DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on May 23, 2024. Claims 1 – 30 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 30 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 30, the phrase “the control system” lacks antecedent basis.
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 16 – 26 and 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The following rejection is based on the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
Does claim 1 fall into one of the statutory categories? Yes. The preamble of claim 1 recite a method, and the body of the claim positively recites a series of method steps. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a process.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Do claims 16, 17, 20 – 23, 25 and 28 – 30 recite a judicial exception? Yes. The claims recite the limitations of
determining an energy level of the one or more movement signals at a rotational speed frequency of the rotor; comparing the energy level of the one or more movement signals at the rotational speed frequency of the rotor to an energy threshold; and determining that an imbalance exists in the rotor when the energy level of the one or more movement signals at the rotational speed frequency of the rotor is above the energy threshold (see Claim 16);
determining an energy level of the one or more movement signals at a first natural frequency of a tower of the wind turbine; and determining the energy threshold at least partially based on the energy level of the one or more movement signals at the first natural frequency of the tower (see Claim 17);
calculating a Root Mean Square of the one or more movement signals during a time window (see Claim 20);
filtering the one or more movement signals to determine the energy level of the one or more movement signals at the rotational speed frequency of the rotor (see Claim 21);
determining the energy level of the one or more movement signals at the rotational speed frequency or the rotor in the fore-aft direction and in the side-to-side direction; determining that an aerodynamic imbalance or a mass imbalance of the rotor exists based on the energy level of the one or more signals at the rotational speed frequency of the rotor in the fore-aft direction and in the side-to-side direction (see Claim 25);
The determining, calculating and filtering limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than implicitly or directly reciting “a control system” nothing in the claim precludes the determining, calculating and filtering steps from practically being performed in the human mind and/or visually. For example, but for the “control system” language, the claims encompass the user to manually and/or visually perform the aforementioned steps. As such, these claim limitations are considered mental processes.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Do claims 16, 17, 20 – 23, 25 and 28 – 30 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. The claims recite additional element: receiving one or more movement signals indicative of oscillations of the wind turbine (see Claim 16); using a notch filter (see Claim 22); using a bandpass filter (see Claim 23); and the one or movement signals are obtained from one or more accelerometers (see Claim 28).
The receiving and obtaining steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of: one or more movement signals indicative of oscillations of the wind turbine: and one or more movement signals from one or more accelerometers), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
As for the using steps, those limitations are also recited at a high level of generality. There are no recited improvements to the functioning of the notch filter or the bandpass filter or any other technology mentioned in the claims. In addition, there is no transformation of any article recited.
As such, the generic control system limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 16, 17, 20 – 23, 25 and 28 – 30 are directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Do claims 16, 17, 20 – 23, 25 and 28 – 30 provide an inventive concept? No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Claims 16, 17, 20 – 23, 25 and 28 – 30 are ineligible.
As to claims 18, 19, 24 and 26, the limitation in these claims further define the abstract idea. As a result, these narrower definitions fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 16 – 26 and 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent toapplicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0340942 A1 to Pierce discloses a method for compensating an imbalance of a wind rotor of a wind turbine includes applying at least one test-offset to a parameter characterizing a state of the wind rotor, wherein the imbalance depends on the parameter; measuring for the at least one test-offset an acceleration of the wind turbine, wherein the acceleration depends on the imbalance; and determining a compensation-offset based on the measured acceleration, wherein the imbalance is at least partially compensated, when the compensation-offset is applied to the parameter. Furthermore, a corresponding wind turbine includes a control unit configured to carry out the above method.
CA 2778216 A1 to Jeffrey et al. discloses a method and system for determining aerodynamic imbalances of a wind turbine rotor and optionally correcting such imbalances, as well as a method and system for determining mass imbalances of a wind turbine rotor and optionally correcting such imbalances. The aerodynamic imbalances may be detected and corrected using optical analysis of images of the wind turbine rotor. The mass imbalances may be detected and corrected using vibration analysis of the wind turbine rotor, typically using accelerometers or possibly other vibration sensors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights