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
Claims 7 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 1 of claim 7, the claim 7 recites “wherein combining”. It appears that this claim 7 should depend from claim 2 because claim 1 does not recite any limitations for combining the one or more failure prediction scores and the one or more health condition scores. Similarly, it appears that claim 16 should be amended to depend from claim 11.
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 sensor data for a period of time, the sensor data from one or more sensors of one or more components of one or more renewable energy assets; generating, based on applying one or more trained machine learning models to the sensor data, one or more failure prediction scores for the one or more renewable energy assets; generating, based on applying one or more trained health assessment models to the sensor data, one or more health condition scores for the one or more renewable energy assets, comparing the one or more failure prediction scores to one or more trigger criteria; and prioritizing, based on the one or more failure prediction scores and the one o more health condition scores a first set of the one or more renewable energy assets for at least one of maintenance, surveillance, or monitoring. The limitations require the observance of received data comparison to received signals to healthy signals and analysis with a machine learning model and a health assessment 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 one or more alerts if comparing the one or more failure prediction scores to the one or more trigger criteria indicates one or more failure predictions, the one or more alerts indicating at least one component of the one or more components or at least one renewable energy asset of the one or more renewable energy assets and information regarding the one or more failure predictions.
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).
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-9 do not recite any further, additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-9 are rejected for the same reason.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106, subsection III), claim 10 is directed to a method, which is a process and thus falls within a statutory category (MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Per step 2A, prong 1, claim 10 recites an abstract idea similar to that recited in claim 1.
The additional element recited in claim 10 is generating and transmitting one or more alerts if comparing the one or more failure prediction scores to the one or more trigger criteria indicates one or more failure predictions, the one or more alerts indicating at least one component of the one or more components or at least one renewable energy asset of the one or more renewable energy assets and information regarding the one or more failure predictions.
Per step 2A, prong 2, This judicial exception in claim 10 is not integrated into a practical application. 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)).
Per step 2B, claim 10 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).
Claims 11-18 depend from claim 10 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 11-18 do not recite any further, additional elements. Therefore, claims 11-18 are rejected for the same reason.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test (See MPEP 2106, subsection III), claim 19 is directed to a system, which is a product and thus falls within a statutory category (MPEP 2106.03, subsection II).
Claim 19 recites an abstract idea and additional elements similar to those recited in claim 1, and is therefore rejected for the same reason.
Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claim 20 does not recite any further, additional elements. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that claim 1 includes features that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, such as: “generating, based on applying one or more trained machine learning models to the sensor data, one or more failure prediction scores for the one or more renewable energy assets; generating, based on applying one or more trained health assessment models to the sensor data, one or more health condition scores for the one or more renewable energy assets.” Applicant further states that the human mind is not equipped to process real-time data from hundreds of different environmental, electrical and mechanical sensors, let alone apply one or more trained machine learning models or one or more trained health assessment models to such data. However, the claims do not require analyzing data from hundreds of sensors and the claim does not provide any details of the claimed trained machine learning model or trained health assessment mode. Further, while a human mind may be slower to analyze a large amount of data than a computer, this does not mean the human mind is incapable of doing the analysis. The claim requires receiving sensor data for a period of time from one or more sensors and generating two different scores with two different models, respectively. 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).
Applicant states that claim 1 does not recite a mathematical relationship, mathematical formula or equation, or a mathematical calculation. However, comparing a value such as a score to a criteria is a mathematical relationship and generating the score is disclosed as an equation (Specification, pars. 149, 274, 275).
Applicant states that one practical application of the features recited in the claims is that alerts may be generated and transmitted for renewable energy assets that may be at risk of component failures. However, as discussed above, 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)).
Applicant states that the claims recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant states that, for example, claim 1 recites "prioritizing, based on the one or more failure prediction scores and the one or more health condition scores, a first set of the one or more renewable energy assets for at least one of maintenance, surveillance, or monitoring," and that Applicant's Specification states that a health condition scoring process may be utilized in conjunction with a failure prediction process to create a hybrid process to reduce cost related to scheduled service, surveillance service, CIM, or reactive service. However, the claim limitations for prioritizing, renewable energy assets for at least one of maintenance, surveillance, or monitoring are further details are judgment or opinion that can be performed in the human mind and are further details of the abstract idea.
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments, see pages 12-14, filed 26 May 2026, with respect to 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2011/0020122 to Parthasarathy et al. teaches a maintenance system for wind turbines that includes prioritizing maintenance actions (pars. 9, 11, 12).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights