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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/13/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, applicant in page 7-8 in remarks filed on 04/10/2026 argues,
“The options, i-iii, of claim 1 have been amended to include the following language, "and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations." This amendment clarifies that the present invention is continuously and automatically improving the operation of at least the continuous flow engine by evaluating historic data against current and future data. No new matter added.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim merely recites storing the evaluation data for use in future evaluations, it does not recite any specific method step performed by the system which uses the stored evaluation data in future evaluation to provide the alleged improvement by “continuously and automatically improving the operation of at least the continuous flow engine by evaluating historic data against current and future data”. Therefore, applicant’s argument regarding “storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations” providing an improvement to the operation of the continuous flow engine, is not persuasive
.
With regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C §102, applicant in page 8 in remarks filed on 04/10/2026 argues,
“Claims 1-2, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Snuggerud (US20170046057 Al). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Claim 1 has been amended as discussed above to include the limitations of canceled claims 2 and 3. Claims 4-12 and 14 depend from amended claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 3, as it was presented in 01/06/2023 specified a further limitation narrowing one of the multiple options (option i.) of claim 1. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3, required the steps performed in claim 3 and option i. of claim 1, to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(d). (see MPEP 608.01(n)). However, independent claim 1 as filed on 04/10/2026 include the limitations of cancelled claim 3. Since this limitation is not in a dependent claim, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, this limitation is not required to be performed as the steps are only performed when one of the alternative evaluation data is received from the operator. That is, under the broadest reasonable interpretation claim 1 can be interpreted to only receiving evaluation data from the operator which states that the alarm action is correct (option ii.), in which case the method steps does not require using the formula to calculate the increase of threshold value range. Applicant is advised to amend the independent claim 1 to require the step of increasing of the threshold value range using the formula to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 recites,
Method according to claim 3, Tnew -Tis at most B, wherein Bis an adaption limit.
Claim 4 specifies a further limitation which narrows the following limitations of claim 1:
i. evaluating the alarm action being false, wherein such evaluation data triggers an increase of the threshold value range and storing the evaluation data in a database for use in future evaluations,
wherein the increase of the threshold value range is calculated according to formula (I)
Tnew = ((T • (I +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.
In claim 1, the above limitations are recited as one of multiple options. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require the method to perform the above steps. However, as claim 4 specifies a further limitation narrowing these limitations of claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 requires the method to perform the above limitations of claim 1 to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(d). (see MPEP 608.01(n))
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 and doesn’t teach, Tnew -Tis at most B, wherein Bis an adaption limit.
Snuggerud (US20170046057A1) in ¶0103 teaches modifying PNS threshold. However, it doesn’t teach the claimed equation to adjust threshold value range and doesn’t teach, Tnew -Tis at most B, wherein Bis an adaption limit.
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 and doesn’t teach, Tnew -Tis at most B, wherein Bis an adaption limit.
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 and doesn’t teach, Tnew -Tis at most B, wherein Bis an adaption limit.
No other art could be found which alone or in combination teaches the equation to adjust threshold value range and Tnew -Tis at most B, wherein Bis an adaption limit, as required in claim 4 when read in view of claim 1. Therefore, Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 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 method. 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 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 and storing the evaluation data in a database for use in future evaluations, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations, 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 and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations, wherein the evaluation data is based on option ii., wherein such evaluation data decreases the counter, wherein the minimum counter value is zero, wherein the increase of the threshold value range is calculated according to formula (I) Tnew = ((T • (I +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. 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)). With regards to steps performed under each of the different evaluations, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require performing each of the steps, as the steps are recited as alternatives. Therefore, the under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim, the claim can be interpreted to receive evaluation that the alarm is correct in which case the only step the claim needs to perform based on the evaluation is, storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations. This limitation is directed invoking a general-purpose computer component (i.e. database) to perform a task (i.e. storing data) that it performs in its ordinary capacity. Therefore, it is directed to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and fails to integrate judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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 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 and storing the evaluation data in a database for use in future evaluations, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations, 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 and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations, wherein the evaluation data is based on option ii., wherein such evaluation data decreases the counter, wherein the minimum counter value is zero, wherein the increase of the threshold value range is calculated according to formula (I) Tnew = ((T • (I +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. Limitations directed to acquiring a measurement value from at least one sensor and receiving an evaluation data from the operator and triggering an alarm action , 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 receiving 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)). With regards to steps performed under each of the different evaluations, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require performing each of the steps, as the steps are recited as alternatives. Therefore, the under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim, the claim can be interpreted to receive evaluation that the alarm is correct in which case the only step the claim needs to perform based on the evaluation is, storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations. This limitation is directed invoking a general-purpose computer component (i.e. database) to perform a task (i.e. storing data) that it performs in its ordinary capacity. Therefore, it is directed to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and fails to provide significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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. Limitations 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. Limitations 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. Limitations 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. Limitations 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 receiving 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 limitation does 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 a 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, “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” 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 amounts 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 limitation does 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. Limitations 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 14 depends on claim 1 therefore it recites the abstract idea of claim 1. Claim 14 further recites additional limitation directed to A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program product including instructions operable to cause a computing entity to execute a method according to claim. 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 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 and storing the evaluation data in a database for use in future evaluations, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations, 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 and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations, (¶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 and stores the evaluation data in the database (claimed option ii))
wherein the evaluation data is based on option ii., wherein such evaluation data decreases the counter, wherein the minimum counter value is zero, wherein the increase 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. (¶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. Broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require the claim to perform the step of calculating increase of the threshold value range using the claimed formula)
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 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 and storing the evaluation data in a database for use in future evaluations, ii. evaluating the alarm action being correct and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations, 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 and storing the evaluation data in the database for use in future evaluations, (¶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 and stores the evaluation data in the database (claimed option ii))
wherein the evaluation data is based on option ii., wherein such evaluation data decreases the counter, wherein the minimum counter value is zero, wherein the increase 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. (¶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 14,
Snuggerud teaches, A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program product 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.))
Korsedal 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 Korsedal.
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 by displaying the graphs emphasizing the positions of the deviation peaks of the model characteristic curve it 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, the 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 by 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 ¶0102 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 a 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 )
Korsedal 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 Korsedal.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ISTIAQUE AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7087. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Kenneth M Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/ISTIAQUE AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights