DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: every claim lacks an opening article, such as “A” or “The”, before the first claimed subject. For instance, claim 1 recites, “Computer-implemented method” (line 1), which is grammatically incorrect and should be corrected to recite, “A computer-implemented method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims are directed at methods and apparatus and therefore are directed at one of the four statutory categories
Step 2A prong 1
Prong 1 requires the Examiner to determine whether the claims recite an abstract idea that fall under one of the following four categories:
a) mathematical concept,
b) certain methods of organizing human activity,
c) mental process, or
d) other abstract ideas such as an idea of itself.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold below; the remaining limitations are "additional elements."
Specifically representative Claim 1 recites:
1. Computer-implemented method for monitoring a generator of a wind turbine for detecting interturn short-circuit faults in at least one stator winding set of the generator, wherein a strength of a second harmonic of a power produced from the stator winding set and the DC value of the power are determined (abstract, represents routine data gathering with mathematical treatment, as well as extra-solution activity; note that a “computer-implemented method” is analogous to a computer program product, as discussed below this claim analysis), wherein, in respective time steps,
- a first analysis criterion describing the DC value of the power being constant evaluates the DC value of the power (abstract, represents routine data gathering with mathematical treatment and mental processes),
- a second analysis criterion describing the occurrence of a transient in the strength of the second harmonic evaluates the strength of the second harmonic (abstract, represents routine data gathering with mathematical treatment and mental processes), and
- an interturn short-circuit fault signal is generated if the first and the second analysis criterion both yield true for a given number of time steps (abstract, represents routine data gathering with mathematical treatment and mental processes; extra solution activity and not significantly more).
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea because it is analogous to other ideas identified as abstract in court decisions.
Regarding Claims 2-10 and 12-13, the limitations of this claim are abstract and/or qualify as insignificant extra solution activity for the reasons given next to bolded portions of Claim 1, above.
Additionally, regarding Claims 1-10 and 12, under step 2b, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
method becomes a "computer program product"
steps for determining
no integration to a practical application because nothing past the determination being performed
the additional steps of receiving a first and second measurement are no more than routine data gathering and are therefore taken to be extra solution activity and do no amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Simply stated, claims 1-10 and 12 recite a “computer-implemented method for monitoring a generator”, which is analogous to a “computer program product”, and therefore qualifies a judicial exception and is subject to 35 USC 101.
See MPEP 2106.04(B) which has distilled some concepts that the courts have deemed ineligible. Each limitation above, where noted, is analogous to subject matter deemed an abstract idea in previous court decisions as mental processes that can be performed in the human mind (MPEP 2104.04(B)(iii).
The claims at issue can be summarized, where noted, as concepts that can be performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Notably, in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1147-49, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1480-81 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court disagreed, because it interpreted the claims as encompassing nothing other than pure mental steps (and thus falling within an abstract idea grouping) because the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation. The court held that the claims were directed to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes can be performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper.
See MPEP 2106.04(B) which has distilled some concepts that the courts have deemed ineligible. Each limitation above is analogous to subject matter deemed an abstract idea in previous court decisions as collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (MPEP 2104.04(B)(i) and collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (MPEP 2104.04(B)(ii).
The claims at issue can be summarized, where noted as merely mathematical concepts and calculations, as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group v. Alstrom, 2015-1778). Both cases are highly relevant and also very recent. Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & TCorp., 550 U.S. 437,451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also the seminal case of Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, where the Supreme Court found that mere post-solution activity (such as the natural output of a mathematical algorithm) does not make the ineligible eligible. The CAFC has treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349;... In a similar vein, the Court has treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3dat 613;. . . And the Court has recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776F.3dat 1347.
Step 2A prong 2
Under prong 2 Examiner is to determine whether the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order to do this Examiner must identify whether there are additional elements and evaluate whether those additional elements individually and in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In this case, there are no additional elements aside from describing the gathered data. The only elements of 2-10 and 12-13 are directed towards gathering and manipulation of data and/or mental processes and no result is discussed. Without a result there can be no practical application of the algorithm of 2-10 and 12-13.
Courts have determined that elements including sensors, processors and memory do not cause a Claim having an abstract idea to be directed at more than the abstract idea. For example. Courts have declined to find significantly more than an abstract idea in claims involving receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321,120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto.
LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,1363,115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355,112 USPQ2d 1093,1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Also, Courts have declined to find significantly more than an abstract idea in claims involving performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594,198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266,1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.").
Furthermore, as stated above, the act of repair and maintenance is wholly unrelated to the abstract idea/algorithm. In Diehr, the abstract algorithm was tied into a practical application because the rubber that was manufactured had characteristics (the degree of cure) that was determined by the algorithm. In this case, the algorithm has no effect on the repair, aside from merely flagging the need for repair, much more analogous to the alarm limit in Flook.
Step 2B
In step 2B Examiner must determine whether the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Examiner must do this consistent with the Berkheimer Memo.
The Berkheimer Memo describes "an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP’s noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
As mentioned above, there are no additional elements in 2-10 and 12-13 aside from the recitation of the algorithm, performative mental processes, and the data gathered and manipulated.
As such, there are no additional elements to be considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements, and therefore cannot make the claim as a whole significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Rather than being a particular limited application of the abstract idea which serves to improve a specific method or device, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself in practice.
Stated simply, nothing in claims 2-10 and 12-13 form a nexus between the algorithm and a calibration system or process. Claims 2-10 and 12-13 do not include any limitations to cause the claims to be directed at more than the abstract idea. Claim 12 contains sufficient elements to create a nexus between the abstract idea and a practical use.
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 1 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitation of “an interturn short-circuit fault signal is generated if the first and the second analysis criterion both yield true for a given number of time steps” (lns.10-11) is indefinite because the metes and bounds of what is yielded as true is not properly defined in any prior limitation of the claim language. Simply stated, no prior limitation discusses the first and second analysis criterion in such a way that one could discern the way in which these criteria could yield a true value or a false value. Examiner believes that the prior recitations, “a first analysis criterion describing the occurrence” and “a second analysis criterion describing the DC value” are what is being referred to as a threshold for yielding true. However, these limitations do not explicitly and positively recite that a value is being produced, but only that a value is being described through analysis criterion.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected as these claims either depend from or include the limitations of Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Freire USPG Pub. No.: 2019/0137568.
Regarding Claim 11, Freire teaches a wind turbine (see figure 1, 1), comprising a generator (figure 1, 13) having at least one stator (see figure 1 and taught in [0059], [0061], and [0069]) comprising at least one stator winding set (see figure 1, 15 and taught in [0059], [0061], and [0069]), measurement means for measuring a measurement signal of a power of the at least one stator winding set and a monitoring device (see figure 1, unit 2 receiving signals and 8 as well as [0061]), the monitoring device being configured to perform the steps of a method according to claim 1 (see [0031]-[0036] in which the monitoring device is clearly configured to perform the method steps of claim 1). Note that claim 11 is interpreted as an independent claim, that incorporates the method steps of independent claim 1, and therefore the claim is an apparatus claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
M. Ghods, Z. Tabarniarami and J. Faiz, "Real-Time Detection of Short Circuit Faults…Based on Analytical Model," in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1588-1599, June 2024, doi:10.1109/TPWRD.2024.3369732 discloses measuring the strength of a second harmonic in order to analyze the transients of said signal such that a fault in a wind turbine generator can be determined. This reference does not qualify as prior art as the effective filing date of the present application occurred prior to the reference. However, the reference would otherwise meet all of the limitations of claim 1 of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A HARRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at (571) 272-3555. 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.
/MICHAEL A HARRISON/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights