DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Following Applicants amendments to the Specification, the objections of the Specification is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments to the Drawings, the objections of the Drawings is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments to the Claims, the objections of the Claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants amendments, the 112 rejection of the claims is Withdrawn.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, and in light of the 2019 Patent Eligibility guidance, the 101 rejection of the Claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed to 101 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter."
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s Argument: The claimed method enhances the computational efficiency of the calculation and prediction process.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner notes that this is a better abstract idea that is still an abstract idea and cannot render a claim patent eligible. MPEP2106.04 This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: A particular practical application is explained in paragraph [0013].
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner notes the present claims do not reflect the purported improvements cited by the Applicant, with reference to the sections of the specification cited in the arguments. The present claims do not improve the functioning of the computer as well as any other technology or technical field. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: The limitations recited in the pending claims qualify as "significantly more" than the abstract idea asserted by the Office because they add specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field, and add unconventional steps that confine the claims to a particular useful application.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner notes no sections of the MPEP were used that require well-understood, routine, and conventional evidence. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims are analogous to Bascom.
Examiner’s Response: The claims of Bascom “presented a "technology-based solution" of filtering content on the Internet that overcame the disadvantages of prior art filtering systems and that amounted to significantly more than the recited abstract idea, it also would be reasonable for an Examiner to have found these claims eligible at Pathway A or B if the Examiner had considered the technology-based solution to be an improvement to computer functionality (See MPEP 2106.06(b)).” The present claims do not provide an analogous improvement over prior art systems. The present claims, as drafted, are directed to a generic computing system performing math functions using received data. The present claims, as drafted, recite abstract limitations performed “a processor” configured to execute instructions of a storage device. There is no particular arrangement within the claims such that the claims recite a technical improvement. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions in view of Bascom.
Applicant’s Argument: The claims provide an improved technical solution in equipment life management and operational planning.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner disagrees because the improvement is not expressed through the additional elements of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”.
Therefore, the 101 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Following Applicants arguments and amendments, the 103 rejection of the claims is Maintained.
Applicant’s Argument: Applicant’s arguments directed the 103 rejection are based on newly amended subject matter.
Examiner’s Response: All arguments are addressed in the 103 rejection of the claims below.
Therefore, the 103 rejection is Maintained.
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.
Regarding claims 1-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which is a manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 10-17 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-17 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 9 and 10 recite the abstract idea of calculating a probability of failure in a piece of equipment, constituting an abstract idea based on Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations or alternatively Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of "generating a finite element model of an equipment component using device properties of the equipment component;” covers mathematical concepts including setting up a series of equations to describe a system, or alternatively this can be viewed as mental processes including judging how to set up a model with elements. Additionally, the limitation of “using the finite element model of the equipment component to construct a polynomial basis for a polynomial chaos expansion;” covers mathematical concepts including setting up a series of equations for a polynomial chaos expansion (Specification Pages 15 and 16), or alternatively this can be viewed as mental processes including a specific evaluation after setting up equations. Additionally, the limitation of “calculating expansion coefficients for the polynomial chaos expansion which express creep stress and strain in the equipment component as a function of operating parameters of the equipment component;” covers mathematical concepts including a series of calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as mental processes including a specific evaluation. Additionally, the limitation of “calculating and outputting a probability of failure of the equipment component using the measured operating parameter values and the expansion coefficients for the polynomial chaos expansion.” covers mathematical concepts including a series of calculations, or alternatively this can be viewed as mental processes including a specific evaluation and writing the result down on a piece of paper. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-17 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claim 9, the additional element of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “a processor”, as well as “a processor”, “data storage device” in claims 10, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitation of “receiving measured operating parameter values for the equipment component from one or more sensors; and” in claim 1, 9 and 10 can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 11-17 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 9 and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claim 9, the additional element of “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, “a processor”, as well as “a processor”, “data storage device” in claims 10, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitation of “receiving measured operating parameter values for the equipment component from one or more sensors; and” in claim 1, 9 and 10 can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2 and 11 are directed to further defining the calculation of a failure probability, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 3 and 12 are directed to further defining estimation of a remaining life, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 4 and 13 are directed to further defining the operating parameters, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 5 and 14 are directed to further defining the device properties, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 15 are directed to further defining the receiving of additional parameters, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 7 and 16 are directed to further defining the generation of data that can be used for training, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 8 and 17 are directed to further defining the polynomial basis as a hermite polynomial basis, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mathematical Concepts”, or alternatively “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 4-5, 8-11, 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modgil USPPN 2016/0246287, in view of Sudret “POLYNOMIAL CHAOS EXPANSIONS AND STOCHASTIC FINITE ELEMENT METHODS.”
Regarding claim 1, Modgil teaches A method of predicting equipment component failure, the method implemented by a data processing system and comprising: (Figures 1 and 2, Abstract, [0006]-[0008], [0046], failure probability of a turbo machine is calculated using a computer)
generating a finite element model of an equipment component using device properties of the equipment component; ([0032], [0038], a finite element model of the turbo machinery is created based on the requirements of the component)
using the finite element model of the equipment component to construct a polynomial basis for a polynomial chaos …; ([0032], [0038], finite element modeling is done by the gpc module; [0006]-[0008], [0027]-[0030], the gpc uses a polynomial chaos method for the finite element calculations)
calculating … coefficients for the polynomial chaos … which express creep stress and … in the equipment component as a function of operating parameters of the equipment component; ([0029]-[0030] stress is calculated; [0017], [0028], as a function of operating parameters, including temperature)
receiving measured operating parameter values for the equipment component from one or more sensors; and ([0042], vibrational stress is measured including data from a set of strain guages)
calculating and outputting a probability of failure of the equipment component using the measured operating parameter values. ([0033], [0042]-[0043] probability of failure is calculated using measured parameters; Figures 1 and 2, [0023], [0026], [0030], [0038]-[0039], and is output)
Modgil does not explicitly teach polynomial chaos expansion, calculating expansion coefficients,
Sudret teaches polynomial chaos expansion, (Introduction, Sections 3-3.7, a finite element polynomial chaos expansion calculation is used; Section 4, the calculation is used for probability of failure)
calculating expansion coefficients, (Introduction, Sections 3-3.7, expansion coefficients are calculated)
outputting …. the expansion coefficients for the polynomial chaos expansion. (Introduction, Sections 3-3.7 and 4.2, expansion coefficients are calculated, which can be outputted by writing them down or using the computer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Modgil with Sudret as the references deal with failure calculations, in order to implement a system that calculates a failure probability through polynomial chaos expansion with expansion coefficients. Sudret would modify Modgil by calculating a failure probability through polynomial chaos expansion with expansion coefficients. The benefit of doing so is PC expansions are extremely efficient in the context of sensitivity analysis, that is used in failure calculations. And, the evaluations can be done in a matter of seconds on standard computers. (Sudret Section 4.2 and 6)
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Modgil and Sudret teaches the limitations of claim 1. Modgil teaches wherein calculating a probability of failure of the equipment component comprises calculating a probability … function. ([0018], [0028], a probability distribution function is used when calculating the probability of failure)
Modgil does not explicitly teach a probability density function (Section 2.1, 4.2-4.3, a probability density function is used)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Modgil with Sudret as the references deal with failure calculations, in order to implement a system that uses a probability density function. Sudret would modify Modgil by calculating a probability density function. The benefit of doing so is due to its polynomial expression it can be used together with Monte Carlo simulation and kernel smoothing techniques. And, the evaluations can be done in a matter of seconds on standard computers. (Sudret Section 4.2 and 6)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Modgil and Sudret teaches the limitations of claim 1. Modgil teaches wherein the operating parameters of the equipment component comprise at least one of temperature or pressure. ([0017], [0027]-[0028], temperature of the equipment is used)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Modgil and Sudret teaches the limitations of claim 1. Modgil teaches wherein the device properties of the equipment component comprise at least one of one or more dimensions or one or more material properties. ([0017], [0027], [0035], material properties are used)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Modgil and Sudret teaches the limitations of claim 1. Modgil teaches wherein the polynomial basis is a Hermite polynomial basis. ([0028], a Hermite polynomial basis is used)
In regards to claim 9, it is the computer readable medium embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 10, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
In regards to claim 11, it is the system embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
In regards to claim 13, it is the system embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
In regards to claim 14, it is the system embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
In regards to claim 17, it is the system embodiment of claim 8 with similar limitations to claim 8, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 8.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modgil, in view of Sudret, and in further view of Zhongyi et al. “Remaining lifetime prediction for nonlinear degradation device with random effect.”
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Modgil and Sudret teaches the limitations of claim 2. The combination of Modgil and Sudret does not explicitly recite further comprising estimating a remaining lifetime of the equipment component using the probability density function.
Zhongyi teaches further comprising estimating a remaining lifetime of the equipment component using the probability density function. (Abstract, Sections 1, 5 and 6, a remaining life is calculated using a probability density function)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Modgil and Sudret with Zhongyi as the references deal with failure calculations, in order to implement a system that uses a probability density function to estimate remaining life. Zhongyi would modify Modgil and Sudret by using a probability density function to estimate remaining life. The benefit of doing so is the method is advantageous compared to existing methods in parameter estimation error and remaining life prediction accuracy. Also, the model has better model fitting advantage and prediction precision than the existing model by comparing the parameter estimated results, the PDF and confidence interval of the RL and MSE value, which has a certain engineering application value (Zhongyi Abstract, Section 6)
In regards to claim 12, it is the system embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modgil, in view of Sudret, and in further view of Bucher “State-of-the-Art Report on Assessment and Life Extension of Existing Structures and Industrial Plants.”
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Modgil and Sudret teaches the limitations of claim 1. Modgil teaches further comprising receiving acoustic emission parameters corresponding to the equipment component and ([0019], acoustic vibrations are received)
The combination of Modgil and Sudret does not explicitly recite determining a correlation between the acoustic emission parameters and strain to deduce a level of damage of the equipment component.
Bucherteaches determining a correlation between the acoustic emission parameters and strain to deduce a level of damage of the equipment component. (Section 6.5.5, acoustic emissions are corelated to damage; Section 4.1.3 damage is a change in the structure relating to strain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Modgil and Sudret with Bucheras the references deal with failure calculations, in order to implement a system that determines a correlation between acoustic emission and strain to deduce damage. Bucherwould modify Modgil and Sudret by determining a correlation between acoustic emission and strain to deduce damage. The benefit of doing so is the method can be easily integrated in software supported decision tools. (BucherSection 11)
In regards to claim 15, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modgil, in view of Sudret, and in further view of Lesser “Probabilistic fatigue damage prognosis using surrogate models trained via three-dimensional finite element analysis.”
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Modgil and Sudret teaches the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Modgil and Sudret does not explicitly recite generating training data samples using the finite element model of the equipment component
Lesser teaches generating training data samples using the finite element model of the equipment component (Abstract, Damage prognosis method, using the finite element model training data is generated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to combine the teachings of Modgil and Sudret with Lesser as the references deal with failure calculations, in order to implement a system that generates training data from the finite element model. Lesser would modify Modgil and Sudret by generating training data from the finite element model. The benefit of doing so is the method is both high in fidelity and flexibility. Also, prohibitive, time-consuming SIF computations are replaced by efficient surrogate models trained via high-fidelity FE-based simulations (Lesser Conclusions)
In regards to claim 16, it is the system embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hawchar et all. “ Principal component analysis and polynomial chaos expansion for time-variant reliability problems”: Also uses PCE to determine the remaining useful life of equipment.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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 EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights