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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-15 of the Preliminary Amendment dated 17 January 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 January 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-14 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 15 is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1-14 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101. Accordingly, claims 1-14 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below. Before further addressing claims 1-14 and the subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, claim 15 will be addressed.
Regarding claim 15 and Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claim fails to meet the criteria of Step 1 because the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Per the Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media Memorandum of January 26, 2010, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, drawn to a “readable information carrier” covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (or “readable information carrier,” as claimed), particularly when the specification, as in the present application, is silent. (See MPEP 2111.01.) When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.) Claims, such as claim 15, drawn to such a storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. (Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101).) Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. (See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).) But claim 15, in its present form, fails to meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. It is possible that even if claim 15 is amended to recite “non-transitory,” the claim still may not meet the criteria for patent eligibility for the reasons claims 1-14 fail to meet the criteria. Those reasons are outlined in the paragraphs below.
Turning back now to claims 1-14, the next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method for determining the production availability of an offshore wind farm, the offshore wind farm comprising at least one floating wind turbine, the method comprising the following steps ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... obtaining wind farm data relative to features of the offshore wind farm, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... obtaining strategy data relative to operation and maintenance resources to carry out an action on the floating wind turbine(s) of the offshore wind farm, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... obtaining meteorological data relative to an offshore environment for the offshore wind farm over a given period of time, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... determining motion parameters as a function of the wind farm data and of the meteorological data, the motion parameters being parameters quantifying the motions of at least an element, such as the nacelle or the floater, of a floating wind turbine of the offshore wind farm and/or the motions of a vessel aiming to reach said floating wind turbine to perform operation and/or maintenance actions on said floating wind turbine, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
“... determining the production availability of the offshore wind farm in the offshore environment over the given period of time on the basis of the wind farm data, of the strategy data, of the meteorological data, and of the determined motion parameters.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “obtaining” steps), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “determining” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitation:
The claimed “steps” are “computer-implemented” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitation of claim 1, when applying its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of its context in the claim as a whole, is analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, and mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2-14, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “method ... wherein the step for determining the production availability comprises, for each time step of the given period of time: determining any eventual non-productive events on the basis of the wind farm data, of the strategy data and of the meteorological data, a non-productive event being any event affecting the production of the offshore wind farm and for which an operation and/or maintenance action is requested, and at least in the case where a non-productive event has been determined, determining, on the basis of the motion parameters, the accessibility of the offshore wind farm for an operation and/or a maintenance action, the determined accessibility of the offshore wind farm for the considered time step affecting the production availability” of claim 2, the “method ... wherein the accessibility of the offshore wind farm is determined by evaluating whether the motions parameters for the considered time step reach predetermined accessibility criteria” of claim 3, the “method ... wherein the motion parameters are determined only for each time step of the given period of time for which a non-productive event has been determined at the preceding time step” of claim 4, the “method ... wherein ... predetermined meteorological conditions are associated to predetermined motion parameters for the offshore wind farm, the motion parameters being determined by comparing the meteorological data with the predetermined meteorological conditions of the database in order to obtain the predetermined meteorological conditions the closest from the meteorological data, the determined motion parameters being the predetermined motion parameters corresponding to the closest predetermined meteorological conditions” of claim 5, the “method ... wherein each floating wind turbine comprises a nacelle and a floater, the motion parameters comprising at least one of the following parameters: a parameter relative to the displacement of the nacelle of a floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the acceleration of the nacelle of a floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the displacement of the floater of a floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the acceleration of the floater of a floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the relative displacement of the floater of a floating wind turbine with respect to a given vessel aiming to reach said floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the relative acceleration of the floater of a floating wind turbine with respect to a given vessel aiming to reach said floating wind turbine, and a parameter relative to a slowdown of the cruising speed of a given vessel aiming to reach a floating wind turbine” of claim 6, the “method ... wherein the meteorological data comprise wind data and sea data, the sea data being relative to waves data and/or sea current” of claim 7, the “method ... wherein the strategy data comprise data relative to staffing and logistic means and data relative to offshore base and spare part” of claim 8, the “method ... wherein the wind farm data comprise at least one of the following elements: data relative to the floating wind turbines, data relative to wind farm design, data relative to failure rates of the floating wind turbines, data relative to scheduled maintenance and inspection, data relative to safety test, data relative to spare part management, and data relative to curative maintenance” of claim 9, the “method ... wherein at least a non-productive event, is one of the following events: inspection and preventive maintenance, breakdown and production shutdown, and curative maintenance” of claim 10, the “method ... wherein the step for determining the motion parameters is performed using an hydrodynamic model and the step for determining the production availability is performed using an operation and maintenance model” of claim 11, the “method ... wherein the determined production availability of the offshore wind farm is intended to be used for setting up operation and maintenance resources for carrying out operation and maintenance actions on the offshore wind farm” of claim 12, the “method ... wherein the method comprises a step for setting up operation and maintenance resources for carrying out operation and maintenance actions on the offshore wind farm as a function of the determined production availability of the offshore wind farm” of claim 13, and the “method ... wherein the wind farm data and/or the meteorological data comprise at least one piece of data obtained through a measurement” of claim 14). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “computer has access to a database in which” of claim 5, and the “performed by a sensor” of claim 14). Accordingly, claims 2-14 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rinaldi, Giovanni, Philipp R. Thies, and Lars Johanning. "Current status and future trends in the operation and maintenance of offshore wind turbines: A review." Energies 14.9 (2021): 2484 (hereinafter referred to as “Rinaldi”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method for determining the production availability of an offshore wind farm, the offshore wind farm comprising at least one floating wind turbine, the method comprising the following steps which are computer-implemented: ...” - Rinaldi discloses, “The offshore wind sector has grown significantly over recent years, reaching a total of 29.1 GW (over 10% of global wind installations) [1]. Previous experience with onshore wind turbines, combined with noteworthy investments, has allowed offshore wind to become one of the most viable and profitable ways of generating electricity [2]. Besides, in order to exploit stronger and more stable winds and to overcome the limitations related to the use of seabed-fixed foundations, there is a growing interest in floating offshore wind [3]. With offshore wind turbines at a mature stage, and considered reliable and consolidated machines, the margins for enhancement of the technology itself and of already installed turbines themselves are becoming increasingly limited. Nonetheless, there is a necessity to operate and maintain these assets efficiently and effectively, allowing them to reach high levels of availability and productivity” (p. 1), and Rinaldi discloses, “3.2. Computational Tools for O&M Planning” and “A large number of simulation tools have been developed in recent years to optimise the O&M planning of ORE farms and provide asset management support. Most tools simulate the dynamics of the farm over a certain period, typically the project lifetime, and analyse different aspects in order to identify bottlenecks in the O&M strategy and suggest possible areas for improvement. Each tool can be individually developed to capture one or multiple aspects of the farm logistics, as well as to span multiple planning horizons [22]” (p. 4). Operation of the computational tools for determining availability and productivity of floating offshore wind turbines, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... obtaining wind farm data relative to features of the offshore wind farm, ...” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “Figure 3. Summary of the typical inputs, constraints, mechanisms and outputs considered in an offshore O&M tool” and “INPUTS” including “Number and power rating of devices” (p. 5). Obtaining inputs about devices of the offshore wind turbines, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... obtaining strategy data relative to operation and maintenance resources to carry out an action on the floating wind turbine(s) of the offshore wind farm, ...” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses in “Figure 3” the receipt of “MECHANISMS” including “Corrective maintenance regime,” and “CONSTRAINTS” including “Type and number of vessels” (p. 5). Receiving the corrective maintenance regime and type and number of vessels for performing maintenance on the offshore wind turbines, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... obtaining meteorological data relative to an offshore environment for the offshore wind farm over a given period of time, ...” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses in “Figure 3” the receipt of “CONSTRAINTS” including “weather” (p. 5). Receiving weather data for the offshore wind farm over various time periods and planning horizons, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determining motion parameters as a function of the wind farm data and of the meteorological data, the motion parameters being parameters quantifying the motions of at least an element, such as the nacelle or the floater, of a floating wind turbine of the offshore wind farm and/or the motions of a vessel aiming to reach said floating wind turbine to perform operation and/or maintenance actions on said floating wind turbine, and ...” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “However, the floating nature of the platform will bring about a series of new requirements, such as additional environmental parameters to monitor, e.g., hydrodynamic loadings and platform motions. While corrosion is expected to cause known problems, fatigue due to wave and wind loadings has to be assessed in view of the floating nature of the platform, especially in regard to the tower and foundation/mooring failure mechanisms. An increased use of control systems to monitor the platform motions will also lead to a higher number of electrical and power electronics-related failures” (p. 10), and “farm inspection and repair activities. The former can be used to monitor different sections of the tower and the nacelle, including the blades, often avoiding the need to shut down the device” (p. 11). Determining platform motions due to environmental parameters, wherein platforms of floating wind turbines include nacelles thereon, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determining the production availability of the offshore wind farm in the offshore environment over the given period of time on the basis of the wind farm data, of the strategy data, of the meteorological data, and of the determined motion parameters.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Determining availability and productivity of the floating offshore wind turbines over various time periods and planning horizons, based on the inputs, constraints, and mechanisms, including number and power rating of devices, corrective maintenance regimes, weather, and platform motions, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the step for determining the production availability comprises, for each time step of the given period of time: ...” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. The determining of availability and productivity for various time periods and planning horizons, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... determining any eventual non-productive events on the basis of the wind farm data, of the strategy data and of the meteorological data, a non-productive event being any event affecting the production of the offshore wind farm and for which an operation and/or maintenance action is requested, and ...” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses that “Figure 3” includes “OUTPUTS” like “Availability and Downtime” (p. 5). Determining downtime based on the number and power rating of devices of the floating wind turbines, the corrective maintenance regime, and the weather, wherein the downtime is used to perform the maintenance, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
“... at least in the case where a non-productive event has been determined, determining, on the basis of the motion parameters, the accessibility of the offshore wind farm for an operation and/or a maintenance action, the determined accessibility of the offshore wind farm for the considered time step affecting the production availability.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “the floating nature of the platform will bring about a series of new requirements, such as additional environmental parameters to monitor, e.g., hydrodynamic loadings and platform motions” (p. 10), and “In the offshore wind sector, due to the increasing volume of performance monitoring and component health indicators, as well as the inclusion of vessel parameters during live operations” (p. 19). For instances of downtime to perform maintenance, determining accessibility of the floating wind turbines for the maintenance action, for various time periods and planning horizons, all of which affect availability and productivity, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited “at least in the case where a non-productive event has been determined, determining ... the accessibility of the offshore wind farm for an operation and/or a maintenance action, the determined accessibility of the offshore wind farm for the considered time step affecting the production availability” limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein each floating wind turbine comprises a nacelle and a floater, the motion parameters comprising at least one of the following parameters: ...” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “the floating nature of the platform” (p. 10), and “to monitor different sections of the tower and the nacelle” and “foundations (both fixed and floating)” (p. 11).
“... a parameter relative to the displacement of the nacelle of a floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the acceleration of the nacelle of a floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the displacement of the floater of a floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the acceleration of the floater of a floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the relative displacement of the floater of a floating wind turbine with respect to a given vessel aiming to reach said floating wind turbine, a parameter relative to the relative acceleration of the floater of a floating wind turbine with respect to a given vessel aiming to reach said floating wind turbine, and a parameter relative to a slowdown of the cruising speed of a given vessel aiming to reach a floating wind turbine.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Considering motion of the floating platform, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the meteorological data comprise wind data and sea data, the sea data being relative to waves data and/or sea current.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “the collected parameters typically include environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed, relative humidity, ambient temperature, turbulence” (p. 9), and “wave and wind loadings” and “platform motions” (p. 10). Data including wind speed and wave loadings or platform motion (due to waves and wind), in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the strategy data comprise data relative to staffing and logistic means and data relative to offshore base and spare part.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “Resource dependence--maintenance is constrained by a limited amount of a certain resource, e.g., spare parts, tools and technicians” (p. 7). The data about limited amounts of technicians and spare parts, relative to the floating platforms, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation. See also the other inputs and constraints in “Figure 3” of Rinaldi (p. 5).
Regarding claim 9, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the wind farm data comprise at least one of the following elements: data relative to the floating wind turbines, data relative to wind farm design, data relative to failure rates of the floating wind turbines, data relative to scheduled maintenance and inspection, data relative to safety test, data relative to spare part management, and data relative to curative maintenance.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Data about any of the floating wind turbines, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein at least a non-productive event, is one of the following events: inspection and preventive maintenance, breakdown and production shutdown, and curative maintenance.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Data about “Planned maintenance and inspections” and “Corrective maintenance,” in Rinaldi (see “Figure 3” on p. 5), reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the determined production availability of the offshore wind farm is intended to be used for setting up operation and maintenance resources for carrying out operation and maintenance actions on the offshore wind farm.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. The determined availability and productivity of floating wind turbines being used to schedule maintenance of equipment by technicians, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
A method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises a step for setting up operation and maintenance resources for carrying out operation and maintenance actions on the offshore wind farm as a function of the determined production availability of the offshore wind farm.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. The scheduling of technicians and vessels for performing maintenance on floating wind turbines, based on the availability and productivity of the floating wind turbines, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the wind farm data and/or the meteorological data comprise at least one piece of data obtained through a measurement performed by a sensor.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “integrating real motion sensors with numerical models and simulation tools, allowing one to obtain parameters” (p. 11), “Appropriate sensors to monitor the machines” (p. 14), “motion sensors” (p. 15), and the like. Use of the sensors to obtain parameters, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Rinaldi discloses the following limitations:
“A readable information carrier on which a computer program product is stored, the computer program causing execution of at least the obtaining and determining steps of a method according to claim 1 when the computer program is carried out on a data processing unit.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “Modern software architecture” (p. 9), “AI includes a range of techniques which support the development of intelligent behaviour in computers and machines” (p. 17), among other computer hardware features (see, e.g., p. 19). The system being made up of one or more combinations of such elements, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinaldi, in view of Chou, Shuo-Yan, and Tiffany Hui-Kuang Yu. "Developing an exhaustive optimal maintenance schedule for offshore wind turbines based on risk-assessment, technical factors and cost-effective evaluation." Energy 249 (2022): 123613 (hereinafter referred to as “Nguyen”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rinaldi and Nguyen (hereinafter referred to as “Rinaldi/Nguyen”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Rinaldi:
“A method according to claim 2, wherein the accessibility of the offshore wind farm is determined by evaluating whether the motions parameters for the considered time step reach predetermined accessibility criteria.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Nguyen discloses, “However, in very harsh weather conditions, the physical and cognitive performance of technicians is affected significantly. For example, the abnormally temperature (too cold or too hot) may induce the breathing difficulty, muscular stiffness, frost bite, lowered metabolism, hypothermia, bulky clothing, stiffness of suits impairing movement, and slippery surfaces [73]. The fog effect may reduce visibility. Typhoon may cause collision of maintenance vessels. As a result, the level of harsh weather condition in “consequence 3” makes technicians more susceptible to physical injuries, and increase the collision of maintenance vessels. The collision or overthrow of maintenance vessels and major failure of offshore wind system hinder major release of chemical to the environment” and “The threshold limit associated to external temperature follows API standard 581 [74]. Beaufort wind scale proposed by Shaw and Austin [75] is considered to account of threshold limit of wind speed. The guidelines of Taiwan Central Weather Bureau are adopted to set a trigger value for waves heights and typhoon. The threshold limit of snowfall, low visibility is identified by Kunkel et al. [76] and DOA-Department of Army [77] respectively” (p. 10). The accessibility for technicians being defined based on movements associated with collisions, overthrow of vessels, wave heights, wind speed, and the like, and whether they have reached threshold limits, in Nguyen, when applied in the context of considering platform motions and related parameters, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited limitation.
Nguyen discloses “Developing an exhaustive optimal maintenance schedule for offshore wind turbines” (title), similar to the claimed invention and to Rinaldi. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the considering of platform motions, hydrodynamic loading, and the like, in Rinaldi, to take into account the motion parameters and associated threshold limits, of Nguyen, to avoid affecting physical and cognitive performance of technicians performing maintenance, per Nguyen (see p. 10).
Regarding claim 4, Rinaldi/Nguyen teaches the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 2, wherein the motion parameters are determined only for each time step of the given period of time for which a non-productive event has been determined at the preceding time step.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi and Nguyen that have been referenced above. The determining of platform motion (Rinaldi), wind speed, wave heights, and the like (Nguyen), for periods of time and planning horizons, following determination of downtime for maintenance to be performed (Rinaldi), in Rinaldi/Nguyen, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 3, also apply to this rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Rinaldi/Nguyen teaches the following limitations:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the computer has access to a database in which predetermined meteorological conditions are associated to predetermined motion parameters for the offshore wind farm, the motion parameters being determined by comparing the meteorological data with the predetermined meteorological conditions of the database in order to obtain the predetermined meteorological conditions the closest from the meteorological data, the determined motion parameters being the predetermined motion parameters corresponding to the closest predetermined meteorological conditions.” - See the aspects of Rinaldi and Nguyen that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “Signal and alarms from CM instrumentation, together with real-time power performance and environmental parameters, are collected by the so-called supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. Raw SCADA data are processed to organise the information and create reports and dashboards which inform on the device performance. Apart from failure logs, the collected parameters typically include environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed, relative humidity, ambient temperature, turbulence) and device information (e.g., rotor and generator speeds, lubrication state, currents and voltages, generated power or downtime due to failure). Hundreds of signals can be collected for each device. The frequency of data collection is typically five or ten minutes, eventually with records averaged over this interval and related statistical measures. From the device, the information is transmitted via an appropriate telecommunication network. The use of SCADA systems to derive O&M indications and complement historical failure databases is documented in [69–73]” (p. 9). The computational tools accessing the historical failure databases having collected parameters including environmental conditions in association with turbulence, component speeds, and the like, for the floating offshore turbines, to derive indications based thereon, in various periods of time and planning horizons, in Rinaldi, when extended to include consideration of motions and thresholds, as in Nguyen, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 3, also apply to this rejection of claim 5.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rinaldi in view of Papadopoulos, Petros, David W. Coit, and Ahmed Aziz Ezzat. "Seizing opportunity: Maintenance optimization in offshore wind farms considering accessibility, production, and crew dispatch." IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy 13.1 (2021): 111-121 (hereinafter referred to as “Papadopoulos”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rinaldi and Papadopoulos (hereinafter referred to as “Rinaldi/Papadopoulos”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Rinaldi:
“A method according to claim 1, wherein the step for determining the motion parameters is performed using an hydrodynamic model and the step for determining the production availability is performed using an operation and maintenance model.” - Papadopoulos discloses, “For both the STH and LTH, point forecasts of wind speed ... and wave height ... are available to the operator a priori. In practice, those forecasts can be obtained via meso-scale numerical weather prediction (NWP) models [26] ..., statistical/machine learning models [27, 28]” (p. 3). Determining motion parameters using the NWP models, in Papadopoulos, reads on the recited “wherein the step for determining the motion parameters is performed using an hydrodynamic model” limitation. See the aspects of Rinaldi that have been referenced above. Rinaldi also discloses, “Condition-based maintenance (CBM) is an approach focused on the combination of data-driven reliability models with data collected from sensors and condition monitoring (CM) systems in order to develop improved O&M strategies [15]” (p. 5). Determining maintenance aspects, including availability and downtime, using the reliability models, in Rinaldi, reads on the recited “the step for determining the production availability is performed using an operation and maintenance model” limitation. Note also the disclosing of “a so-called “digital twin”. This is a high-fidelity model which describes an object and its environment” in Rinaldi (p. 11).
Papadopoulos discloses, “Operations and Maintenance (O&M)” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Rinaldi. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included, as input data in Rinaldi, the NWP, machine learning, and/or statistical models, of Papadopoulos, for their accuracy based on various time horizons, per Papadopoulos (see p. 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2013/0332220 A1 to Nielsen discloses, “A method of scheduling a service of a wind turbine is provided. A projected energy production and/or a projected revenue production of a wind turbine over a specific time period is calculated, and a service for the wind turbine during the specific time period based upon the projected energy production and/or the projected revenue production is scheduled. Further, a non-volatile computer readable medium storing a program code executing the method and a service planning tool for wind turbines are provided.” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2014/0244328 A1 to Zhou et al. discloses, “A service planning engine may predict the future wind speed at a wind farm as well as the future price of energy of the utility grid coupled to the wind turbines. Based on the predicted values, the service planning engine identifies times to perform maintenance when lost revenue is minimized--e.g., when the predicted price of energy is low. Furthermore, the service planning engine may calculate a service priority associated with the turbine to determine when to perform service. The service priority may be based on a status signal associated with the component to be serviced or the time window stipulated in the service contract for performing the maintenance. In one embodiment, the service planning engine also considers resource constraints such as labor costs (e.g., work schedules, overtime costs, availability of technicians with certain skills, availability of components, shipping costs, and the like).” (Abstract.)
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0161671 A1 to Eom et al. discloses, “The present disclosure relates to a method and a system for repairing a wind generator based on weather information. According to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, it is possible to effectively calculate a repairing time of the wind generator based on weather information.” (Abstract.)
EP Pat. App. Pub. No. 3 650 684 A1 to Martinez et al. discloses, “An automated method to determine modal characteristics of a wind turbine tower at an offshore location in a continuous manner includes reading one or more sensor data signals, prefiltering the one or more sensor data signals to divide the signals into a plurality of time segments, obtaining a frequency domain representation of each of the plurality of time segments by computing a Power Spectral Density (PSD) of each of the time segments to identify one or more frequency peaks in each of the time segments, assigning a probability to each of the frequency peaks in the PSD of each of the time segments, combining all assigned probabilities and determining the likelihood of the one or more frequency peaks. Also disclosed is an offshore wind turbine tower having a turbine control system utilizing the automated method to determine modal characteristics of the wind turbine.” (Abstract.)
Clément, Constance, et al. "Numerical wave tank including a fixed vertical cylinder subjected to waves, towards the investigation of floating offshore wind turbine hydrodynamics." International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering. Vol. 84379. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2020.
Ren, Zhengru, et al. "Offshore wind turbine operations and maintenance: A state-of-the-art review." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 144 (2021): 110886.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624