 can obtain signals containing any suitable information about a monitored subsystem. For example, a signal could include frequency characteristics of vibration, noise, motor current, voltage, or speed spectra. Also, different monitoring techniques can be related. For instance, the frequencies of a vibration or a noise signature may be reflected as sidebands in the line frequencies of a motor current or voltage signature. Similarly, very high frequencies of vibration may be reflected in noise or acoustics emission signals, but they may not be reflected in the vibration signals due to the limitation of the frequency bandwidth of an accelerometer.” In other words, Kar teaches that sensors for vibration or speed (or voltage, current, or noise) can be used and the frequency data output will be related. Any of these sensors can provide data to extract frequency characteristics for detecting abnormalities.
Applicant argues that Tang does not teach analyzing the 2P frequency of the speed data itself, though it is recorded and fed into the calculation. Particularly in light of the resonance demodulation detectors being vibration detectors, this argument is sufficiently persuasive to withdraw the rejection.
With regard to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims constitute an improvement to the technology of “detection of material fatigue in drive train components of wind turbine installations” (Remarks filed 22 November 2025, p.5). According to MPEP ¶2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” Thus, the recitation of “extracting amplitude values from the rotational data based on twice the frequency of rotation,” although purported by the specification to be an improvement, cannot meet the requirements of 101 because it is a judicial exception. The specification outlines the inventive concept to be detecting a crack “by using 2P frequencies (based on twice the frequency of rotation)” (¶26-¶28). In the claims, this is embodied as “extracting amplitude values from at least the rotational data corresponding to the rotational speed of the wind turbine shaft based on twice the frequency of rotation,” which is the abstract idea (mathematical concept) causing the 101 rejection.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are similar to Example 4 from the SME guidance. This argument is not persuasive. The eligibility analysis of Example 4, Claim 1, at ¶3 describes several factors with no parallels in the instant case. The example explicitly states “Limiting performance of the mathematical calculations to a general purpose CPU, absent more, is not sufficient to transform the recited judicial exception into a patent-eligible invention.” This is close to the present situation, except the claims do not even explicitly tie any of the steps to a computer. The example further states, “The programmed CPU acts in concert with the recited features of the mobile device to enable the mobile device to determine and display its absolute position through interaction with a remote server and multiple remote satellites. The meaningful limitations placed upon the application of the claimed mathematical operations show that the claim is not directed to performing mathematical operations on a computer alone.” These major aspects of the patentability of claim 4 have no parallels in the instant case.
Applicant further argues that the instant claims are similar to Example 40. Example 40 finds patentability because “the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance.” This argument is not persuasive. In Example 40, the end result of the determining is either collecting Netflow protocol or not. Thus, it affects the actions of the system. On the other hand, in the instant case, the end result of the determining is outputting an alert, which has no effect on the system.
The instant claims are more similar to Example 25, if the method output an alert instead of opening the mold. Instead, the eligibility of Example 25 hinges partly on “the opening of the press.” The Example, of course, does not offer guidance on the eligibility in a scenario that triggers an alert rather than opening the press.
The Examiner appreciates that, upon detecting fatigue, it is sometimes more appropriate to schedule maintenance than to immediately shut down the wind turbine installation. Nonetheless, there is not sufficient evidence to withdraw the 101 rejection. There is not sufficient evidence that “outputting… an alert response,” which encompasses sending a signal and is roughly analogous to displaying data, is sufficient to integrate the invention into a practical application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18855636 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 6 requires the rotational data comprises the speed of the wind turbine shaft. Thus, it is implied that the rotational data throughout the remainder of the claim is or includes the speed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mathematical concepts without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “extracting amplitude values from the rotational data based on twice the frequency of rotation”, which is a mathematical calculation. Further, “monitoring the extracted amplitude values over time,” and “identifying material fatigue,” and the determining of a change in a characteristic are mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because (see MPEP 2106.04(d):
The specification purports to provide an improvement in early identification of material fatigue. However, according to MPEP ¶2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” Thus, the recitation of “extracting amplitude values from the rotational data based on twice the frequency of rotation,” although purported by the specification to be an improvement, cannot meet the requirements of 101 because it is a judicial exception. Further, claim 1 is too broad to provide a particular improvement because “triggering an alert response” and “a change in a characteristic of the amplitude values” are broad limitations, considered too broad to effect an improvement. Among the examples listed in MPEP 2106.05(a), these claims appear most similar to the example “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result.” In MPEP 2106.05(g), the claims appear similar to “Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982).”
No medical condition is involved.
No particular machine or manufacture is integral to the claim. The wind turbine, sensor, and computer are recited generally with no particular significant features, so do not overcome this. The wind turbine establishes a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and, together with the sensor, is part of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g). The computer is not integrated into the claim, and appears to be a general purpose computer/controller.
No article is reduced to a different state or thing, except in the case of claim 8, which is not rejected under 101.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “determining rotational data of a drive train component” is mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “triggering an alert response” is broad enough to encompass merely sending a signal. The preamble, which describes an intended use of the method, makes this most similar to the example, from 2106.05(h): “vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” This example was determined to merely recite a field of use and not to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
No claim limitations are interpreted under 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imam (US 4,408,294) in view of Kar (US 2011/0307218) and Beržonskis (Reliability analysis of fatigue fracture of wind turbine drivetrain components)
Regarding claim 1, Imam discloses:
A computer implemented (see Fig 2, “microprocessor based signal analyzer,” see reference claim 7) method for the early identification of material fatigue in drive train components of a
determining, based on the sensor data, rotational data (vibration that occurs during rotation, correlated with angular position of the rotor, col 4 lines 16-42) of a drive train component (shaft, rotor) of the
extracting amplitude values from at least the rotational data …based on twice the frequency of rotation (amplitude values for several harmonics are extracted to form the graphs shown in Figs 3A-3C, with special attention paid to the 2/rev harmonic because “The appearance or increase in the 2/rev harmonic is especially important because it is the key indication of a transverse or circumferential crack extending partially around the rotor. Furthermore, the 2/rev response begins to increase at the instant of crack initiation” col 6 lines 7-12.);
monitoring the extracted amplitude values over time (col 2 lines 23-25: “on-line continuous monitoring”);
identifying material fatigue (identifying an “incipient crack,” col 6 line 36-42. A slowly propagating crack as described in the reference is the result of material fatigue.) of the drive train component of the wind turbine installation when a change in a characteristic of the extracted amplitude values is determined; and
outputting, responsive to identifying material fatigue, an alert response (col 4 lines 55-58).
Imam does not disclose:
determining rotational data of the drive train component of the wind turbine installation comprises determining the rotational speed of the wind turbine shaft
[extracting amplitude values from] at least the rotational data corresponding to the rotational speed of the wind turbine shaft
Imam uses vibration sensors, and extracts amplitude values from vibration data.
Kar teaches a method of sensing frequencies of a rotating shaft to detect faults (abstract, Fig 1). Kar at ¶20 teaches “Each of the monitors 105-140 can obtain signals containing any suitable information about a monitored subsystem. For example, a signal could include frequency characteristics of vibration, noise, motor current, voltage, or speed spectra. Also, different monitoring techniques can be related. For instance, the frequencies of a vibration or a noise signature may be reflected as sidebands in the line frequencies of a motor current or voltage signature. Similarly, very high frequencies of vibration may be reflected in noise or acoustics emission signals, but they may not be reflected in the vibration signals due to the limitation of the frequency bandwidth of an accelerometer.” In other words, Kar teaches that sensors for vibration or speed (or voltage, current, or noise) can be used and the frequency data output will be related, i.e. have similar features for detecting faults. Any of these sensors can provide data to extract frequency characteristics for detecting abnormalities.
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Imam by using rotational speed sensed by rotational speed sensors instead of vibration as the source for extracted amplitudes because Kar teaches that rotational speed also has frequency characteristics that can be used for fault detection similar to vibration data.
Imam relates to a turbine-generator, with a steam turbine given as an example (col 1 lines 11-15). Imam does not disclose a wind turbine installation.
Beržonskis teaches, for a wind turbine, “The drivetrain module components are subjected to highly dynamic and random cycling loading through its lifetime, hence failures in both ultimate and fatigue limit states are relevant for their design.” (p.147, last ¶). Fatigue crack growth is also specifically pointed out as relevant to wind turbine components (p.149, §4).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Imam to apply to a wind turbine shaft, since the method of Imam is useful for detecting incipient cracks and crack propagation in a turbine-generator rotor, and because Beržonskis teaches that wind turbine rotor shafts are subject to cracks and crack propagation due to cyclic loading, i.e., rotation of the shaft.
Regarding claim 2, Imam as modified by Kar and Beržonskis teaches:
the change in characteristic of the extracted amplitude values comprises the extracted amplitude values increasing beyond a threshold value (col 6 lines 53-58 “preselected value”).
Regarding claim 3, Imam as modified by Kar and Beržonskis teaches:
determining a baseline amplitude value for healthy drive train components (col 2 lines 31-55 “enhanced background signal,” see Fig 3A “uncracked rotor”); and wherein the threshold value is set as a multiple of the determined baseline amplitude value (col 6 line 53-55 “preselected value.” Any such value can be represented as a multiple of the baseline value, which is non-zero as shown in Fig 3A.).
Regarding claim 4, Imam as modified by Kar and Beržonskis does not teach:
the threshold value is set in the range of two to five times the baseline amplitude value.
Imam teaches that the 2P frequency can be used to determine the appearance of a crack: “An incipient crack in the rotor is manifested principally by the appearance and increase in relative amplitude of harmonics at twice the rotational speed of the rotor” (col 3 lines 6-9). The amplitude of the 2P frequency correlates to the degree of damage in the shaft, i.e., the crack depth, as taught by Imam: “The relative amplitudes of the harmonics are determinative of the size of a crack; as a crack grows, the harmonic amplitude of the second harmonic in particular will increase” (col 6 lines 38-42). Thus, the relative amplitude is a result effective variable for crack severity/depth. A user may want to have a warning of damage at various depths or severities of a cracked shaft, thus various relative amplitudes may be used to set a threshold.
According to MPEP 2144.05 §II.A, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have set the threshold in a range between two and five times the baseline to indicate a desired level of damage because it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Imam’s method already involves subtracting the baseline value, so this is equivalent to setting Imam’s “preselected value” between 1 and 4 times the baseline value.
Regarding claim 7, Imam as modified Kar and by Beržonskis does not explicitly teach:
outputting the alert response comprises initiating scheduling of maintenance.
Imam teaches a method of detecting cracks that is more sensitive than previous methods (col 2 lines 20-22), and further teaches “If a crack is discovered soon enough, while it is small, the rotor may be economically repaired and returned to service in a relatively short period of time” (col 1 lines 29-32).
MODIFICATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Imam to include scheduling maintenance when a crack is detected because, based on the disclosure of Imam, the advantage of detecting small cracks is quick and economical repair.
Regarding claim 9, Imam as modified by Kar and Beržonskis does not explicitly teach:
differing alert responses are output according to different changes in the characteristic of the amplitude values.
Imam teaches “the relative amplitudes of the harmonics are determinative of the size of a crack; as a crack grows, the harmonic amplitude of the second harmonic in particular will increase” (col 6 lines 38-42).
MODIFICATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Imam to provide escalating alert responses as a greater amplitude of the second harmonic indicates a larger crack.
Regarding claim 12, Imam as modified by Kar and Beržonskis does not teach:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute the method according to claim 1.
Imam discloses a microprocessor based signal analyzer (38, col 4-5) with a memory. Computing has advanced significantly since 1981, when Imam was filed.
Kar teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute [a fault detection method] (¶7).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a non-transitory computer readable medium to execute the method of Imam as modified by Kar and Beržonskis to obtain the benefit of being able to readily program a general purpose computer or controller to perform the method.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imam (US 4,408,294) in view of Kar (US 2011/0307218) and Beržonskis (Reliability analysis of fatigue fracture of wind turbine drivetrain components) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Birkemose (EP 2626558 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Imam as modified by Kar and Beržonskis does not explicitly teach:
outputting the alert response comprises deactivating the wind turbine installation.
Birkemose teaches:
monitoring a wind turbine shaft for cracks, and shutting down the wind turbine, via a signal sent to the wind turbine controller for safety reasons, when a crack is detected (¶29).
COMBINATION
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Imam, to cause shut-down of the wind turbine for safety reasons when a sufficiently severe crack is detected, to improve safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 10 are only rejected under 101. The Final Rejection mailed 22 July 2025 explains the differences from the nearest prior art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Picand (US 2016/0033321) relates explicitly to monitoring rotational speed, but is limited to sub-frequencies, and so teaches away from “extracting amplitude values… based on twice the frequency of rotation.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOPAZ L ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-5851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. - 4 p.m. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761