DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a final rejection. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-15, as filed 12/26/2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged as shown on the filing receipt with the earliest date being 06/16/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitations “detection unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “detection…including a sensor that acquires detection data” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The Examiner notes that the sensor has not structure in the specification and is instead described purely by its functions. Thus the claimed “sensor” refers to anything that acquires detection data and provides no more structure than the detection unit alone.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1 and 14-15 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the detection unit is constituted for sensors (s1 to SN) and a collection device 30 [0014] and may include a camera [0015]. The examiner finds no structural disclosure for the detection unit or the sensors. For purposes of examining, the detection unit is treated as anything capable of performing the claimed functions and the sensors are interpreted as anything capable of acquiring detection data.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1, 4-6, and 8-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In Claims 1, 14, and 15, the limitation “detection unit including at least one sensor” invokes 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. Both the detection unit and the sensor are described purely by their function. 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, 4-6, and 8-15 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 claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture which recite:
1. A management system comprising:
a detection unit including at least one sensor that acquires detection data of a wind turbine generator (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; data gathering (i.e., acquiring sensor data); applying the abstract idea with a computer);
a controller that generates abnormality information indicating an abnormality or an abnormality sign in the wind turbine generator based on the detection data (abstract idea – mental process); and
a terminal device, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the abnormality information to the terminal device (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data output);
the controller is configured to specify an abnormal component in the wind turbine generator,
the abnormality information includes component information indicating the abnormal component (abstract idea – mental process),
the management system further comprises a delivery terminal involved with delivery of a component to be used in the wind turbine generator (additional element – applying the abstract idea with a computer);
the controller is configured to transmit order information for ordering a replacement component for the abnormal component to the delivery terminal (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data output), and
the controller is configured to cause the terminal device to give a notification about first checking information for checking with a user of the terminal device whether or not to transmit the order information to the delivery terminal (additional element – applying the abstract idea with a computer).
4. The management system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to specify a maintenance timing for the wind turbine generator, and the order information includes the maintenance timing (abstract idea – mental process).
5. The management system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to specify the maintenance timing based on the component information (abstract idea – mental process).
6. The management system according to claim 4, wherein the controller is configured to perform a process for suppressing driving of the wind turbine generator to allow the wind turbine generator to be driven until the maintenance timing (abstract idea – mental process; the examiner notes that the process is described at a high enough level to include the technician thinking that the apparatus should be stopped).
8. The management system according to claim 1, wherein, upon receipt of an input from the user to transmit the order information to the delivery terminal in accordance with the first checking information, the terminal device is configured to transmit the order information to the delivery terminal (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data output).
9. The management system according to claim 1, wherein each of a first component and a second component is defined as the replacement component, and the controller is configured to cause the terminal device to give a notification about second checking information for checking which one of the first component and the second component is to be ordered (additional element – applying the abstract idea with a computer)..
10. The management system according to claim 9, wherein, upon receipt of an input from a user about a component to be ordered in accordance with the second checking information, the terminal device is configured to transmit the order information for ordering the component to the delivery terminal (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data output).
11. The management system according to claim 9, wherein the second checking information includes a price of the first component and a price of the second component (abstract idea – mental process).
12. The management system according to claim 1, further comprising a reservation terminal involved with a reservation for a carrier that carries a maintenance person who performs maintenance for the wind turbine generator, wherein the controller is configured to transmit reservation information for reserving the carrier to the reservation terminal (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data output).
13. The management system according to claim 1 further comprising a maintenance terminal associated with a maintenance person of the wind turbine generator, wherein the controller is configured to transmit maintenance information required for reserving the maintenance person to the maintenance terminal (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; mere data output).
Claim 1 is presented as an exemplary claim but the same analysis applies to the other claims 14-15.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because generating abnormality data can practicably be performed mentally such as by a technician reviewing various sensor readings and manuals and then thinking of a repair that needs to be made. Other than reciting generic computer terms like a controller and terminal device, nothing in the claims precludes the italicized portions from practically being performed in the mind. The Examiner notes here that claim 1 is particularly analogous to the claimed invention in Electric Power Group because both inventions involve collecting information about an electricity transmission or generating device, analyzing it, and outputting a result. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims. Claims 2, 4-6, and 11 provide additional detail on aspects of the thought process a person could perform. For example, a person could consider the prices of two components, maintenance schedules, and considerations for individual sub-components.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, a controller performing the abnormality analysis amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0007], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. For example, acquiring detection data and transmitting abnormality information amounts to mere data gathering and output, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. For example, claims 3, 7-10, 12, and 13 recite additional limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering and output. Looking at the limitations 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, transmitting abnormality information (or other information such as order information in claims 3 and 7-8, notifications in claims 7 and 9-10, reservation information in claim 12, and maintenance information in claim 13) amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii), and/or storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the limitations 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella (US20200103894A1) in view of Vittal (US20100138267A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cella discloses: A management system comprising:
--a detection unit including at least a sensor that acquires detection data of a wind turbine generator (“the platform 100 may include the local data collection system 102 deployed in the environment 104 to monitor signals from additional large machines such as turbines, windmills, industrial vehicles, robots, and the like,” [0396]);
--a controller that generates abnormality information indicating an abnormality or an abnormality sign in the wind turbine generator based on the detection data (“c applying machine fault detection and classification algorithms thereto; and a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) that produces at least one of the orders and requests for service and parts responsive to receiving the industrial machine service recommendations,” [0057]; “methods for collection, processing, and use of data from and about industrial machines, including for purposes of predicting faults, anticipating needs for maintenance, and facilitating repairs,” [0008]); and
--a terminal device, wherein the controller is configured to transmit the abnormality information to the terminal device (“a service and delivery coordination facility that receives and processes information regarding services performed on industrial machines responsive to the at least one of orders and requests for service and parts, thereby validating the services performed while producing a ledger of service activity and results for individual industrial machines,” [0060]);
--the controller is configured to specify an abnormal component in the wind turbine generator, the abnormality information includes component information indicating the abnormal component (“mapping portions of the vibration data that have frequencies corresponding to an above the high-end knee threshold-range of the vibration frequency spectra to third severity units,” [0061]),
Cella does not expressly disclose but Vittal teaches:
--the management system further comprises a delivery terminal involved with delivery of a component to be used in the wind turbine generator; the controller is configured to transmit order information for ordering a replacement component for the abnormal component to the delivery terminal (“the method further comprises producing at least one of orders or requests for service and parts based on the industrial machine service recommendation,” [0073]; “The system may further include a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) that produces at least one of orders and requests for service and parts responsive to receiving the industrial machine service recommendations,” [4219]), and
--the controller is configured to cause the terminal device to give a notification about first checking information for checking with a user of the terminal device whether or not to transmit the order information to the delivery terminal (“Determining the time to failure of wind turbine 202 enables an operator of wind turbine 202 to plan for repair and/or replacement of wind turbine 202 or components of wind turbine 202, as opposed to merely reacting to an alarm from sensor 212 indicating a present fault or failure of wind turbine 202 requiring urgent repairs and/or replacement,” [0018]; the Examiner notes that the BRI of this limitation includes any signal or display (“a notification”) relating to the checking/verification step (“about first checking information”) that serves a particular purpose in the mind of the user (“for checking with a user…whether or not to transmit”)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Cella’s automated wind turbine repair orders to include the user-based workflow for Vittal because this would give the operator more flexibility in scheduling the repairs and thus extend the operational lifetime of the wind turbine (Vittal [0019]) and improve efficiency of electricity generation (Vittal [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Cella discloses: wherein the controller is configured to specify a maintenance timing for the wind turbine generator, and the order information includes the maintenance timing (“scheduled maintenance routing scheme (e.g., collecting from a greater set of overall sensors than in operational mode, but distributed across the system, or a focused sensor set for specific components, functions, and modes), one or more failure mode routing schemes for multiple focused sensor collection groups targeting different failure mode analyse,” [1058]; “an industrial machine predictive maintenance facilitating system may apply machine learning to images of industrial machines captured during operations such as assembly, testing, servicing, repair, upgrading, scheduled maintenance, preventive maintenance,” [4269]).
Regarding claim 5, Cella discloses: wherein the controller is configured to specify the maintenance timing based on the component information (“the CMMS subsystem 28622 or the ERP system may configure a request for bids by simply using the manufacturers manual for the procedure to provide the bidders with the required parts information (e.g., part numbers, vintage, revision, specifications, after-market alternatives, last price paid, if a used part is OK, and the like) and the repair actions necessary for the service action (e.g., the procedure steps, diagnostics, equipment/tools required, materials required, personnel required, and the like),” [4215]; [4239]; scheduling service based on service recommendations in [0073]).
Regarding claim 6, Cella does not expressly disclose but Vittal teaches: wherein the controller is configured to perform a process for suppressing driving of the wind turbine generator to allow the wind turbine generator to be driven until the maintenance timing (“upon determining that the time to failure of wind turbine 202 is nearing, system 200 can reduce a generator load 226 coupled to generator 228 of wind turbine 202 to reduce overall stress and load on components of wind turbine 202 and extend the operational lifetime of the corresponding wind turbine 202. In an alternative embodiment, system 200 increases generator load 226 coupled to wind turbine 202 by a load amount large enough to offset the reduced generator load 226 coupled to a different wind turbine 202. In yet another embodiment, system 200 increases each generator load 226 that is coupled to multiple wind turbines 202 each by a portion of the reduced generator load 226 whereby the sum of all the increases is large enough to offset the reduced generator load 226 coupled to a different wind turbine 202 nearing its time to failure,” [0019]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Cella’s wind turbine management to include the intentional reduction of function in response to maintenance timing as taught by Vittal to extend the operational lifetime of the wind turbine (Vittal [0019]).
Regarding claim 8, Cella does not expressly disclose but Vittal teaches: wherein, upon receipt of an input from the user to transmit the order information to the delivery terminal in accordance with the first checking information, the terminal device is configured to transmit the order information to the delivery terminal (“Determining the time to failure of wind turbine 202 enables an operator of wind turbine 202 to plan for repair and/or replacement of wind turbine 202 or components of wind turbine 202, as opposed to merely reacting to an alarm from sensor 212 indicating a present fault or failure of wind turbine 202 requiring urgent repairs and/or replacement,” [0018]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Cella’s automated wind turbine repair orders to include the user-based workflow for Vittal because this would give the operator more flexibility in scheduling the repairs and thus extend the operational lifetime of the wind turbine (Vittal [0019]) and improve efficiency of electricity generation (Vittal [0003]).
Regarding claim 9, Cella does not expressly disclose but Vittal teaches: wherein each of a first component and a second component is defined as the replacement component, and the controller is configured to cause the terminal device to give a notification about second checking information for checking which one of the first component and the second component is to be ordered (the choice among parts is based on known interchangeable components and is performed by the operator making the planned replacement/repair; “predetermined interchangeable wind turbine generator components, such as interchangeable replacement generators of varying generating capacities and interchangeable replacement rotor blades of varying sizes. Such interchangeable components may exhibit similar fault and/or failure patterns as wind turbine 202 and incorporating these patterns into historical data 222 may improve accuracy of controller's 405 determination of an estimate of the time to failure of wind turbine 202,” [0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Cella’s automated wind turbine repair orders to include the presentation of options of Vittal because this would increase the flexibility of the system, extend the operational lifetime of the wind turbine (Vittal [0019]), and improve efficiency of electricity generation (Vittal [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Cella does not expressly disclose but Vittal teaches: wherein, upon receipt of an input from a user about a component to be ordered in accordance with the second checking information, the terminal device is configured to transmit the order information for ordering the component to the delivery terminal (transmitting orders in [0016] and [0017]; operator planning for repair in [0018]).
The motivation to combine is the same as in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Cella discloses evaluating the prices of service and parts (“Service providers that are known to the CMMS subsystem 28622 as having successfully demonstrated experience with the procedure needed for the requested service may be contacted to provide a service estimate and/or a price estimate for service, parts, and the like,” [4213]). Cella does not expressly disclose but Vittal teaches: wherein the second checking information includes a price of the first component and a price of the second component (the choice among parts is based on known interchangeable components and is performed by the operator making the planned replacement/repair).
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Cella’s automated wind turbine repair orders with price information to include the presentation and selection of options of Vittal because this would increase the flexibility of the system, extend the operational lifetime of the wind turbine (Vittal [0019]), and improve efficiency of electricity generation (Vittal [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Cella discloses: a maintenance terminal associated with a maintenance person of the wind turbine generator, wherein the controller is configured to transmit maintenance information required for reserving the maintenance person to the maintenance terminal (“The controller is configured to determine an estimate of a time to failure of the wind turbine based on operational data and/or historical data corresponding to the wind turbine,” [0006]; “Determining the time to failure of wind turbine 202 enables an operator of wind turbine 202 to plan for repair and/or replacement of wind turbine 202 or components of wind turbine 202,” [0018]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Cella’s automated wind turbine repair orders to include the operator planning the repair as described in Vittal because this would increase the flexibility of the system, extend the operational lifetime of the wind turbine (Vittal [0019]), and improve efficiency of electricity generation (Vittal [0003]).
Claims 14 and 15 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella (US20200103894A1) in view of Vittal (US20100138267A1) and McCormick (US20100138267A1).
Regarding claim 12, Cella discloses a request for service of a wind turbine. Cella does not expressly disclose but McCormick teaches: a reservation terminal involved with a reservation for a carrier that carries a maintenance person who performs maintenance for the wind turbine generator, wherein the controller is configured to transmit reservation information for reserving the carrier to the reservation terminal (“a system for monitoring progress of a plurality of vehicles in a vehicle fleet can comprise a routing module configured to generate at least one predetermined route for at least one of the vehicles,” [0008]; “In addition, the routing module 110 can construct pre-dispatch or post-dispatch routes for vehicles based on any of a variety of routing algorithms,” [0031]; “the dispatch module 140 can provide functionality for users of the management devices 135 to assign drivers and vehicles to routes selected by the routing module 110,” [0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would before the effective filing date would have been motivated to expand Cella and Vittal’s automated wind turbine repair orders to include the dispatch and routing of vehicles as described in McCormick because this would allow Cella’s service requests to be fulfilled efficiently (McCormick [0022]).
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Regarding the subject matter ineligibility rejections, Applicant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to a mental process (Step 2A Prong One) because it requires machines like “a management system that includes a detection unit including at least a sensor that acquires detection data of a wind turbine generator, a controller that generates abnormality information, including specifying an abnormal component, and transmitting order information to a delivery terminal for ordering a replacement component, subject a user confirmation notification.” Remarks page 6. The inclusion of these components does not mean that the claim no longer recites abstract ideas. Instead, these machines have been analyzed as additional elements and are primarily the necessary result of using generic computers to perform the abstract idea. For example, a generic computer could receive wind turbine information through an interface/email/manual entry (i.e., a sensor that acquires data), analyze the data, and output a result in the form of an interface or email message to another computer (i.e., delivery terminal). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion that the sensors gather information that humans or general purpose computers cannot such as “vibration frequency of a bearing,” Remarks page 7, this is not required by the claim nor by the specification which merely uses this as an example of the data the sensor collects. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the sensor includes other more generic types of data. None of the components are claimed with any level of specificity that would preclude this interpretation.
Applicant argues that the claim affirmatively requires a user to be “presented with an order prompt for an identified abnormal component [and able to] affirmatively authorize or decline the order” which is not merely a display of a result but a control feature that serves the technical function of “preventing unnecessary orders while enabling timely procurement where appropriate.” Remarks page 7. This is not persuasive because the ordering of the part happens outside the claim. Claims 1, 14, and 15 each end by displaying a “notification about first checking information”. If the claim actually include a step of ordering or suppressing an order according to a user action at the end of the claim, this argument would be more persuasive.
Finally, Applicant attempts to distinguish from Electric Power Group because the claimed invention here takes a “concrete procurement action for a physical replacement component through a delivery terminal.” Remarks pages 7-8. This is not persuasive because the procurement step is merely transmitting information from one generic computer to another that is not distinct from EPG’s collection/analysis/output structure. The claimed invention just has a different type of data output.
For these reasons the eligibility rejections are maintained.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant asserts that the amended claim 1 (incorporating the limitations of claims 2, 3, and 7) is not obvious over Cella and Vittal because claim 7 “is allowable over the cited references”, Remarks page 9. The Examiner disagrees. Claim 7 was rejected as obvious on page 17 of the non-final rejection dated 09/25/2025. No arguments are made, so the rejections are maintained.
Regarding 112(f) and 112(b), Applicant argues that the amending including a sensor add sufficient structure to alleviate the issue. The Examiner disagrees because the sensor is described purely functionally. A review of the specification shows that the detection unit is constituted of sensors (S1 to SN) and a collection device 30 [0014] and may include a camera [0015]. The examiner finds no structural disclosure for the detection unit or the sensors.
Conclusion
Prior art cited but not relied upon for any rejection includes Wetzer (US20020143421A1) discloses in the Abstract: “The predictive maintenance factor may be defined by one or more of the following: a longevity estimate, a probability of failure, a financial estimate on maintenance of a component.” Additionally, before ordering a new part, Wetzer allows “the owner or operator of the equipment to veto the planned maintenance activity that is too expensive to be practical” in [0078].
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action (See MPEP 706.07(a)). Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, EST.
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, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624