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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, on line 20 of the claim, after prediction insert --of--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106, subsection III), claim 1 is directed to a non-statutory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture and thus falls within a statutory category (MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites receiving historical wind turbine component failure data and wind turbine asset data from one or more SCADA systems during a first period of time; receiving first historical sensor data of the first period of time, the first historical sensor data including sensor data from one or more sensors of one or more components of any number of renewable energy assets, the first historical sensor data indicating at least one first failure associated with the one or more components of the renewable energy asset during the first time period; determining healthy assets of the any number of renewable energy assets by comparing one or more signals from the one or more SCADA systems to known healthy operating signals; training at least one machine learning model to indicate a first set of the one or more number of renewable energy assets that may potentially fail and to indicate a second set of the one or more number of renewable energy assets that are operating within a healthy threshold; receiving first current sensor data of a second time period, the first current sensor data including sensor data from the one or more sensors of the one or more components of the any number of renewable energy assets; applying the at least one machine learning model to the current sensor data to generate a first failure prediction a failure of at least one component of the one or more components and to generate a list of renewable energy assets that are operating within a healthy threshold; comparing the first failure prediction to a trigger criteria;; and updating a list of renewable energy assets to perform surveillance based on the list of renewable energy assets that are operating within a healthy threshold. The limitations require the observance of received data comparison to received signals to healthy signals and analysis with a machine learning model. The claim limitations require observation and judgment that can be performed in the human mind and mathematical relationships. Therefore, the claim limitations fall into the mental processes grouping and mathematical concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsections I and III).
The additional elements recited in claim 1 are the non-transitory computer readable medium and generating and transmitting a first alert if comparing the first failure prediction to the trigger criteria indicates a failure prediction, the alert indicating the at least one component of the one or more components and information regarding the failure prediction
Per step 2A, prong 2, This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of the non-transitory computer readable medium amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The step for generating and transmitting an alert is merely outputting the result of the abstract idea, which is insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). When considered in combination, the additional elements merely provide a generic computer component for implementing the abstract idea with the ability to output the result.
Per step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. Further, the courts have recognized that outputting data is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2018/228648 to Damgaard et al. (Damgaard).
Claim 1
With regard to receiving historical wind turbine component failure data and wind turbine asset data from one or more SCADA systems during a first period of time; Damgaard teaches receiving data related to a failure rate of a wind turbine component based on historic data and health value/health status information (page 4, lines 1-20; page 17, lines 24-26).
With regard to receiving first historical sensor data of the first period of time, the first historical sensor data including sensor data from one or more sensors of one or more components of any number of renewable energy assets, the first historical sensor data indicating at least one first failure associated with the one or more components of the renewable energy asset during the first time period; Damgaard teaches receiving data from sensors indicating failures of a wind turbine component (Fig. 1, sensors 9, wind components 1, wind turbine 2; page 2, lines 25-28; page 3, lines 30, 31; page 4, lines 16-20; page 12, lines 27-31).
With regard to determining healthy assets of the any number of renewable energy assets by comparing one or more signals from the one or more SCADA systems to known healthy operating signals; Damgaard teaches comparing data from a database with measured data to indicate health status (page 2, lines 25-28; page 4, lines 2-7; page 5, lines 7-20; page 17, lines 24-26).
With regard to training at least one machine learning model to indicate a first set of the one or more number of renewable energy assets that may potentially fail and to indicate a second set of the one or more number of renewable energy assets that are operating within a healthy threshold; Damgaard teaches machine learning algorithms to predict failures enabling predictive maintenance (page 18, line 14 – page 19, line 2).
With regard to receiving first current sensor data of a second time period, the first current sensor data including sensor data from the one or more sensors of the one or more components of the any number of renewable energy assets; Damgaard teaches receiving data input from existing sensors (page 9, lines 25-27; page 13, lines 27-29; page 15, lines 18-23).
With regard to applying the at least one machine learning model to the current sensor data to generate a first failure prediction a failure of at least one component of the one or more components and to generate a list of renewable energy assets that are operating within a healthy threshold; Damgaard teaches that the monitoring algorithm, which is disclosed as being developed using machine language provides a health status of monitored components (page 15, lines 18-23).
With regard to comparing the first failure prediction to a trigger criteria; Damgaard teaches comparing a residual to a component defined threshold (page 5, lines 7-20; page 26, lines 11-19).
With regard to generating and transmitting a first alert if comparing the first failure prediction to the trigger criteria indicates a failure prediction, the alert indicating the at least one component of the one or more components and information regarding the failure prediction; Damgaard teaches setting an alarm if the difference between a parameter and an estimated value exceeds a threshold (page 5, lines 7-20; page 26, lines 11-19).
With regard to updating a list of renewable energy assets to perform surveillance based on the list of renewable energy assets that are operating within a healthy threshold, Damgaard teaches updating a health status and updating a database to update reliability information (page 4, lines 5-7; page 15, lines 18-23; page 26, lines 4-9).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,509,136. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of the ‘136 patent recites all the limitations of claim 1 of the present application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857