DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 20 April 2023 are objected to because:
Figs. 4, 9, 10, and 12 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l), which states:
(l) Character of lines, numbers, and letters. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.
Figure 10 top item is written in white text, not black as required.
Figures 4, 9, 10, and 12 have text which is too small for satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
Figs. 4, 9, 10, and 12 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), which states:
(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
Figures 4, 9, 10, and 12 have text which is too small for satisfactory reproduction characteristics, and in particular the size of the text falls below .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The abstract repeats the title at the top of the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Specification paragraph 38 recites “lightening” which appears to be typographic error for “lightning.”
Specification paragraph 123 table 2 component number 3 last column recites “lightening” which appears to be typographic error for “lightning.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “lightening” which appears to be typographic error for “lightning.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites “may comprise.” The use of optional language “may” renders it unclear whether or not the limitations which follow are required by the claim or not. Accordingly, claim 17 is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Abstract Idea
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A method comprising:
obtaining a location of at least one first asset associated with energy generation, transmission, use, or storage;
obtaining a first probability of a natural adverse event occurring at the location of the at least one first asset, the natural adverse event having an associated severity;
obtaining a second probability of a non-natural adverse event occurring at the location of the at least one first asset, the non-natural adverse event having an associated severity;
determining a third probability of at least one damage state of the at least one first asset from the first and second probabilities and their associated severities; and
determining an average duration for a time period that the at least one first asset, or a second asset operatively connected to the at least one first asset, is inoperable based on the third probability of the at least one damage state of the first asset.
Obtaining a location of an asset encompasses mental processes in the form of observation.
Obtaining probabilities of natural and non-natural adverse events and event severities encompasses mental processes in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Determining a probability of a damage state of the asset is further evaluation, judgment, or opinion. These mental processes may further involve mathematical calculation but a combination of mental process steps and mathematical calculation is a combination of abstract ideas.
Determining an average duration for an inoperable damage state is further recitation of mental process in the form of evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of claim 1 comprising:
determining an average annual financial loss based on the average duration for the time period that the at least one first asset or second asset are inoperable, and the cost of repairing the asset to return the at least one first asset and/or second asset to a functional state.
Determining an average financial loss and cost of repairing encompasses further mental process evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of claim 1 wherein the location comprises a latitude and a longitude.
A latitude and longitude are locations information capable of being mentally considered and in particular are capable of being observed.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least first asset associated with energy generation is a turbine.
The asset being representative of an energy generation turbine is a general linking to a field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
5. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least first asset associated with energy generation is a wind turbine.
The asset being representative of an energy generation wind turbine is a general linking to a field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
6. The method of claim 1 wherein the asset associated with transmission is a substation, a transformer, or a cable.
The asset being representative of a substation, transformer, or cable is a general linking to a field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method of claim 1 wherein the asset associated with storage is a battery, or an electrolysis plant.
The asset being representative of a battery or electrolysis plant is a general linking to a field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method of claim 1 wherein the natural adverse event comprises a seismic activity, an airflow activity, a waterflow activity, lightening, fire, or flooding.
Seismic activity, airflow activity, waterflow waves, lightning, fire, and flooding are capable of being evaluated mentally to estimate a probability.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The method of claim 1 wherein the first probability is determined by calculating a vulnerability of the at least one first asset.
Calculating a vulnerability of an asset encompasses mental processes in the form of evaluation and judgment.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method of claim 9 wherein calculating the vulnerability of the at least one first asset comprises an analytical solution, a numerical model, a statistical method, or a numerical simulation, to evaluate the likelihood and consequences of a given natural or non-natural adverse event.
Evaluating an analytic solution, numerical model, statistical method, and the like encompass mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The method of claim 10, wherein the numerical model comprises a finite element analysis.
Simple finite element analysis calculations can be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one first asset associated with energy generation, transmission or storage is an asset associated with a wind turbine or a windfarm,
The asset being representative of an energy generation wind turbine or windfarm is a general linking to a field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
The claim(s) further recite:
and when the method comprises a numerical simulation, the simulation comprises any of:
a range of generation assets from a pre-defined list of assets categorised by:
rotor nacelle assembly mass; and/or turbine blade geometry and/or material; turbine tower geometry;
a range of water depths typical of a wind farm;
whether the wind turbine is a grounded system or a floating system;
the foundation type;
the types of loading; and/or
the age of the wind asset.
This claim recitation is a recitation of a contingent limitation within a method claim. MPEP §2111.04(II) states:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.
Accordingly, patentable weight is not given to limitations not required by the claim.
However, Applicant is advised that if this limitation were merely revised to no longer be recited as a contingent limitation, it would also comprise a general linking to a field of use under MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 13 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
13. The method of claim 1 wherein the damage state of the at least first asset comprises a state associated with a severity and a duration required for repair.
A probability of respective damage state severities and durations are capable of being considered mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 13 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 14 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
14. The method of claim 1 wherein obtaining the first probability comprises calculating an intensity measure of the wind and wave effect on the at least one first asset, the calculation comprising: the sum of wind energy and wave energy per unit surface area averaged over the wave period.
Calculating this intensity measure as a sum of wind energy and wave energy per surface area is a calculation capable of being performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 14 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 14 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
15. The method of claim 14, wherein calculating the intensity measure comprises using the following equation:
E
=
1
8
ρ
W
g
H
2
+
1
2
ρ
a
u
3
T
where:
E
is the intensity measure;
u
is wind speed at 10m height (reference height); g is the gravitational acceleration constant;
ρ
W
is density of water;
ρ
a
is density of air;
T
is the predominant wave period; and H is the significant wave height.
This equation is an explicit recitation of mathematical formulae. Mathematical equations are abstract ideas in the form of mathematical concepts. A combination of a mathematical concept abstract idea and a mental process abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
This falls at least within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one first asset or second asset is, or is a component part of, a wind turbine, an export cable suitable for exporting the electricity generated from the wind turbine from the wind turbine to an electricity storage unit or substation, a battery, an electrolysis plant, or a transmission cable suitable for transporting electricity from the storage or substation.
The asset being representative of a wind turbine, export cable, battery, electrolysis plant, or transmission cable is a general linking to a field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
Claim 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 17 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
17. The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the second probability of the of the non-natural adverse event occurring at the location of the at least one first asset may comprise obtaining the age of the at least one first asset.
Obtaining an age of an asset encompasses mental processes in the form of observation. The age of the asset is an attribute capable of being evaluated mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 17 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 17 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 18 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 18 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
18. The method of claim 1 wherein the method is computer-implemented.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. …. applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
See further §2106.05(b).
Claim 18 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 19 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 19 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
19. A computing device performing the method steps of claim 1.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. …. applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
The “computing device” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 19 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 20 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 20 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
20. A computer readable medium (CRM) having program instructions for performing the method of claim 1.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process. …. applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
The “computer readable medium” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Claim 20 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Nonstatutory
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP §2106.03.
Claim 20 is directed to “computer readable medium.” Computer-readable media can encompass non-statutory, transitory forms of signal transmission, such as, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. MPEP §2106.03; See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Examiner recommends amending the claim preamble to recite 'non-transitory' to overcome this rejection. See MPEP §2106.03 and 1351 OG 212 Kappos memo titled “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” (Feb. 23, 2010).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 16-20
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkie, D. & Galasso, C. “A probabilistic framework for offshore wind turbine loss assessment” Renewable Energy, vol. 147, pp. 1772-1783 (2020) (cited in IDS dated 21 September 2023) [herein “Wilkie”] in view of US patent 10,915,829 B1 Wani, et al. [herein “Wani”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A method comprising: obtaining a location of at least one first asset associated with energy generation, transmission, use, or storage.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “energy generation.”
Wilkie title discloses “A probabilistic framework for offshore wind turbine loss assessment.” A wind turbine is at least one asset with energy generation.
Wilkie page 1774 right column section bullet item discloses:
Exposure (or structural) characterization – characterizing the properties of the structure and the value at risk, including information about location, construction details (e.g., structural geometry), and replacement costs.
Claim 1 further recites “obtaining a first probability of a natural adverse event occurring at the location of the at least one first asset, the natural adverse event having an associated severity; obtaining a second probability of a non-natural adverse event occurring at the location of the at least one first asset, the non-natural adverse event having an associated severity.” Wilkie page 1774 left column last paragraph section 3 discloses “to assess structures exposed to seismic [16], wind [17,18], tsunamis [19] and blast [13] hazards, among others.” Seismic, wind, and tsunamis hazards correspond with natural adverse events. Blast hazards correspond with non-natural adverse events.
Wilkie page 1775 right column first paragraph disclose “age of construction/retrofit) about a portfolio of assets may be included.” Compare with dependent claim 17 regarding age being considered for determining the second probability.
Wilkie page 1774 right column first bullet item discloses:
Hazard analysis – assessing (extreme) conditions that have the potential to cause damage to the system being assessed. The hazard analysis predicts the probability distributions of these conditions occurring based on measured site data or physics-based models, for instance based on large catalogues of simulated events capturing the frequency, severity, location, and other characteristics of the entire spectrum of plausible real hazardous events
The probability distributions for hazard conditions correspond with obtained probabilities of adverse events occurring.
Claim 1 further recites “determining a third probability of at least one damage state of the at least one first asset from the first and second probabilities and their associated severities.” Wilkie page 1774 right column third bullet item discloses:
Fragility analysis – assessing the probability of damage occurring conditioned on the hazard intensity. This also allows to account for the uncertainty in structural capacity (e.g., geometry, material properties, and models) and sampling.
The probability of damage occurring corresponds with a probability of a damage state at the location in consideration of the predicted hazard intensity.
Claim 1 further recites “and determining an average duration for a time period that the at least one first asset, or a second asset operatively connected to the at least one first asset, is inoperable based on the third probability of the at least one damage state of the first asset.” Wilkie page 1773 right column second paragraph discloses:
applied here, assumes that loss of functionality after a disruptive event and the time to recovery are highly correlated. This is intuitive as, in general, if an event (e.g. a windstorm) causes more damage, it will take longer to repair the considered asset.
A time to recovery corresponds with a duration of a time period that the asset is in a damaged state.
Wilkie page 1773 right column second bullet item discloses “Rapidity – The speed to recover, contain losses, and avoid future disruptions. It can be viewed as the rate of recovery (i.e., the slope of recovery in Fig. 1), and therefore determines the time gap [to recovery].” A time to recovery corresponds with a duration of a time period that the asset is in a damaged state.
Wilkie page 1775 section 3.4 discloses:
The probability of failure can be estimated as the mean number of structural analyses resulting in the exceedance of the considered limit state (i.e., failures) at each IM value. The probability of failure can then be expressed as a functional relationship either by fitting a parametric distribution (e.g., lognormal) or directly using the output from structural analysis to generate an empirical fragility curve.
The calculated probability being based on a mean number of analysis results corresponds to determining an average failure for the damage state. The loss of functionality and the time to recovery being highly correlated makes the average failure for respective damage stages highly correlated with an average time to recovery. But Wilkie does not explicitly teach determining this average duration for an inoperable time period.
Wilkie does not explicitly disclose an average duration for an inoperable time period; however, in analogous art of damage prediction, Wani column 13 lines 12-19 teaches:
Recovery time may be computed in a similar fashion as expected losses. Recovery parameters may be obtained from the Hazus technical manual, and include not only construction time, but also time to procure financing, design, decision making, or the like. A mean and standard deviation of loss and recovery time at each BDI may be determined and applied to each respective BDI prediction.
A mean recovery time corresponds with an average duration for a time period of which a structure is inoperable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilkie and Wani. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a mean recovery time into the system of probabilistic wind turbine loss assessment for the advantageous purpose of “the user may also get an idea of the potential losses, which the user could face annually, as well as recovery time [… and] to protect assets against seismic risk.” See Wani column 22 lines 56-60.
Claim 2 further recites “2. The method of claim 1 comprising: determining an average annual financial loss based on the average duration for the time period that the at least one first asset or second asset are inoperable, and the cost of repairing the asset to return the at least one first asset and/or second asset to a functional state.” Wilkie does not explicitly disclose an average duration for an inoperable time period; however, in analogous art of damage prediction, Wani column 13 lines 12-19 teaches:
Recovery time may be computed in a similar fashion as expected losses. Recovery parameters may be obtained from the Hazus technical manual, and include not only construction time, but also time to procure financing, design, decision making, or the like. A mean and standard deviation of loss and recovery time at each BDI may be determined and applied to each respective BDI prediction.
A mean recovery time corresponds with an average duration for a time period of which a structure is inoperable.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilkie and Wani. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a mean recovery time into the system of probabilistic wind turbine loss assessment for the advantageous purpose of “the user may also get an idea of the potential losses, which the user could face annually, as well as recovery time [… and] to protect assets against seismic risk.” See Wani column 22 lines 56-60.
Wilkie page 1775 section 3.4 discloses:
The probability of failure can be estimated as the mean number of structural analyses resulting in the exceedance of the considered limit state (i.e., failures) at each IM value. The probability of failure can then be expressed as a functional relationship either by fitting a parametric distribution (e.g., lognormal) or directly using the output from structural analysis to generate an empirical fragility curve.
The calculated probability being based on a mean number of analysis results corresponds to determining an average failure for the damage state.
Wilkie page 1776 section 3.5 “Loss assessment” second paragraph discloses “The matrix of the failure events K is converted into a failure cost matrix Kc by multiplying each column of K by a vector containing the material cost of each component.” Wilkie page 1776 right column second paragraph discloses:
Total annual loss, can be calculated by multiplying the yearly probability of different failure costs occurring
P
s
y
s
C
r
by the failure consequence defined by direct material cost
C
r
and summing over all failure costs
The total annual loss calculated from the different failure probability which are themselves based on the mean number of structural analysis failure results corresponds with determining an average annual financial loss.
Claim 3 further recites “3. The method of claim 1 wherein the location comprises a latitude and a longitude.” Wilkie page 1774 right column section bullet item discloses:
Exposure (or structural) characterization – characterizing the properties of the structure and the value at risk, including information about location, construction details (e.g., structural geometry), and replacement costs.
But Wilkie does not explicitly disclose an latitude and a longitude; however, in analogous art of damage prediction, Wani column 28 lines 36-39 disclose “A chart 2800 illustrates the fragility function 2804 before an earthquake, where the probability of damage (e.g., a chimney crack) depends on the spectral acceleration at the latitude and longitude where the building is situated.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilkie and Wani. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a latitude and longitude into the system of probabilistic wind turbine loss assessment for the advantageous purpose of “the user may also get an idea of the potential losses, which the user could face annually, as well as recovery time [… and] to protect assets against seismic risk.” See Wani column 22 lines 56-60.
Claim 4 further recites “4. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least first asset associated with energy generation is a turbine.” Wilkie title discloses “A probabilistic framework for offshore wind turbine loss assessment.” A wind turbine is at least one asset with energy generation.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The method of claim 1 wherein the at least first asset associated with energy generation is a wind turbine.” Wilkie title discloses “A probabilistic framework for offshore wind turbine loss assessment.” A wind turbine is at least one asset with energy generation.
Claim 6 further recites “6. The method of claim 1 wherein the asset associated with transmission is a substation, a transformer, or a cable.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a transformer.”
Wilkie page 1776 table 1 third component item listed is “Transformer.” A transformer component corresponds with a transformer asset of the offshore wind turbine.
Claim 8 further recites “8. The method of claim 1 wherein the natural adverse event comprises a seismic activity, an airflow activity, a waterflow activity, lightening, fire, or flooding.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a seismic activity.”
Wilkie page 1774 left column last paragraph section 3 discloses “to assess structures exposed to seismic [16], wind [17,18], tsunamis [19] and blast [13] hazards, among others.” A seismic hazard corresponds with a natural adverse event seismic activity.
Claim 9 further recites “9. The method of claim 1 wherein the first probability is determined by calculating a vulnerability of the at least one first asset.” Wilkie page 1774 right column first bullet item discloses:
Hazard analysis – assessing (extreme) conditions that have the potential to cause damage to the system being assessed. The hazard analysis predicts the probability distributions of these conditions occurring based on measured site data or physics-based models, for instance based on large catalogues of simulated events capturing the frequency, severity, location, and other characteristics of the entire spectrum of plausible real hazardous events
The hazard analysis assessing probability of conditions corresponds with calculating a vulnerability of the asset(s).
Claim 10 further recites “10. The method of claim 9 wherein calculating the vulnerability of the at least one first asset comprises an analytical solution, a numerical model, a statistical method, or a numerical simulation, to evaluate the likelihood and consequences of a given natural or non-natural adverse event.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a numerical simulation.”
Wilkie page 1774 right column first bullet item discloses:
Hazard analysis – assessing (extreme) conditions that have the potential to cause damage to the system being assessed. The hazard analysis predicts the probability distributions of these conditions occurring based on measured site data or physics-based models, for instance based on large catalogues of simulated events capturing the frequency, severity, location, and other characteristics of the entire spectrum of plausible real hazardous events.
Simulating events to predict the probability distributions corresponds with the likelihood and consequences being based on a numerical simulation.
Claim 11 further recites “11. The method of claim 10, wherein the numerical model comprises a finite element analysis.” Wilkie page 1775 section 3.3 discloses “building a computational model solved using finite-element analysis (FEA), which predicts the response of the OWT to environmental conditions.”
Claim 12 further recites “12. The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one first asset associated with energy generation, transmission or storage is an asset associated with a wind turbine or a windfarm.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a wind turbine.”
Wilkie title discloses “A probabilistic framework for offshore wind turbine loss assessment.” A wind turbine is at least one asset with energy generation.
Claim 12 further recites “and when the method comprises a numerical simulation, the simulation comprises any of:
a range of generation assets from a pre-defined list of assets categorised by:
rotor nacelle assembly mass; and/or
turbine blade geometry and/or material;
turbine tower geometry;
a range of water depths typical of a wind farm;
whether the wind turbine is a grounded system or a floating system;
the foundation type;
the types of loading;
and/or the age of the wind asset.
From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “the age of the wind asset.”
Wilkie page 1775 right column first paragraph disclose “age of construction/retrofit) about a portfolio of assets may be included.”
Claim 13 further recites “13. The method of claim 1 wherein the damage state of the at least first asset comprises a state associated with a severity and a duration required for repair.” Wilkie page 1774 right column first bullet item discloses:
Hazard analysis – assessing (extreme) conditions that have the potential to cause damage to the system being assessed. The hazard analysis predicts the probability distributions of these conditions occurring based on measured site data or physics-based models, for instance based on large catalogues of simulated events capturing the frequency, severity, location, and other characteristics of the entire spectrum of plausible real hazardous events
The hazard analysis assessing probability of conditions corresponds with calculating a vulnerability of the asset(s). The severity is a severity.
Wilkie page 1773 right column second paragraph discloses:
applied here, assumes that loss of functionality after a disruptive event and the time to recovery are highly correlated. This is intuitive as, in general, if an event (e.g. a windstorm) causes more damage, it will take longer to repair the considered asset.
A time to recovery corresponds with a duration of a time period that the asset is in a damaged state.
Wilkie page 1773 right column second bullet item discloses “Rapidity – The speed to recover, contain losses, and avoid future disruptions. It can be viewed as the rate of recovery (i.e., the slope of recovery in Fig. 1), and therefore determines the time gap [to recovery].” A time to recovery corresponds with a duration of a time period that the asset is in a damaged state.
Claim 16 further recites “16. The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one first asset or second asset is, or is a component part of, a wind turbine, an export cable suitable for exporting the electricity generated from the wind turbine from the wind turbine to an electricity storage unit or substation, a battery, an electrolysis plant, or a transmission cable suitable for transporting electricity from the storage or substation.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a wind turbine.”
Wilkie title discloses “A probabilistic framework for offshore wind turbine loss assessment.”
Claim 17 further recites “17. The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the second probability of the of the non-natural adverse event occurring at the location of the at least one first asset may comprise obtaining the age of the at least one first asset.” Wilkie page 1775 right column first paragraph disclose “age of construction/retrofit) about a portfolio of assets may be included.”
Claim 18 further recites “18. The method of claim 1 wherein the method is computer-implemented.” Wilkie page 1782 last paragraph discloses “The proposed framework relies on computer-based simulations; each component of this computer-based simulation has been verified/validated in past studies.” Computer-based corresponds with being computer implemented.
Claim 19 further recites “19. A computing device performing the method steps of claim 1.” Wilkie page 1782 last paragraph discloses “The proposed framework relies on computer-based simulations; each component of this computer-based simulation has been verified/validated in past studies.” Computer-based corresponds with being computer implemented. A computer is a computing device.
Claim 20 further recites “20. A computer readable medium (CRM) having program instructions for performing the method of claim 1.” Wilkie page 1782 last paragraph discloses “The proposed framework relies on computer-based simulations; each component of this computer-based simulation has been verified/validated in past studies.” Computer-based corresponds with being computer implemented. Computer-based simulation corresponds with respective program instructions.
Dependent Claim 7
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkie and Wani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2012/0317058 A1 Abhulimen [herein “Abhulimen”].
Claim 7 further recites “7. The method of claim 1 wherein the asset associated with storage is a battery, or an electrolysis plant.” From the above list of alternatives Examiner is selecting “a battery.”
Wilkie does not explicitly disclose a battery; however, in analogous art of risk management, Abhulimen paragraph 287 item 4 teaches:
4. Electrical Risk-Loss of Process Integrity due to a combination of electrical failures such as computer offsets, switches fail to work, loss in power due to battery failure … Electronic devices such as computers, batteries, electrical equipments.
Considering a loss of power due to battery failure is considering asset risk for a battery.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilkie, Wani, and Abhulimen. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use evaluation of electrical risk-loss into the system of probabilistic wind turbine loss assessment for the advantageous purpose of considering a union of defined possible risk systems. See Abhulimen ¶277-284.
Dependent Claim 14
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilkie and Wani as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pokhrel, J. & Seo, J. “Natural hazard vulnerability quantification of offshore wind turbine in shallow water” Engineering Structures, vol. 192, pp. 254-263 (2019) [herein “Pokhrel”].
Claim 14 further recites “14. The method of claim 1 wherein obtaining the first probability comprises calculating an intensity measure of the wind and wave effect on the at least one first asset, the calculation comprising: the sum of wind energy and wave energy per unit surface area averaged over the wave period.” Wilkie page 1774 right column first paragraph discloses “a measure of the intensity of a natural hazard (intensity measure; or IM), e.g., wind speed or wave height.” Wilkie page 1775 section 3.3 discloses:
failure of an OWT relates to the exceedance of the structure load-carrying capacity [26], where the demand is a function of the forces caused by environmental loading and the capacity relates to the ability of the structure to withstand these loads. … see [27].
The environmental loading corresponds with a sum of wind and wave energy forces over the surface areas.
Wilkie does not explicitly disclose the wave period; however, in analogous art of vulnerability quantification of offshore wind turbines, Pokhrel page 256 section 3.1 teaches “The basic theory that is commonly used in the calculation of wave force in offshore structures is dependent on water depth, wave height, and wave period.” Pokhrel page 256 section 3.1 first paragraph and equation (5) includes “Ap is the cross-sectional area of the monopile (m2)” and “and T is the wave period (sec).” This includes both the surface area and wave period.
Pokhrel page 259 left column second paragraph teaches “The aerodynamic forces along the OWT were determined using the AeroDyn [75] feature in the FAST simulator, which takes into consideration the aero-elastic behavior. The hydrodynamic loadings were simulated using the HydroDyn [71] and SubDyn [72], was used to simulate the multi-hazard behavior of the model.” Pokhrel page 255 left column section 1 last paragraph teach “The ultimate goal of this paper is to simulate various wind and wave loads acting on an OWT in shallow water and quantify its vulnerability in the form of fragility curves.” Accordingly, Pokhrel teaches both wind and wave loads. The multi-hazard behavior considers both.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Wilkie, Wani, and Pokhrel. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use wind and wave loads into the system of probabilistic wind turbine loss assessment for the advantageous purpose of “better decision making.” See Pokhrel page 261 last sentence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, 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:
Wilkie, D. & Galasso, C. “A probabilistic framework for offshore wind turbine loss assessment” Renewable Energy, vol. 147, pp. 1772-1783 (2020) (cited in IDS dated 21 September 2023) [herein “Wilkie”] page 1774 right column first paragraph discloses “a measure of the intensity of a natural hazard (intensity measure; or IM), e.g., wind speed or wave height.” Wilkie page 1775 section 3.3 discloses:
failure of an OWT relates to the exceedance of the structure load-carrying capacity [26], where the demand is a function of the forces caused by environmental loading and the capacity relates to the ability of the structure to withstand these loads. … see [27].
The environmental loading corresponds with a sum of wind and wave energy forces over the surface areas. Reference [27] of Wilkie corresponds with Galasso cited immediately below. Wilkie fails to teach multiplying the wave period by a third power of a wind speed.
Wilkie, D. & Galasso, C. “Site-specific ultimate limit state fragility of offshore wind turbines on monopile substructures” Engineering Structures, vol. 204, no. 109903 (2020) (cited in IDS dated 21 September 2023) [herein “Galasso”] page 5 section 4.2.1 on environmental load teaches using a wave height H, gravity G, and the peak spectral wave period T. But Galasso fails to teach multiplying the wave period by a third power of a wind speed.
US patent 10,915,829 B1 Wani, et al. [herein “Wani”] teaches structural damage prediction from an earthquake. Wani fails to teach a wind speed, wave height, or wave period. Thus, Wani fails to teach multiplying the wave period by a third power of a wind speed.
Pokhrel, J. & Seo, J. “Natural hazard vulnerability quantification of offshore wind turbine in shallow water” Engineering Structures, vol. 192, pp. 254-263 (2019) [herein “Pokhrel”] page 256 section 3.1 teaches a wave force using Morison’s equation. Pokhrel page 259 left column second paragraph teaches “The aerodynamic forces along the OWT were determined using the AeroDyn [75] feature in the FAST simulator, which takes into consideration the aero-elastic behavior. The hydrodynamic loadings were simulated using the HydroDyn [71] and SubDyn [72], was used to simulate the multi-hazard behavior of the model.” Pokhrel fails to teach multiplying the wave period by a third power of a wind speed.
US 2012/0317058 A1 Abhulimen [herein “Abhulimen”] paragraph 2 teaches hazard evaluation and risk assessment generally. Abhulimen fails to teach multiplying the wave period by a third power of a wind speed.
Bhattacharya, S., et al. “Hazard considerations in the vulnerability assessment of offshore wind farms in seismic zones” Earthquake Engineering & Resilience, vol. 1, issue 1, pp. 88-109 (2022) (cited in IDS dated 21 September 2023) [herein “Bhattacharya”] page 9 equations 2 and 3 teaches a hydrostatic load and a hydrodynamic load. Bhattacharya fails to teach multiplying a wave period by a third power of a wind speed.
Zuo, H., et al. “Fragility analyses of offshore wind turbines subjected to aerodynamic and sea wave loadings” Renewable Energy, vol. 160, pp. 1269-1282 (2020) [herein “Zuo”] page 1274 left column equation (12) teaches a sea wave load per unit length area of the monopile. Zuo page 1274 left column equation (12) is the “Morison equation.” Zuo page 1272 section 3 teaches an aerodynamic loading equation (2) which includes a mean wind speed and frequency in Hz. The respective forces are then given in Zuo page 1273 right column equations (6)-(7) which includes an air density and square of relative wind speed. The aerodynamic loading of Zuo differs from claim 15 in that claim 15 recites a third power of the wind speed and the frequency of Zuo equation (2) is not a wave period. Accordingly, Zuo fails to teach multiplying the wave period by a third power of a wind speed.
Sheng, C. & Hong, H.P. “Reliability and fragility assessment of offshore floating wind turbine subjected to tropical cyclone hazard” Structural Safety, vol. 93, no. 102138 (2021) [herein “Sheng”] page 2 section 2.1 teaches cyclone wind and wave hazard assessment. Sheng page 6 section 3.2 teaches equation (3) to calculate a peak wave period according to an equation which includes U10 a wind speed at 10m height. While Sheng equation (3) does teach a mathematical relationship between a wind speed and a wave period, Sheng fails to teach multiplying the wave period by a third power of a wind speed.
US patent 11,225,945 B2 Louazel, et al. [herein “Louazel”] column 20 line 47 teaches equation (12C):
P
r
=
1
2
ρ
A
C
p
λ
,
Δ
V
3
. This is an equation for the wind turbine power and is similar with claim 15 equation in several parts; the coefficient is 0.5 multiplied by the air density and a third power of the wind speed. The Area (A) and non-dimensional coefficient (C) are merely scalars which do not significantly affect the equivalence. However, Louazel fails to teach multiplying by a wave period
T
. Furthermore, Examiner finds it is not obvious to multiply a series of wind factors by a wave period.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose:
wherein calculating the intensity measure comprises using the following equation:
E
=
1
8
ρ
W
g
H
2
+
1
2
ρ
a
u
3
T
where:
E
is the intensity measure;
u
is wind speed at 10m height (reference height); g is the gravitational acceleration constant;
ρ
W
is density of water;
ρ
a
is density of air;
T
is the predominant wave period; and H is the significant wave height.”
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250165659 A1 ZHANG; Zechao et al.
teaches
Evaluating Vulnerability of Mono-Pile Foundation of Offshore Wind Turbine
US 12242021 B2 Borges Oliveira; Dario Augusto et al.
Automatic weather event impact estimation
US 11225945 B2 Louazel; Pauline et al.
Floating wind turbine platform controlled to optimize power production and reduce loading
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 24 June 2026
Prosecution Insights