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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed on 07/19/2022 are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the IDS, submitted on 07/19/2022, 09/21/2022, 06/30/2023, 11/14/2024 and 02/13/2025 have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“A material deterioration evaluation device for evaluating … operation data obtaining unit for detecting … operation data storage unit for saving … a temperature evaluation unit for calculating … evaluation-target component material storage unit for storing … embrittlement evaluation unit for calculating … risk evaluation unit for calculating … and … recommended maintenance time presentation unit for presenting …” in claim 1 and “…, and the plurality of modules are capable of communicating data among the plurality of modules.” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
material deterioration evaluation device for evaluating …
[0021] “.... As illustrated in FIG. 1, a material deterioration evaluation device 1 of the first embodiment includes sensors 10, an operation data obtaining unit 20, an evaluation-target component material storage unit 30, an input unit 35, an operation data storage unit 40, a temperature evaluation unit 50, an embrittlement evaluation unit 60, a risk evaluation unit 70, and a recommended maintenance time presentation unit 80.”,
[0022] “… The input unit 35 is an input interface, such as a keyboard, for example, and is used to previously store material data and other data in the evaluation-target component material storage unit 30 and other units. …”.
operation data obtaining unit for detecting … (see [0022]
[0022] “operation data obtaining unit 20 is an arithmetic block that obtains operation data through the sensors 10,”,
operation data storage unit for saving …
[0024] “The operation data storage unit 40 can be fabricated by a nonvolatile memory, a hard disk drive, or other devices.”, [0018] “… an operation data storage unit that stores the operation data …”.
- a temperature evaluation unit for calculating …
[0022] “…The temperature evaluation unit 50 is an arithmetic block that evaluates an evaluation-target site temperature ...”.
- evaluation-target component material storage unit for storing …
[0023] “… evaluation-target component material storage unit 30 stores material data … evaluation-target component material storage unit 30 can be fabricated by a nonvolatile memory, a hard disk drive, or other devices. ...”.
- embrittlement evaluation unit for calculating …
[0022] “… The embrittlement evaluation unit 60 is an arithmetic block that evaluates a material embrittlement quantity using the evaluation results of …”.
- risk evaluation unit for …
[0022] “…The risk evaluation unit 70 is an arithmetic block that evaluates a failure risk … of the material embrittlement quantity. …”.
- recommended maintenance time presentation unit for presenting …
[0067] “… The recommended maintenance time presentation unit 80 has a display device such as a display unit and can present the contents of proposals to a user. …”.
- plurality of modules are capable of communicating data …
[0073] “… The embrittlement evaluation module 6 is connected to the modules 7, 8 by a wired or wireless connection capable of data communication. Alternatively, data may be exchanged using various media such as memory cards...”.
In other words, the “units” and “modules” are understood to be software executed by a computer or other general purpose computer components, e.g. memory, display, etc., or equivalents.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e. a judicial exception without significantly more).
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A material deterioration evaluation device for evaluating embrittlement of equipment, comprising:
an operation data obtaining unit for detecting and obtaining a state of the equipment as operation data;
an operation data storage unit for saving the operation data;
a temperature evaluation unit for calculating a predetermined evaluation-target site temperature of the equipment based on the operation data;
an evaluation-target component material storage unit for storing material data of a material forming the equipment and embrittlement estimation formulas;
an embrittlement evaluation unit for calculating an embrittlement quantity of the material forming the equipment based on the evaluation-target site temperature, the material data, and the embrittlement estimation formulas;
a risk evaluation unit for calculating a damage risk of the material that forms the equipment based on the embrittlement quantity;
and a recommended maintenance time presentation unit for presenting a recommended maintenance time of the equipment based on the damage risk.
Specifically, representative Claim 5 recites:
A material deterioration evaluation method for evaluating an embrittlement quantity of equipment, comprising:
obtaining the embrittlement quantity as a function of a saturated embrittlement quantity and time; and
calculating the saturated embrittlement quantity of an evaluation-target site used for the evaluation of the embrittlement quantity by multiplying a constant (Al) that is experimentally determined in advance, a constant (B) that is calculated from quantities of elements contained in a material forming the equipment, and
an exponential function whose exponent is a product of an inverse of a linear function of temperature and a constant (A2) that is experimentally determined in advance.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claims 1 and 5 belong to a statutory category, namely it is a device claim and a method claim, respectively.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in the claim limitations of “evaluating” embrittlement of equipment, “detecting” and “obtaining” a state of the equipment as operation data, “calculating” temperature based on the data, “calculating” embrittlement using the information and formulas, “calculating” risk, and “presenting” a recommendation”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process because these limitations are merely data observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinions in order to determine the” embrittlement of equipment” and make recommendations to reduce damage risk which is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper.
Additionally, the claims explicitly recite calculations and the use of formulas, e.g., see Spec. [0044], and therefore also falls well within the category of Mathematical Concepts (e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C): “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”).
Similarly, under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 5 is also found to include at least one judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea), that being a Mental Processes and/or Mathematical Concept. This can be seen in similar claim limitations as claim 1 which are merely data observations, evaluations, and/or judgements in order to calculate the “embrittlement of equipment” which is capable of being performed mentally and/or with the aid of pen and paper. Additionally, claim 5 also explicitly recites calculations and formulas/equations for making the calculations and therefore also falls within the category of Mathematical Concepts (e.g. see Spec. [0046]).
Claims 2-4 and 6-12 recite similar abstract ideas (claim 7 explicitly recites the saturated embrittlement quantity equation).
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 5, the claims recite additional elements including the use of “units” / “modules” (claim 2) of the “device” which are merely general purpose computer components recited at a high level of generality (see 112(f) interpretation above) and therefore merely amount to the use of a general-purpose computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception.
The claims further recite additional elements including “… operation data obtaining unit for detecting and obtaining a state of the equipment …”, “an operation data storage unit for saving the operation data”, and “… recommended maintenance time presentation unit for presenting …” which are found to be high level data gathering and outputting steps that merely use computer technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) – Insignificant Extra-solution Activity, and MPEP 2106.05(h): “For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system, e.g. nothing is done with the recommended maintenance time which is output.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general-purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (claims 1 and 5). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. sending and receiving data over the internet and storing and retrieving information in memory, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 5, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1, as well as claim 5, is not patent eligible under 101.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-4 and 6-12, merely provide further abstract steps or data characterization which are part of the abstract idea as described with respect to the parent claims and do not recite any further additional elements that would integrate into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Therefore, similar to independent claims 1 and 5, claims 2-4 and 6-12 are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 5-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uemura (JP2008224430A).
Regarding claim 5, Uemura teaches:
A material deterioration evaluation method for evaluating an embrittlement quantity of equipment, comprising: ([0001] “The present invention relates to a method for evaluating the degree of embrittlement of a Cr-Mo-V steel turbine rotor, for example, made of Cr-Mo-V steel that evaluates the degree of embrittlement without using a special tool and improves the accuracy of the evaluation. The present invention relates to a method for evaluating the degree of embrittlement of a turbine rotor.”)
obtaining the embrittlement quantity as a function of a saturated embrittlement quantity and time; and ([0035] “The embrittlement of the turbine rotor made of Cr-Mo-V steel occurs because … segregation. ΔFATTTt = ΔFATTT∞ {1-exp (x2) erfc (x)} (Equation 3) In Equation 3, ΔFATTTt is the amount of embrittlement (amount of increase in FATT) due to use at a temperature T ° C. for t hours. ΔFATTTT∞ is the amount of saturation embrittlement at the temperature T ° C. x is expressed by the following equation 4. x = 2 (Dt) 1/2 / αd (Equation 4) where D is the diffusion coefficient of the segregation element in the target material matrix, t is the time of use, and α is segregation. … grain boundary.”)
calculating the saturated embrittlement quantity of an evaluation-target site used for the evaluation of the embrittlement quantity by multiplying a constant (Al) that is experimentally determined in advance, a constant (B) that is calculated from quantities of elements contained in a material forming the equipment, and an exponential function whose exponent is a product of an inverse of a linear function of temperature and a constant (A2) that is experimentally determined in advance. (Uemura [0035] describing identical relationships (equation 3) between the embrittlement quantity and saturated embrittlement quantity as Applicant’s specification [0046]
PNG
media_image1.png
21
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Also Uemura: [0038]: “Next, for the estimation of ΔFATTTT∞, the following equation 5 obtained by modifying equation 3…An estimated value of ΔFATTT∞ was obtained from each ΔFATTTt obtained in step 1 and x obtained from Equation 4.; [0036] “Therefore, if x is determined and ΔFATTT∞ can be estimated, the amount of embrittlement ΔFATTTt due to use for t hours at the use temperature T ° C. can be estimated from the above equation 3. “, [0037] “In addition, about x calculated | required by said Formula 4, the literature value calculated | required about 2.25Cr-1Mo low alloy steel and 3Cr-1Mo low alloy steel here for convenience (Takano, Katsumi: 21 / 4Cr-1Mo and 3Cr -1Mo steel is tempered for a long period of time, and the amount of embrittlement is estimated as follows: iron and steel 78 (1992) No. 2 P296), and the diffusion coefficient is D = 1750exp {−33200 / (T + 273)} As for the concentration ratio α of the segregation element, α = [(1/3) exp {Q / R (T + 273)}] / [1 + C0exp {Q / (T + 273)}], where Q is the segregation element in the matrix Q = 10500 cal / mol, R is the gas constant, R = 1.98 cal / K · mol, C0 is the concentration of the segregating element in the matrix, and C0 is the energy difference between the solid solution and the segregation at the grain boundary. And .79 (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) × 10-5, by using a value that grain boundaries of the thickness d was assumed that d = 8.5 × 10-8cm, x is obtained from the above equation (4). That is, when y is represented by y = (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) × 10 2, x is x = 360 × [1750t × exp {−33200 / (T + 273)}] 1/2 × [1 + 1.79y × 10 −5 × exp { 10500 / 1.98 (T + 273)}] / [8.5 × 10 −8 × exp {10500 / 1.98 (T + 273)}].”)
Regarding claim 6, Uemura further teaches: wherein the exponential function is an exponential function of a base of a natural logarithm. (see equations in Uemura [0035]-[0037], e.g. [0035] “The embrittlement of the turbine rotor made of Cr-Mo-V steel occurs because … segregation. ΔFATTTt = ΔFATTT∞ {1-exp (x2) erfc (x)} (Equation 3) In Equation 3, ΔFATTTt is the amount of embrittlement (amount of increase in FATT) due to use at a temperature T ° C. for t hours.
Regarding claim 8, Uemura further teaches: wherein the constant (B) calculated from the quantities of elements contained in the material forming the equipment is calculated from any one of or a plurality of quantities of elements from among eight elements of P, Si, Mn, Cu, Ni, Sn, Sb, and As. ([0009] “and y is represented by y = (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) ) × 10 2, and K 2 is represented by K 2 = (2Si + Mn + Ni + Cu) × (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) × 102, and Si (silicon), Mn (manganese), Ni (nickel), Cu (copper), P (phosphorus), Sb (antimony) ), Sn (tin), and As (arsenic) as the concentrations (mass%) of the respective elements contained in the material constituting the turbine rotor”)
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 1-3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al. (JP2005339249A) in view of Uemura (JP2008224430A).
In regards to claim 1, Fujiyama teaches: A material deterioration evaluation device for evaluating embrittlement of equipment, comprising: (Fig. 1, [0001]: “apparatus”, [0010]: “terminal”)
an operation data obtaining unit for detecting and obtaining a state of the equipment as operation data; an operation data storage unit for saving the operation data; ([0011]: “The data input to the inspection data input means 1 is given to the maintenance management database storage means 2 and stored as parts / parts, inspection items, measurement amounts, operation history, repair history, and part rotation history.”, [0017]: “The measurement amount data measured by these measuring means 8-17 are sent to the inspection data input means 1”)
a temperature evaluation unit for calculating …based on the operation data; ([0042]: “Infrared temperature measurement means 15”, [0016]-[0017]: “The measurement amount data measured by these measuring means 8-17 are sent to the inspection data input means 1 for inspection date (Y / M / D), inspection items (thermal fatigue crack, erosion, hardness, Embrittlement), measurement amount (crack length, weight loss, softening amount, embrittlement amount), operation history (starting frequency, operation time) and maintenance management information (repair history, rotation history).”)
an evaluation-target component material storage unit for storing material data of a material forming the equipment and embrittlement estimation formulas; ([0012]: “The data stored in the maintenance management database storage means 2 is given to the damage growth function calculation means 3 … for processing. The calculation result in the damage growth function calculating means 3”, [0019]: “Referring again to FIG. 1, the damage growth function calculation means 3 generates a curve that optimally approximates the relationship between the damage measurement value and the period of use (for example, the number of start-ups for fatigue cracks and the operation time for creep voids / cracks).”, [0022]: “and FIG. 9B shows a state where the hardness gradually decreases with respect to the operation time. FIG. 10 shows that the fracture surface transition temperature rise amount rapidly increases with respect to the number of activations and then has a saturation tendency.”, [0006]: “and the stored information is used to statistically measure the relationship between measured values of damage, which is a precursor of non-conformity of the equipment member, and usage period parameters.”, [0015]: “The target damage includes material deterioration, and includes the following. That is, …, embrittlement”)
an embrittlement evaluation unit for calculating an embrittlement quantity of the material forming the equipment based on … the material data, …([0015] “FIGS. 2 and 3 illustrate the types of damage for steam and gas turbines. The target damage includes material deterioration, and includes the following. That is, …, embrittlement and a decrease in ductility caused by impurity segregation of a material, and the like.”, [0017]: “The measurement amount data measured by these measuring means 8-17 are sent to the inspection data input means 1 for inspection date (Y / M / D), inspection items (thermal fatigue crack, erosion, hardness, Embrittlement), measurement amount (crack length, weight loss, softening amount, embrittlement amount), operation history (starting frequency, operation time) and maintenance management information (repair history, rotation history).”
a risk evaluation unit for calculating a damage risk of the material that forms the equipment based on the embrittlement quantity; ([0015] “The target damage includes material deterioration, and includes the following. That is, …, embrittlement and a decrease in ductility caused by impurity segregation of a material, and the like.”, [0025]: “In a damage risk function calculation means 6, a function of a use period obtained by multiplying a repair cost by a damage period probability is obtained by using information of a cost database storage means 5 in which a repair cost to a repair limit damage value is stored in advance in association with each other, and is defined as a damage risk function.”; [0006]: “and the stored information is used to statistically measure the relationship between measured values of damage, which is a precursor of non-conformity of the equipment member, and usage period parameters. Calculate the probability distribution of the time to reach the repair limit damage amount based on the result obtained by the calculation, store the damage value and the cost required for the repair in relation to each other, and reach the repair limit damage amount The damage risk function is determined by the product of the probability distribution of the time and the cost required for the repair.”)
a recommended maintenance time presentation unit for presenting a recommended maintenance time of the equipment based on the damage risk. ([0005] “The present invention has been made in consideration of the above-described points, and an object thereof is to provide a method and an apparatus capable of quantitatively predicting a damage amount of an equipment member, evaluating a probability of reaching a damage amount requiring repair and a risk due to the probability, and determining an optimal repair standard and a repair time.”; [0025]: “This is defined as the damage risk function. In the repair plan creation means 7, when the repair limit damage value is determined, the repair time is determined from the damage development function, so the repair limit damage value is also a variable for optimization.”, also [0031], [0033]-[0034], [0037]: “Next, the end selection means 20 displays the repair plan creation result on the screen”)
Fujiyama fails to clearly teach:
a temperature evaluation unit for calculating a predetermined evaluation-target site temperature of the equipment based on the operation data;
storing…embrittlement estimation formulas;
an embrittlement evaluation unit for calculating an embrittlement quantity of the material forming the equipment based on the evaluation-target site temperature, the material data, and the embrittlement estimation formulas;
(bold emphasis added)
Uemura however in analogous art of embrittlement and damage estimation, teaches:
a temperature evaluation unit for calculating a predetermined evaluation-target site temperature of the equipment based on the operation data; (see [0012]-[0013]: “As a result, if FATT0, which is the initial FATT before use, is known, FATTTt of a desired part such as the center hole of the turbine rotor can be evaluated according to the above formula 1 without collecting the part.”, and [0014]-[0015] for calculation of FATT0: “When the transition temperature is obtained and the temperature during operation of the turbine rotor at the sampling position of the sample material in the measurement process is less than 350 ° C. or exceeds 460 ° C., the converted fracture surface transition temperature in the conversion process is defined as the initial fracture surface transition temperature”)
storing…embrittlement estimation formulas; an embrittlement evaluation unit for calculating an embrittlement quantity of the material forming the equipment based on the evaluation-target site temperature, the material data, and the embrittlement estimation formulas; (see at least [0009] “The method for evaluating the degree of embrittlement of a Cr-Mo-V steel turbine rotor according to the present invention is a method for evaluating the degree of embrittlement of a Cr-Mo-V steel turbine rotor. The amount of increase in the fracture surface transition temperature (ΔFATTTt) due to the use of the time t (hours) at the temperature T (° C.) is expressed by x = 360 × [1750t × exp {−33200 / (T + 273)}] 1/2 × [1 + 1 .79y × 10 −5 × exp {10500 / 1.98 (T + 273)}] / [8.5 × 10 −8 × exp {10500 / 1.98 (T + 273)}], and y is represented by y = (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) ) × 10 2, and K 2 is represented by K 2 = (2Si + Mn + Ni + Cu) × (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) × 102, and Si (silicon), Mn (manganese), Ni (nickel), Cu (copper), P (phosphorus), Sb (antimony) ), Sn (tin), and As (arsenic) as the concentrations (mass%) of the respective elements contained in the material constituting the turbine rotor, ΔFATTTt = (425. + 1.778K2−0.9643T−0.001990K2T) × {1−exp (x2) erfc (x)} (Expression 1) to determine the degree of embrittlement of the turbine rotor); also [0011] and [0035]-[0038] describing embrittlement estimation formulas used by the system)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiyama to incorporate the teachings of Uemura to obtain a system for evaluating the degree of embrittlement of steel turbine rotors, with the motivation to more accurately estimate embrittlement and equipment damage for repair to better address damage risk (e.g. Uemura: [0013]: “That is, the degree of embrittlement can be evaluated without using a special tool. In addition, since the above formula 1 takes into account the temperature condition and the like, the accuracy of the evaluation of the degree of embrittlement based on FATTTt can be improved.”)
In regards to claim 2, Fujiyama further teaches wherein a plurality of modules each including at least one unit from among the operation data obtaining unit, the operation data storage unit, the temperature evaluation unit, the evaluation-target component material storage unit, the embrittlement evaluation unit, the risk evaluation unit, and the recommended maintenance time presentation unit are included, and the plurality of modules are capable of communicating data among the plurality of modules. (Fujiyama describes the data is “given”/”sent” between the various “means”, see [0011]-[0012], [0017], [0042])
In regards to claim 3,
Fujiyama teaches statistical calculation of damage risk as described with respect to claim 1, e.g. see Fujiyama [0007]. However, Fujiyama fails to clearly describe “using statistics on errors in the embrittlement estimation formulas”.
Uemura however clearly describes estimating reliability of the formula(s) using statistical calculations including standard deviation and calculating the correlation between the estimate and actual results, see Uemura [0039]: “the correlation between the two was 90.2%, the standard deviation σ was 8.6 ° C.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiyama to incorporate the teachings of Uemura of estimating statistics on the error associated with the embrittlement estimations/formulas, with the motivation to assess and ensure accurate and reliable estimation of embrittlement, e.g. Uemura [0039]: “and a good correlation was recognized”.
In regards to claim 9, Fujiyama fails to teach, however Uemura further describes:
wherein the embrittlement evaluation unit evaluates the embrittlement by obtaining the embrittlement quantity as a function of a saturated embrittlement quantity and time; ([0035] “The embrittlement of the turbine rotor made of Cr-Mo-V steel occurs because … segregation. ΔFATTTt = ΔFATTT∞ {1-exp (x2) erfc (x)} (Equation 3) In Equation 3, ΔFATTTt is the amount of embrittlement (amount of increase in FATT) due to use at a temperature T ° C. for t hours. ΔFATTTT∞ is the amount of saturation embrittlement at the temperature T ° C. x is expressed by the following equation 4. x = 2 (Dt) 1/2 / αd (Equation 4) where D is the diffusion coefficient of the segregation element in the target material matrix, t is the time of use, and α is segregation. … grain boundary.”)
calculating the saturated embrittlement quantity of an evaluation-target site used for the evaluation of the embrittlement quantity by multiplying a constant (Al) that is experimentally determined in advance, a constant (B) that is calculated from quantities of elements contained in a material forming the equipment, and an exponential function whose exponent is a product of an inverse of a linear function of temperature and a constant (A2) that is experimentally determined in advance. ([0038]: “An estimated value of ΔFATTT∞ was obtained from each ΔFATTTt obtained in step 1 and x obtained from Equation 4. ΔFATTT∞ = ΔFATTTt / {1-exp (x2) erfc (x)} (Equation 5)”; [0035] “The embrittlement of the turbine rotor made of Cr-Mo-V steel occurs because … segregation. ΔFATTTt = ΔFATTT∞ {1-exp (x2) erfc (x)} (Equation 3) In Equation 3, ΔFATTTt is the amount of embrittlement (amount of increase in FATT) due to use at a temperature T ° C. for t hours. ΔFATTTT∞ is the amount of saturation embrittlement at the temperature T ° C. x is expressed by the following equation 4. x = 2 (Dt) 1/2 / αd (Equation 4) where D is the diffusion coefficient of the segregation element in the target material matrix, t is the time of use, and α is segregation. … grain boundary.”, [0036] Therefore, if x is determined and ΔFATTT∞ can be estimated, the amount of embrittlement ΔFATTTt due to use for t hours at the use temperature T ° C. can be estimated from the above equation 3. “, [0037] “and the diffusion coefficient is D = 1750exp {−33200 / (T + 273)} As for the concentration ratio α of the segregation element, α = [(1/3) exp {Q / R (T + 273)}] / [1 + C0exp {Q / (T + 273)}], where Q is the segregation element in the matrix Q = 10500 cal / mol, R is the gas constant, R = 1.98 cal / K · mol, C0 is the concentration of the segregating element in the matrix, and C0 is the energy difference between the solid solution and the segregation at the grain boundary. And .79 (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) × 10-5, by using a value that grain boundaries of the thickness d was assumed that d = 8.5 × 10-8cm, x is obtained from the above equation (4). That is, when y is represented by y = (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) × 10 2, x is x = 360 × [1750t × exp {−33200 / (T + 273)}] 1/2 × [1 + 1.79y × 10 −5 × exp { 10500 / 1.98 (T + 273)}] / [8.5 × 10 −8 × exp {10500 / 1.98 (T + 273)}].”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiyama to incorporate the teachings of Uemura to obtain a system for evaluating the degree of embrittlement of steel turbine rotors, with the motivation to more accurately estimate embrittlement and equipment damage for repair to better address damage risk (e.g. Uemura: [0013]: “That is, the degree of embrittlement can be evaluated without using a special tool. In addition, since the above formula 1 takes into account the temperature condition and the like, the accuracy of the evaluation of the degree of embrittlement based on FATTTt can be improved.”, [0016], [0039]).
In regards to claim 10,
Fujiyama fails to teach however Uemura further teaches: wherein an embrittlement quantity per unit time is calculated in advance, and the embrittlement quantity is calculated by adding the embrittlement quantity per unit time based on a time over which the evaluation-target site temperature can be considered constant. ([0009]: “n is a method for evaluating the degree of embrittlement of a Cr-Mo-V steel turbine rotor. The amount of increase in the fracture surface transition temperature (ΔFATTTt) due to the use of the time t (hours) at the temperature T (° C.), [0024]: “when the initial FATT before use is FATT0, FATTTt can be expressed by the following (Equation 2). FATTTt = FATT0 + ΔFATTTt (Equation 2) Therefore, if the initial emphasis FATT0 before use and the embrittlement amount ΔFATTtt due to use for t hours at the use temperature T ° C. are obtained, the FATTT that is the FATT at that time is obtained.”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to render the claimed invention obvious for the same or similar reasons as described above in regard to parent claim 9.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al. (JP2005339249A) in view of Uemura (JP2008224430A), and further in view of Narayanan (US20210132599A1).
In regards to claim 4, Fujiyama in view of Uemura teaches wherein the statistics on the errors in the embrittlement estimation formulas stored in the evaluation-target component material storage unit…as described above for parent claim 3.
However, Fujiyama in view of Uemura fails to clearly articulate that the information stored by the computer, e.g. the formulas and data values, are “rewriteable”.
Narayanan however, in analogous art of component life estimation, does teach using rewriteable memory modules, e.g. [0036] “In one embodiment, the memory unit 114 includes one or more of random-access memory (RAM) modules, read only memory (ROM) modules, erasable ROM (EROM) modules, and programmable EROM (PROM) modules. The memory unit 114 may also include solid state drive-based memory modules. It may be noted that some of these memory modules may be part of units 112, 116, 118, 120 of the fracture mechanics apparatus 110.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiyama in view of Uemura to incorporate the teachings of Narayanan to store the various information, statistics calculations, estimation formulas, etc., in rewriteable memory with the motivation to provide a flexible system that allows for updates and changes as needed. Additionally, it is well-known that information stored in computer memory can be “rewriteable”.
In regards to claim 11, Fujiyama in view of Uemura teaches: wherein the previously and experimentally determined constants and the embrittlement quantity per unit time are stored in the evaluation-target component material storage unit … (see Fujiyama [0006]-[0007] and [0011] describing database(s) for storing obtained and calculated information) as further described above for parent claim 10.
However, Fujiyama in view of Uemura fails to clearly articulate that the information stored by the computer are “rewriteable”.
Narayanan however, in analogous art of component life estimation, does teach using rewriteable memory modules, e.g. [0036] “In one embodiment, the memory unit 114 includes one or more of random-access memory (RAM) modules, read only memory (ROM) modules, erasable ROM (EROM) modules, and programmable EROM (PROM) modules. The memory unit 114 may also include solid state drive-based memory modules. It may be noted that some of these memory modules may be part of units 112, 116, 118, 120 of the fracture mechanics apparatus 110.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiyama in view of Uemura to incorporate the teachings of Narayanan to store the various information, statistics calculations, estimation formulas, etc., in rewriteable memory with the motivation to provide a flexible system that allows for updates and changes as needed. Additionally, it is well-known that information stored in computer memory can be “rewriteable”.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach or reasonably suggest all of the limitations of claim 7 or claim 12. The prior art references most closely resembling Applicant’s claimed invention are those cited herein. Specifically, Uemura (JP2008224430A) describes formulas for calculating saturated embrittlement quantity, see at least [0035]-[0038] describing the use of equations 3 and 4 to calculate the embrittlement quantity: “ΔFATTTt = ΔFATTT∞ {1-exp (x2) erfc (x)} (Equation 3) In Equation 3, ΔFATTTt is the amount of embrittlement (amount of increase in FATT) due to use at a temperature T ° C. for t hours. ΔFATTTT∞ is the amount of saturation embrittlement at the temperature T ° C. x is expressed by the following equation 4. x = 2 (Dt) 1/2 / αd (Equation 4)” where substituting calculated and known variables, x becomes: “That is, when y is represented by y = (10P + 5Sb + 4Sn + As) × 10 2, x is x = 360 × [1750t × exp {−33200 / (T + 273)}] 1/2 × [1 + 1.79y × 10 −5 × exp { 10500 / 1.98 (T + 273)}] / [8.5 × 10 −8 × exp {10500 / 1.98 (T + 273)}]”
However, the claimed equation in claim 7 is a different approximation of ΔFATT∞ which contains only a single exponential term and does not rely on an estimation of ΔFATTt, e.g. Applicant’s Spec. (noting [0049]-[0052]) discusses the differences between formula 4 (claimed) and the use of formulas 2, 3, and 5 to approximate saturated embrittlement quantity at different temperature ranges, and therefore differentiates over the prior art teachings of Uemura.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 12, Uemura describes that the concentrations are either known from manufacture or analyzed/estimated using chemical component analysis (see Uemura [0029]-[0030], [0052], [0068]), and does not describe a method for back-calculating the impurities used to calculate y, i.e. “wherein the constant (B), which is calculated from the quantities of elements contained in the material forming the equipment is back-calculated using the embrittlement quantity of the material forming the equipment at a certain time and the operation data stored in the operation data storage unit, and the embrittlement quantity is evaluated by using the back- calculated constant” as claimed. Noting that Applicant’s spec. e.g. [0064], describes that the use of formula 4 allows for the back-calculation of the impurities when they are unknown. Therefore, claim 12 is found to differentiate over the prior art.
Additional prior art found relevant but failing, both individually and in combination with the other prior art of record, to teach or reasonably suggest the claimed invention include the reference(s) cited below:
Holzmann et al. “Degradation of Mechanical properties of CR-Mo-V and Cr-Mo-V-W steam turbine rotors after long-term operation at elevated temperatures. Part II: fracture toughness, fracture toughness, correlation of fracture toughness with Charpy V-notch results” Int. J. Pres. Ves. & Piping 68 (1996) 113-120. (e.g. see Page 117, col. 2 “Besides the evaluation of the influence of in-service exposure at elevated temperature on the degree of embrittlement through the change in transition temperatures, the extent of embrittlement has also been assessed through the level of fracture toughnesses K, and KJc- below tB. For a more objective comparison of these characteristics for degraded D and reference R conditions, a function Kc-, KJc. = K0 + A exp(BT) (2) was fitted through the experimental data representing brittle initiation below fg. Having chosen the constant K0 = 25 MPa m,l’* the parameters A and B could be calculated by means of linear regression analysis and the confidence limit for any given probability P could be determined. The mean fracture toughness curves (P, = 50%) and the fracture toughness curves for confidence limit P;. = 90% are given in the exponential representation for Cr-MO-V rotor steel in Figs. 3-5 and for Cr-MO-V-W rotor steel in Fig. 6. In all the figures the FATT is plotted as well.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dua et al. (WO2019135747A1)
Koul (US8116990B2)
Zhang et al. (CN 107273649 A)
Shintani et al. (WO 2021049060 A1)
Amann et al. (US20140107948A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHELBY A TURNER whose telephone number is (571)272-6334. (via email: Shelby.Turner1@uspto.gov “without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via internet e-mail to an Internet correspondence” MPEP 502.02 II). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-6 ET.
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, Technology Center Director Patricia Bianco can be reached at (571) 272-4940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights