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 .
Drawings
The drawings (Figs 2, 3, 5) are objected to because the unlabeled rectangular box(es) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels.
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.
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(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claim(s) 1, the limitation states
“monitoring the validity of a calibration of a system parameter,
wherein
a calibrated system parameter is generated 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,
…
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 by 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.”.
It is unclear:
-what the defined scope of a ‘system parameter’ is?
-what the defined scope of a ‘calibration’ and how it further limits the defined scope of the ‘system parameter’.
-Is the ‘calibrated system parameter’ a raw measurement from a sensor/measurement device or a calculated parameter?
-The limitations ‘a first signal representing the calibrated system parameter measured at the first wind turbine’ & ‘a second signal representing the calibrated system parameter measured by the second wind turbine’ make it unclear to what is being physically measured and by what physical component. The first signal is being measured ‘at’ the wind turbine and the second is being measured ‘by’ the wind turbine. Are these physical measurements or calculated parameters?
Defining the parameters being used in the mathematical algorithm will help make the claim language concise and definite.
For examination purposes, Examiner BRI of the claimed invention is to mathematically validate calibrated/adjusted/offset output data of a mathematical model with ground truth data corresponding/generally linked to wind turbines of a wind park.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, the limitation states
“wherein
the calibrated system parameter is
an absolute wind direction”.
It is unclear:
-how a ‘an absolute wind direction’ is a ‘calibrated system parameter’. POSITA would consider a wind direction to be an environmental parameter. Is this a measured parameter by a particular type of sensor? Is this a calculated parameter?
Defining the parameters being used in the mathematical algorithm will help make the claim language concise and definite.
With respect to Claim(s) 15, the limitation states
“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 a method according to claim 1”.
It is unclear what method of claim 1 is being executed?
The claim(s) should be amended to read
‘A non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1.’.
Claim(s) 3-14 is/are rejected as for being dependent on the above rejected parent claim(s).
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards 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’.
The claim(s) should be amended to read
‘A non-transitory computer readable media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1.’.
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,
wherein
a calibrated system parameter is generated,
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 by 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)).
Allowable Subject Matter (over prior art)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter over prior art:
Examiner’s closest prior art to the claimed subject matter:
KING ET AL. (US 20210310461 A1) teaches methods, systems, and devices for utilizing distributed reinforcement learning and consensus control to most effectively generate and utilize energy. In some embodiments, individual turbines within a wind farm may communicate to reach a consensus as to the desired yaw angle based on the wind conditions;
DUARTE PEREIRA ET AL. (US 20210190041 A1) teaches a method of operating a wind turbine with an operational parameter where values of the operational parameter are obtained by different sensors and compared to determine the validity of the value. A first value and a second value of the operational parameter are obtained different sensors and validated by comparing the two values. The wind turbine being operated using a validated value as the operational parameter. The two sensors are selected among a trained machine learning model, a reference sensor and a computerized physical model;
FLEMING ET AL. (US 20160215759 A1) teaches a system includes at least one processor and at least one module operable by the at least one processor to receive at least one sensor measurement. The at least one sensor measurement may include at least one of a wind speed measurement, or a wind direction measurement. The at least one module may be further operable to determine, using a stochastic filter, and based on the at least one sensor measurement, at least one predicted attribute of a wake generated by a wind turbine, the wind turbine being one of a plurality of wind turbines of a wind plant. The at least one module may be further operable to modify, based on the at least one predicted attribute of the wake, at least one wind turbine control variable for at least one wind turbine of the plurality of wind turbines and output the at least one wind turbine control variable;
EVANS ET AL. (US 20120101644 A1) teaches a control system for use with a plurality of wind turbines includes a processor and a memory device coupled to the processor. The memory device is configured to store a plurality of program modules that, when executed by the processor, configure the processor to receive data representative of a power generation of a first wind turbine of the plurality of wind turbines, and determine an expected power generation of a second wind turbine of the plurality of wind turbines based on the power generation of the first wind turbine;
WEITKAMP ET AL. (US 20070299548 A1) teaches a method for optimizing the operation of wind energy installations includes operating target and reference wind energy installations to optimize the target installation first using a first set of operating parameters and then using a second set of operating parameters different from the first operating parameters, recording target variables for the target wind energy installation and recording reference results of the reference wind energy installation in each case for both sets of operating parameters, performing an automated evaluation of the target variables by calculation of a quality measure taking account of the reference results, and determining in an automated manner based on the automated evaluation which of the sets of operating parameters has better quality measure. Each wind installation includes comprise a rotor, a generator driven by the rotor to produce electrical energy, and a controller operating the wind energy installation on the basis of a set of operating parameters.
None of the cited prior art alone or in combination provides motivation to explicitly teach:
monitoring the validity of a calibration of a system parameter,
wherein
a calibrated system parameter is generated 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,
…
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 by 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
of claim(s) 1 (including dependent claim(s)).
Conclusion
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 2857