DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/09/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-16 is/are now pending in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 01/09/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 14, 15 recites
monitoring the validity of a calibration of a system parameter,
a calibrated system parameter is generated based on the calibration by each of a plurality of spatially associated wind turbines of a wind park,
subtracting from
a first signal representing the calibrated system parameter measured at the first wind turbine
a second signal representing the calibrated system parameter measured at the second wind turbine
in order to
generate a difference signal,
wherein
the first signal and the second signal represent the same calibrated system parameter,
processing the difference signal by a function based on a stochastic model
to
generate a decision data signal,
and
determining, based on the decision data signal, if the calibrated system parameter of at least one of the first wind turbine and the second wind turbine is based on an invalid calibration
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 2-13 recite(s)
wherein
the calibrated system parameter is
an absolute wind direction.
wherein
the stochastic model comprises
an expected value for a difference of the calibrated system parameter measured at the first wind turbine and the second wind turbine,
and
the processing the difference signal by the function based on the stochastic model comprises
comparing the difference signal to the expected value.
wherein
the stochastic model further comprises
a limit for an allowable deviation from the expected value,
and
comparing the difference signal to the expected value comprises
determining if the deviation of the difference signal from the expected value exceeds the limit.
wherein
if the decision data signal indicates that the deviation of the difference signal from the expected value exceeds the limit,
it is determined that the calibration of the system parameter of at least one of the first wind turbine and the second wind turbine is invalid.
wherein
the expected value is generated by
monitoring the difference of the calibrated system parameter measured at the first wind turbine and the second wind turbine over a predetermined period of time
and
averaging the monitored difference over the period of time.
wherein
the limit is determined based on
a standard deviation of the difference signal around the expected value.
wherein
the limit is determined by
multiplying the standard deviation by a predetermined scaling factor.
wherein
processing the difference signal by the function based on the stochastic model further comprises
applying a filter to the difference signal
to
generate a filtered difference signal,
wherein
the filtered signal is compared to the expected value.
wherein
the filter is a low-pass filter.
wherein
the determining if the calibrated system parameter is a calibrated system parameter based on an invalid calibration is performed for each of plural pairs of the wind turbines,
and
identifying, based on the determining, a reference wind turbine the calibration of the system parameter of which is not invalid,
wherein
if for at least one of the first and second wind turbines,
it is determined that the calibration of the system parameter is invalid,
comparing the measured calibrated system parameter of at least one of the first and second wind turbines to the measured calibrated system parameter of the reference wind turbine
to
determine for which of the first and second wind turbines the calibration is invalid.
wherein
the plural pairs of wind turbines comprise
for each wind turbine of a group of wind turbines pairs of the wind turbine with each other wind turbine of the group,
wherein
identifying the reference wind turbine comprises
determining for which wind turbine of the group the decision data signal indicates for the largest number of its pairs that the calibrated system parameter is not based on an invalid calibration.
if it is determined that the calibrated system parameter of at least one of the first wind turbine and the second wind turbine is based on an invalid calibration,
recalibrating the invalidly calibrated system parameter,
wherein
the recalibrating comprises for each invalidly calibrated system parameter
correcting the invalidly calibrated system parameter by applying a correction value based on an average of a series of deviations, wherein the series of deviations comprises at least one deviation between the invalidly calibrated system parameter and a calibrated system parameter of at least one of the plurality of wind turbines the calibration of which is not invalid,
or
resetting a reference for the calibrated system parameter based on a deviation between the invalidly calibrated system parameter and a calibrated system parameter of at least one of the plurality of wind turbines the calibration of which is not invalid
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. A control system for, wherein the control system is configured to; A computer program product, comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code therein, said program code executable by a process of a computer system to implement);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. generic data acquisition/measurement(s)); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (i.e. based on the calibration by each of a plurality of spatially associated wind turbines of a wind park, wherein the plurality of spatially associated wind turbines comprises a first wind turbine and a second wind turbine; representing the calibrated system parameter measured at the first wind turbine; representing the calibrated system parameter measured by the second wind turbine).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
Examiner’s Note - 35 USC § 101
Claim 13, depending on claim 1, states:
“…
if it is determined that the calibrated system parameter of at least one of the first wind turbine and the second wind turbine is based on an invalid calibration, recalibrating the invalidly calibrated system parameter,
wherein the recalibrating comprises
for each invalidly calibrated system parameter:
correcting the invalidly calibrated system parameter by applying a correction value based on an average of a series of deviations, wherein the series of deviations comprises at least one deviation between the invalidly calibrated system parameter and a calibrated system parameter of at least one of the plurality of wind turbines the calibration of which is not invalid,
or
resetting a reference for the calibrated system parameter based on a deviation between the invalidly calibrated system parameter and a calibrated system parameter of at least one of the plurality of wind turbines the calibration of which is not invalid”
Claim 16, depending on Claim(s) 1, 13, states:
“…
wherein
the correcting comprises
applying the correction value to a yaw control system of the wind turbine,
wherein
the yaw control system rotates a nacelle of the wind turbine based on the calibrated system parameter”.
Examiner advises applicant that claim(s) 15, depending on Claim(s) 1, 13, would be patent eligible if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter (over Prior Art)
See prior OA, mailed 01/09/2026, for the statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 16 is/are allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 04/09/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 8-9, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“35 U.S.C. & 112(b):
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite "measured at the second wind turbine." Claim 15 was amended to recite "A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1," as suggested by the Examiner.
With respect to the scope of "system parameter," "calibration," and "calibrated system parameter," Applicant submits that these terms are sufficiently clear to a person having ordinary skill in the art when read in light of the specification. The specification explicitly states that "[a] system parameter may be a parameter that has an influence on the (underlying) system, e.g. a parameter that has an influence on a wind turbine or a wind park."1 The specification further explains that "the calibrated system parameter may be an absolute wind direction that is based on a measurement and a calibration."2 Additionally, the specification clarifies that "[t]he measuring of the calibrated system parameter may be performed such that the parameter is directly measured or indirectly measured and further processed in order to generate the parameter."3 These explicit disclosures provide one having ordinary skill in the art with sufficient clarity to understand the scope of the claimed terms.
With respect to claim 2, Applicant submits that the specification clearly explains the relationship an absolute wind direction and a calibrated system parameter. Specifically, the specification states that:
[t]he calibrated system parameter may be an absolute wind direction that is based on a measurement and a calibration. The calibration may be a directional calibration, e.g. a North calibration. The measured calibrated absolute wind direction of a wind turbine may be based on a measurement of the wind direction and on a measured nacelle angular position of that wind turbine.4
One having ordinary skill in the art would understand that wind direction sensors on wind turbines require calibration (e.g., North calibration) and that the resulting calibrated measurement constitutes a "calibrated system parameter."
In view of the foregoing amendments and arguments, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Said rejection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 10-12, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“35 U.S.C. & 101:
The Examiner has rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In view of the amendment to claim 15, Applicant contends that this rejection is moot and should be withdrawn.
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant contends that the claims are not directed to a mathematical concept or mental process in the abstract. Rather, the claims are directed to a specific method for monitoring calibration validity of wind turbine system parameters using cross-comparison between spatially associated wind turbines. This is a specific technological method for detecting invalid sensor calibrations in wind park operations, not a generic mathematical exercise.
Even assuming arguendo that the claims recite a judicial exception, they are integrated into a practical application. The specification explains that prior art methods required collecting data over a time period of several weeks (at least 60 days) to detect invalid calibrations, during which time "neither a reliable wake control nor noise control, nor wind park analysis can be performed."5 The claimed method solves this technical problem by enabling immediate detection of invalid calibrations without requiring weeks of data collection. As the specification states:
[s]uch method may allow, based on the generated decision data signal, to immediately detect an invalid calibration of the calibrated system parameter, which may be the measured absolute wind direction, of one or more wind turbines and to correct such a corruption. A delay or a reaction time of several weeks does not occur since collection of data over a longer time period is not necessary.
This improvement in detection speed directly addresses a technological problem in wind park operations and provides a concrete technological benefit.
Applicant further contends that the wind turbine context is not mere "field of use" linking. The method is specifically designed around the physical characteristics of spatially associated wind turbines. The specification explains that:
[a] plurality of spatially associated wind turbines may be a group of spatially associated wind turbines. The wind turbines of the group may be positioned such that effects on a single wind turbine affect at least a portion of the other wind turbines of the group in a similar or same way. An example is that the wind turbines of the group are positioned so close to each other that approximately the same wind direction is measured by each wind turbine.
The stochastic model is based on empirical data from the specific pairs of wind turbines, accounting for the expected variance and bias between paired turbines. This is fundamentally different from applying generic math to any data source. Moreover, the claims also produce a practical technological result. The specification states that:
[d]etecting an incorrectly calibrated system parameter in such a fast and efficient way has consequently a positive effect on the wake control resulting in a higher annual energy production, on the noise control resulting in a more efficient noise adaption, which is in particular demanded for onshore locations, and on the data analysis on wind park level, e.g. for the validation of wind turbine loads in wake conditions.
The calibration validity determination directly enables proper operation of the wind turbines. Claim 13 recites "recalibrating the invalidly calibrated system parameter" by correcting or resetting a reference. The specification explains that this correction factor is applied to the yaw controlling system, and "the yaw controller system rotates the position of the nacelle in a direction based on the wind direction relative to the position of the nacelle."10 This is not merely a mental process or mathematical calculation; it affects how the physical wind turbine operates.
Furthermore, the claims do not preempt the field. The claims are directed to a specific approach using difference signals between paired wind turbines processed through a stochastic model. Other methods of calibration monitoring, such as the prior art wake profile alignment method described in the specification, remain available. The specific combination of elements, including subtracting calibrated system parameter signals from spatially associated wind turbines, processing through a stochastic model based on empirical data from specific turbine pairs, and determining calibration validity, provides an inventive concept that amounts to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea.
Based on the foregoing, Applicant requests reconsideration and removal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and further contend that the pending claims are in condition for allowance.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner’s BRI of the claimed inventions is generic computer structure being used as a tool to mathematically validate a parameter.
When examining step 2A Prong 1, Examiner determines if there is an abstract idea present. One skilled in the art can at least perform the identified abstract idea utilizing Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation. One skilled in the art can at least perform the identified abstract idea utilizing Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The arguments, in light of the specification, fail to convince the Examiner that utilizing Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes does not fit within the scope of the identified abstract limitations.
When examining step 2A Prong 2, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if the identified abstract idea has been practically applied in a particular way in a particular technology. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not add anything beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding generic ‘apply it’ language, and generically linking the identified abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.
When examining step 2B, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The only additional element(s) is/are the generic computer structure being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights