DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: acquiring unit, first determining unit, and calculating unit, second determining unit, and storing unit in claims 8-14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 8-14 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.
Claim limitations “acquiring unit, first determining unit, and calculating unit, second determining unit, and storing unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There is no structure or device discussed with respect to what the “units” are beyond “standard blocks”, also not defined, in published paragraph [0018]. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-2, 6-9, 13-14 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. (2014).
To determine whether a claim is patent eligible and not directed to a judicial exception, one skilled in the art must first determine whether the claims can be classified in one of the four recognized statutory categories, i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). In the instant case claims 1-2 and 6-7 recite a method in the preamble, and claims 8-9, 13-14 recite a device in the preamble, therefore are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Next, a two-part analysis, as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), is used to determine whether the subject matter recited in the claims are directed to a recognized judicial exception, and if so, is there additional limitations in the claims that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination, so as to render the claims patent eligible. This two-part analysis is the subject of the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance. In part one of the analyses, one skilled in the art must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a judicial exception, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-14 each recite various units to acquire, calculate, determine and store data. The units receive information, determine information, and store information. The reception and transmission of information and the determining or manipulation of information requires nothing more than well-understood conventional mathematical concepts which can be used on a general purpose computer. In other words, determining data and comparing data is similar to the concept of gathering information where that information is compared and formatted for transmission. This basic concept of gathering data/information for transmission and comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options have been identified by the courts as an abstract idea (see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Therefore, claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-14 are directed to an abstract idea.
In part two of the two-part analysis, one skilled in the art must determine whether the claims recite additional limitations that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (in this case that would be an abstract idea), either individually or as an ordered combination. Each of claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-14 do not include additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art is Applicant-cited Caselitz et al. (Rotor Condition Monitoring for Improved Operational Safety of Offshore Wind Energy Converters).
Caselitz teaches the measurement of nacelle oscillation including an acceleration sensor 3, Fig. 3, to measure axial acceleration in the direction of the rotor axis. Caselitz requires complex spectral components to determine the torsional and transverse oscillations. Caselitz teaches, Fig. 10, that the correlation between power and the axial nacelle oscillation is insufficient to classify (as alarming) because there is not enough of a correlation whereas the transverse oscillation (Fig. 9) does have a sufficient correlation to classify. The assessment directed to torsional and transverse oscillations is further illustrated in Fig. 6 (the acceleration spectral amplitudes of the both transverse mounted sensors, upper two diagrams) and Fig. 7 (the transverse and torsion 1p oscillation amplitudes of the nacelle). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would not be motivated by the teaching of Caselitz to use only the axial oscillations in determining an icing condition (imbalance). Rather, a person having ordinary skill in the art would only be motivated by hindsight based to achieve the method of claim 3 in light of Caselitz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 10/9/25
/DAVID Z HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855