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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the parent Application No. EP20188572.0 , has been filed on 01/06/2023 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 07/22/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. A legible copy of foreign patent document CN110431503 has not been provided. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/17/2025 and 01/06/2023 are being considered by the examiner. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 3 recites, Method according to claim 2, wherein the adjustment of the threshold value range is calculated according to formula (I) Tnew = ((T • (l+x1))+(T+x2))/2 (I), wherein Tnew = adjusted threshold value range, T = threshold value range, x1 is a specified increase factor, x2 is a specified increase value. A thorough search has been conducted for the subject matter with the most relevant prior art found to be discussed. Hutz ( US8786425B1 ) in Column 23 Line 35-45 teaches, modifying an abnormality threshold. However it doesn’t teach the claimed equation to adjust threshold value range. Snuggerud ( US20170046057A1 ) in ¶0103 teaches modifying PNS threshold. However it doesn’t teach the claimed equation to adjust threshold value range. Hatch ( US20140055274A1 ) in ¶0021 teaches calculating detection threshold or limit value. ¶0028 teaches an equation for calculating new alarm limit. However it doesn’t teach the claimed equation to adjust threshold value range. HOWELL ( US20210097191A1 ) in ¶0052-¶0053 and ¶0058-¶0059 teaches adjusting thresholds based on feedback received from the user. However it doesn’t teach the claimed equation to adjust threshold value range. No other art could be found which alone or in combination teaches the equation to adjust threshold value range, as claim in claim 3 when read in view of claim 1. Therefore, Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 4 would also be allowable due to its dependency on claim 3. Claim Objections Claim 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 recites, “ the adjustment of the threshold value range is calculated according to formula ”. However there is no “adjustment” recited in claim 3 or in any of the claims that it depends on. Claim 1 which claim 3 depends on recites, “ an increase of the threshold value range ”. Therefore the term “adjustment” in claim 3 is being interpreted as a typographical error and for the sake of compact prosecution the limitation in claim 3 is being interpreted to recite, “the adjustment increase of the threshold value range is calculated according to formula ”. Claim 10 recites, “ the evaluations of the operator differ from the reference data regarding evaluations of the operator ” However there is no “reference data” recited in claim 10 or in any of the claims that it depends on. Therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . For the sake of compact prosecution the limitation is being interpreted to recite, “the evaluations of the operator differ from a reference data regarding evaluations of the operator” Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 1-12 and 14 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. Independent claim 1 recites, receiving an evaluation data from the operator, wherein said evaluation data is based on at least three options, wherein the options include i . evaluating the alarm action being false, wherein such evaluation data triggers an increase of the threshold value range, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct, iii. evaluating the alarm action being possibly correct, wherein such evaluation data triggers adding to a counter wherein in case the counter reaches a counter limit a raising of the threshold value range is triggered. It is unclear from the claim whether the evaluation data is based on a combination of all three options or whether the evaluation data is based on one of the three options. According to published specification ¶0077, the “ options are provided to the operator as choices the operator can select from ” . Therefore according to the specification the evaluation data is based on user selecting one of the three options. For the sake of compact prosecution the limitation is interpreted to recite, “ receiving an evaluation data from the operator, wherein said evaluation data is based on one of at least three options, wherein the options include i . evaluating the alarm action being false, wherein such evaluation data triggers an increase of the threshold value range, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct, iii. evaluating the alarm action being possibly correct, wherein such evaluation data triggers adding to a counter wherein in case the counter reaches a counter limit a raising of the threshold value range is triggered ” Claim 12 recites similar limitation as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reason as claim 1. Claims 2-11 and 14 depends on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected due to their dependency. 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. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “ Computer program product, tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions ” in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se"). In particular, the specification doesn’t provide any further definition of the term “computer program product” other than it being instructions operable to cause a computing entity to execute an inventive method (see ¶0024 of the published specification) Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “ Computer program product ” in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art encompasses program code that do not have a physical or tangible form (see MPEP 2106.03). Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more . Claim 1 is directed towards the four statutory categories in that it recites a system/machine. The claim(s) recite(s) , evaluating the measurement value whether it falls within a threshold value range, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human mind mentally or with pen and paper is capable of evaluating whether a certain value falls within a threshold value range . Thus, the claim recites a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim recites additional elements directed to , acquiring a measurement value from at least one sensor , in case the measurement value falls outside the threshold value range triggering an alarm action, wherein the alarm action contains sending an evaluation request to an operator, and receiving an evaluation data from the operator, wherein said evaluation data is based on at least three options, wherein the options include i . evaluating the alarm action being false, wherein such evaluation data triggers an increase of the threshold value range, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct, iii. evaluating the alarm action being possibly correct, wherein such evaluation data triggers adding to a counter wherein in case the counter reaches a counter limit a raising of the threshold value range is triggered. Limitations directed to acquiring a measurement value from at least one sensor and receiving an evaluation data from the operator , are directed to mere data gathering and insignificant extra solution activity for the purpose of executing the abstract idea. Limitation directed to triggering an alarm action is also an insignificant extra solution activity as it is directed to data outputting (i.e. sending evaluation request) after performing the mental step of evaluating the sensor data. Therefore, these limitations do not integrate a judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites additional elements directed to , acquiring a measurement value from at least one sensor , in case the measurement value falls outside the threshold value range triggering an alarm action, wherein the alarm action contains sending an evaluation request to an operator, and receiving an evaluation data from the operator, wherein said evaluation data is based on at least three options, wherein the options include i . evaluating the alarm action being false, wherein such evaluation data triggers an increase of the threshold value range, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct, iii. evaluating the alarm action being possibly correct, wherein such evaluation data triggers adding to a counter wherein in case the counter reaches a counter limit a raising of the threshold value range is triggered. These limitation are directed to necessary data gathering and outputting . These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found r eceiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, these limitations do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) Claim 2 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 2 further recites, wherein the evaluation data is based on option ii., wherein such evaluation data decreases the counter, wherein the minimum counter value is zero. This limitation is also directed to a mental process. For example, human mind is capable with or without pen and paper is capable of decreasing a counter based on evaluating that that an alarm action is correct. This this claim also recites a mental process. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 3 further recites, wherein the adjustment of the threshold value range is calculated according to formula (I) . This claim is directed to using a mathematical formula to be used in calculating adjustment of the threshold value range . Thus the claim falls under mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 4 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 4 further recites, Tnew -T is at most B, wherein B is an adaption limit. This claim is directed to a mathematical relationship between adjusted threshold value range Tnew , threshold value range T and adaption limit B. Thus the claim falls under mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 5 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 5 further recites, wherein the measurement value is a measurement value of a compressor part of the continuous flow engine . This limitation limits the measurement value to that of a measurement value of a compressor part of the continuous flow engine . This amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of continuous flow engine . L imitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception . (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) Claim 6 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 6 further recites, wherein a simulated value is provided to the operator along the measurement value, wherein the simulated value is based on a model of the continuous flow engine . This limitation attempts to limit the abstract idea to displaying a simulated value based on a model of the continuous flow engine. This amounts to broadly linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of simulation of modeling of continuous flow engine . L imitations that amount to merely limiting the judicial exception a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception . (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) Claim 7 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 7 further recites, wherein a historical value is provided to the operator along with the measurement value, wherein the historical value is retrieved from a historical database based on the current state of the continuous flow engine . This amounts to broadly linking the judicial exception to the technological environment of continuous flow engine This limitation attempts to limit the abstract idea to displaying a historical value of the continuous flow engine. L imitations that amount to merely limiting the judicial exception a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception . (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) Claim 8 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 8 further recites, wherein the continuous flow engine is at least one of a gas turbine, a steam turbine , a compressor , or any combination thereof . This limitation limits the continuous flow engine to at least one of a gas turbine, a steam turbine , a compressor or a combination . This amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use of a gas turbine, a steam turbine, a compressor or a combination . L imitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception . (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) Claim 9 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 9 further recites, wherein the method further comprises: sending a dataset to a distributed database, wherein the dataset comprises data including the threshold value range and/or the data relating to the evaluation data . This limitation is directed to a transmitting data to a distributed database. Which is an insignificant extra solution activity data gathering and outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g). These elements are recited in a generic manner and are directed to activity that are well-understood, routine and conventional in the field of computer implemented processes. Courts have found r eceiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 and buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional when recited as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, this limitations do es not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception . (see MPEP 2106.05(d)) Claim 10 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 10 further recites wherein the distributed database includes a smart contract being triggered in case the threshold value range falls outside of a specified range and/or the evaluations of the operator differ from the reference data regarding evaluations of the operator . This limitation recites a triggering a smart contract when certain criteria is satisfied. According to published specification ¶0058, “t he term “smart contract” as used herein especially includes data like program data or data being able to be executed by a program to perform specified steps or actions including control commands, specified values, requirements, interrelated data like measured values and corresponding action in response to fulfilling or not fulfilling predefined values in comparison to said measured values ” Therefore the claim is directed to broadly executing program steps when certain criteria is fulfilled , which is directed to using a computer as a tool to perform an existing process (i.e. to execute program steps). This amount s to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and is no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Therefore, this limitations do es not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (see MPEP 2106.05( f )) Claim 11 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 11 further recites, acquiring at least three measurement values, for evaluation, wherein the measurement values are measurement values of a compressor part of the continuous flow engine . This limitation attempts to limit the abstract idea to measurement values of a compressor part of the continuous flow engine. L imitations that amount to merely limiting the judicial exception a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception . (See MPEP 2106.05(h)) Claim 12 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 12 further recites, additional limitation directed to System adapted to be utilized in a method according to claim 1 comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to perform operations . These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) Claim 1 4 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 1 4 further recites, additional limitation directed to Computer program product, tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions operable to cause a computing entity to execute a method according to claim 1. These elements are general purpose computer or computer components that are simply added after the fact to an abstract idea and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Snuggerud ( US20170046057A1 ) . Regarding claim 1, Snuggerud teaches, Method of monitoring an industrial plant containing at least one continuous flow engine , comprising: acquiring a measurement value from at least one sensor , (¶0107 teaches, At block 306 of FIG. 3, plant data is acquired. Acquiring plant data may include acquiring at least a portion of the sensor data ) evaluating the measurement value whether it falls within a threshold value range, ( ¶0108 teaches, At decision block 308 of FIG. 3, it is determined whether a PNS event is detected. A PNS event may occur when one or more of the PGM or CS parameters, being monitored at block 306, exceed or fall below a corresponding PNS threshold (depending on whether the corresponding PNS is an upper or lower bound). ) in case the measurement value falls outside the threshold value range triggering an alarm action, wherein the alarm action contains sending an evaluation request to an operator, (¶0111 teaches, At block 312, a notification associated with the PNS event is provided to a user. ¶0130-¶0131 teaches providing notification to user and receiving user acknowledgement of the notification) - receiving an evaluation data from the operator, wherein said evaluation data is based on at least three options, wherein the options include i . evaluating the alarm action being false, wherein such evaluation data triggers an increase of the threshold value range, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct, iii. evaluating the alarm action being possibly correct, wherein such evaluation data triggers adding to a counte r wherein in case the counte r reaches a counter limit a raising of the threshold value range is triggered. (¶0131 determining w hether the user acknowledges the notification . ¶0091 teaches, a PNS tracks at least a portion of the notifications and user interactions with the notifications, such as user acknowledgments of the notifications. For instance the notifications and user interactions may be automatically logged and archived via a data acquisition system (DAS), such as DAS 175 of FIG. 1C. T herefore the system receives evaluation from the user that the alarm action is correct . ) Regarding claim 2, Snuggerud teaches, Method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation data is base d on option ii., wherein such evaluation data decreases the counter, wherein the minimum counter value is zero. (¶0150 teaches, at block 522, where an unacknowledged events counter associated with the notification icon is decremented based on the user acknowledgment of the notification. ¶0168 teaches, when the user has acknowledged the alarm notification, the unacknowledged events counter is decremented to display 0 ) Regarding claim 12, Snuggerud teaches, System adapted to be utilized in a method according to claim 1 comprising a processor and a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the system to perform operations comprising: (Fig. 2 and ¶0181 teaches, a computer device 200 including a memory 204. ¶0201-¶0202 teaches memory stores applications 220 which may include computer executable instructions which, when executed by computer device 200, transmit, receive, and/or otherwise process instructions and data. Applications 220 may include PGM assembly monitoring application 222, which may be provide computer executable instructions, which when executed by computer device 200, or another computer device, may enable actions discussed in conjunction with any of the processes discussed herein ) acquiring a measurement value from at least one sensor , (¶0107 teaches, At block 306 of FIG. 3, plant data is acquired. Acquiring plant data may include acquiring at least a portion of the sensor data) evaluating the measurement value whether it falls within a threshold value range, (¶0108 teaches, At decision block 308 of FIG. 3, it is determined whether a PNS event is detected. A PNS event may occur when one or more of the PGM or CS parameters, being monitored at block 306, exceed or fall below a corresponding PNS threshold (depending on whether the corresponding PNS is an upper or lower bound).) in case the measurement value falls outside the threshold value range triggering an alarm action, wherein the alarm action contains sending an evaluation request to an operator, (¶0111 teaches, At block 312, a notification associated with the PNS event is provided to a user. ¶0130-¶0131 teaches providing notification to user and receiving user acknowledgement of the notification) receiving an evaluation data from the operator, wherein said evaluation data is based on at least three options, wherein the options include i . evaluating the alarm action being false wherein such evaluation data triggers an increase of the threshold value range, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct, iii. evaluating the alarm action being possibly correct, wherein such evaluation data triggers adding to a counter, wherein in case the counter reaches a counter limit a raising of the threshold value range is triggered. (¶0131 determining whether the user acknowledges the notification. ¶0091 teaches, a PNS tracks at least a portion of the notifications and user interactions with the notifications, such as user acknowledgments of the notifications. For instance the notifications and user interactions may be automatically logged and archived via a data acquisition system (DAS), such as DAS 175 of FIG. 1C. Therefore the system receives evaluation from the user that the alarm action is correct.) Regarding claim 14, Snuggerud teaches, Computer program product, tangibly embodied in a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium, including instructions operable to cause a computing entity to execute a method according to claim 1. (¶0201-¶0202 teaches, applications 220 which may include computer executable instructions which, when executed by computer device 200, transmit, receive, and/or otherwise process instructions and data. Applications 220 may include PGM assembly monitoring application 222, which may be provide computer executable instructions, which when executed by computer device 200, or another computer device, may enable actions discussed in conjunction with any of the processes discussed herein ) 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snuggerud ( US20170046057A1 ) in view of Korsedal ( US20180284748A1 ) Regarding claim 5, Snuggerud doesn’t explicitly teach, Method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement value is a measurement value of a compressor part of the continuous flow engine. ( Korsedal in ¶0028 teaches, computing device(s) 66 may include and/or may be in electrical and/or mechanical communication with a plurality of sensors 70 positioned throughout, within, adjacent to and/or around system 10 to detect operational characteristic(s) of components (e.g., compressor 32 .) ) Korseda l is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a turbine engine (see ¶0017). A combination of Korsedal with Snuggerud would allow the system to receive measurement value regarding compressor part of the continuous flow engine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Korsedal with Snuggerud . One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to detect operational anomaly of the power plant system, as taught by Korseda l . Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snuggerud ( US20170046057A1 ) in view of Sekiai ( US20090132095A1 ) Regarding claim 6, Snuggerud doesn’t explicitly teach, Method according to claim 1, wherein a simulated value is provided to the operator along the measurement value, wherein the simulated value is based on a model of the continuous flow engine or a model of a part of the continuous flow engine. ( Sekiai , in ¶0168 and Fig. 4F teaches displaying actual equipment characteristics and model characteristic. ¶0079 teaches, The model 620 as the operational equipment provided to the control device 200 has a function of simulating the control characteristic of the plant 100 using a statistical model and a physical model built inside thereof . ¶0209 teaches plant includes steam turbine (continuous flow engine)) Sekiai is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a steam turbine (see ¶0209). A combination of Sekiai with Snuggerud would allow the system to provide simulated value and measurement value to the operator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Sekiai with Snuggerud . One would have been motivated to do so because b y displaying the graphs emphasizing the positions of the deviation peaks of the model characteristic curve i t becomes possible for the operator of the plant to understand the grounds for generation of the correction signal and to evaluate the validity of the correction signal , as taught by Sekiai in ¶0173 Claim (s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snuggerud ( US20170046057A1 ) in view of Sekiai ( US20090132095A1 ) and further in view of Jensen ( 20120286966 ) Regarding claim 7, Snuggerud and Sekiai doesn’t teach, Method according to claim 6, wherein a historical value is provided to the operator along with the measurement value, wherein the historical value is retrieved from a historical database based on the current state of the continuous flow engine . (Jensen in ¶0019 teaches, display assembly 128 receives data and presents an output representative of the data to the user such that the user is enabled to view historical data and monitor machine 102 in real-time . ¶0034 teaches, t he user may retrieve historical data saved in memory device 214 and/or database 124 by requesting historical data via user interface 230. When processor 210 receives such a request, processor 210 generates an output that includes a graphical and/or textual representation of the historical data that processor 210 receives from memory device 214 and/or database 124. The output of the historical data is transmitted to display media 218 for display to the user. ¶0013 teaches, system 100 includes at least one machine 102, such as, a steam turbine, a gas turbine ) Jensen is an art in the area of interest as it relates to a steam turbine (see ¶0013). A combination of Jensen with Snuggerud and Sekiai would allow the system to provide historical value and measurement value to the operator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Jensen with Snuggerud and Sekiai . One would have been motivated to do so because b y doing so would allow the user to view historical data of the machine and/or monitor the machine in real-time , as taught by Jensen in ¶0005. Regarding claim 8, Snuggerud , Sekiai and Jensen teaches, Method according to claim 7, wherein the continuous flow engine is at least one of a gas turbine, a steam turbine, a compressor, or any combination thereof. ( Snuggerud in ¶0074-¶0075 teaches modular power plant includes steam turbine generators 158) Claim (s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snuggerud ( US20170046057A1 ) in view of Sekiai ( US20090132095A1 ) and further in view of Jensen ( 20120286966 ) and further in view of Jammikunta ( 20160364973 ) Regarding claim 9, Snuggerud , Sekiai and Jensen teaches, Method according to claim 8, wherein the method further comprises: sending a dataset to a … database, wherein the dataset comprises data including the threshold value range and/or the data relating to the evaluation data. ( Snuggerud in ¶010 2 teaches, the PNS thresholds may be stored in PNS log database . ¶0103 teaches, A user may generate, supply, edit, modify, or otherwise update one or more of the PNS thresholds. For instance, the management of the power plant may modify at least a portion of the PNS thresholds. ) Snuggerud , Sekiai and Jensen doesn’t explicitly teach, a distributed database . ( Jammikunta in 20160364973 ¶0033 teaches, Machine readable medium 210 also stores process control limit 232, threshold 234 and drift 236. ¶0027 teaches, “machine readable medium” should be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database)) Jammikunta is an art in the area of interest as it relates to industrial plants ¶0017. Snuggerud already teaches a database to store PNS threshold. However it doesn’t teach a distributed database. Jammikunta teaches storing a threshold for an industrial plant in a distributed database. It would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, to pick distributed database to store threshold and incorporate it into the system of Snuggerud , Sekiai and Jensen since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (i.e. centralized or distributed database) to the recognized need (storing threshold value) and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (the cost and benefits are known) Regarding claim 10, Snuggerud , Sekiai , Jensen and Jammikunta teaches, Method according to claim 9, wherein the distributed database includes a smart contract being triggered in case the threshold value range falls outside of a specified range and/or the evaluations of the operator differ from the reference data regarding evaluations of the operator. ( According to published specification ¶0058 “ The term “smart contract” as used herein especially includes data like program data or data being able to be executed by a program to perform specified steps or actions including control commands, specified values, requirements, interrelated data like measured values and corresponding action in response to fulfilling or not fulfilling predefined values in comparison to said measured values ”. Snuggerud in ¶0131 teaches, At decision block 426, it is determined whether the user acknowledges the notification. If the user acknowledges the notification, process 420 flows to block 428. ¶0147 teaches, At block 506, an unacknowledged events counter that is associated with the selected icon is incremented.) Claim (s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snuggerud ( US20170046057A1 ) in view of Sekiai ( US20090132095A1 ) and further in view of Jensen ( US20120286966A1 ) and further in view of Jammikunta ( US20160364973A1 ) and further in view of Korsedal ( US20180284748A1 ) Regarding claim 11, Snuggerud , Sekiai , Jensen and Jammikunta as combined doesn’t teach, Method according to claim 10, further comprising acquiring at least three measurement values, for evaluation, wherein the measurement values are measurement values of a compressor part of the continuous flow engine . ( Korsedal in ¶0028 teaches, computing device(s) 66 may include and/or may be in electrical and/or mechanical communication with a plurality of sensors 70 positioned throughout, within, adjacent to and/or around system 10 to detect operational characteristic(s) of components (e.g., compressor 32 .) . ¶0056 and Fig. 4 teaches operational characteristic graph which is comprised of at least 3 (twice when the two anomalies are detected and at least one in between the two anomalies) operational characteristic measurement ) Korseda l is an art in the area of interest as it teaches a turbine engine (see ¶0017). A combination of Korsedal with Snuggerud , Sekiai , Jensen and Jammikunta would allow the system to receive compressor part of the continuous flow engine. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Korsedal with Snuggerud , Sekiai , Jensen and Jammikunta . One would have been motivated to do so because doing so would allow the system to detect operational anomaly of the power plant system, as taught by Korseda l . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7087 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday to Thursday 10AM -6PM and alternate Fridays . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kamini Shah can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2279 . 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. /KAMINI S SHAH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116 /ISTIAQUE AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2116