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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The amendment filed on 06/29/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
2. 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.
Claim 11 recites “An apparatus for determining low-cycle fatigue (LCF) of a mechanical component, comprising: an acquisition module, … a parameter computing module, … a hazard rate computing module,… and a determining module,….”.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation:
Specification paragraph [0026]-[0027] of PG PUB states:
[0026] According to another aspect of embodiments of the present disclosure, a storage medium is provided, having stored thereon a program which, when executed by a computer, performs any of the methods described above.
[0027] The medium described above solves the problem in the prior art that the LCF determined is imprecise because the cyclic operating conditions are fixed, so has the effect of increasing the precision of LCF risk evaluation.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 12, 13, and 18 are 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.
As per Claims 12 and 18, they recite the limitation "the determined LCF being close to 1" which is indefinite because the claim sets forth no standard for ascertaining how close to 1 the determined LCF must be before the recited servicing (or overhauling or replacing) is performed, so that the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
As per Claim 13, the limitation "the determined LCF being much lower than 1" is indefinite because the claim sets forth no standard for ascertaining how much lower than 1 the determined LCF must be before the recited servicing is not performed, so that the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
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.
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.
4. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz 1 (“A probabilistic model for LCF”) in view of Schmitz 2 (“Probabilistic Analysis of LCF Crack Initiation Life of a Turbine Blade under Thermomechanical Loading”), and further in view of De Prosperis (US 20140244133 A1).
As per Claim 1 and 10-11, Schmitz 1 teaches a method/ non-transitory computer readable storage medium/ an apparatus for servicing a mechanical component (section 2.1-2.3; Fig. 1: a probabilistic low-cycle-fatigue model is applied to a polycrystalline metal component, the model being computer-implemented as a finite-element postprocessor, the "servicing" purpose recited in the preamble being addressed by the servicing step below), comprising:
for each of the multiple operating cycles, computing a Weibull scale parameter based on one corresponding cyclic operating condition in the multiple cyclic operating conditions (section 2.3
PNG
media_image1.png
434
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
": the Weibull scale field is computed from the cyclic strain field, which is the corresponding cyclic operating condition);
for each of the multiple operating cycles, computing a hazard rate of the mechanical component based on the Weibull scale parameter (section 1 “For the density of the intensity measure we employ a Weibull approach which is commonly used in reliability statistics, confer [7]. This results in a Weibull distribution for the number N of cycles to first crack initiation with a scale parameter given by the CMB equation.”; section 2.2 pg 586
PNG
media_image2.png
163
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
: the per-cycle hazard rate is expressed as a Weibull crack-formation intensity keyed to the scale parameter Nidet); and
determining a low cycle fatigue (LCF) of the mechanical component based on the hazard rates in the multiple operating cycles (section 2.2, pg 586
PNG
media_image3.png
127
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
: the cumulative probability of LCF crack initiation as a function of the cumulative hazard rate over the operating cycles);
wherein the Weibull scale parameter is used to describe the effect of a geometric shape and a stress-strain state of the mechanical component on an LCF lifespan expectation of the mechanical component (section 2.3-2.4, “Inserting this into (7) and integrating over n, we arrive at the cumulative distribution function for the proposed probabilistic LCF model”
PNG
media_image4.png
199
637
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
462
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
: the scale field is integrated over the component surface ∂Ω and derived from the strain field ε(x), so geometry and stress-strain state govern the LCF lifespan distribution).
Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly acquiring multiple cyclic operating conditions of the mechanical component in multiple operating cycles;
servicing the mechanical component, based on the determined LCF;
wherein the hazard rate is the probability of crack initiation occurring in a predetermined cycle when crack initiation has not occurred up till the cycle preceding the predetermined cycle, wherein the predetermined cycle is an operating cycle in the multiple operating cycles; and
wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions vary between the multiple operating cycles;
Schmitz 2 teaches acquiring multiple cyclic operating conditions of the mechanical component in multiple operating cycles (Abstract, section 1 “An accurate assessment for fatigue damage as a function of activation and deactivation cycles is vital for the design of many engineering parts. In this paper we extend the probabilistic and local approach to this problem proposed in [1], [2] and [3] to the case of non-constant temperature fields and thermomechanical loading.”; section 3 "The transition from the shutdown state to the operating state and then back to the shutdown state is considered as one load cycle. It is further assumed that the shutdown and operating state stay the same during the cycles.": the per-cycle activation/deactivation stress and temperature conditions of the component are acquired over the successive load cycles);
wherein the hazard rate is the probability of crack initiation occurring in a predetermined cycle when crack initiation has not occurred up till the cycle preceding the predetermined cycle, wherein the predetermined cycle is an operating cycle in the multiple operating cycles (section 2
PNG
media_image6.png
446
887
media_image6.png
Greyscale
: the hazard rate is the conditional probability of first crack initiation at cycle n given no initiation through the preceding cycle). In particular, Schmitz 2 extends the Schmitz 1 probabilistic local approach to non-constant temperature fields and thermomechanical loading, treating each shutdown-to-operating-to-shutdown transition as one load cycle and defining the hazard rate as the instantaneous conditional failure rate at a cycle given survival to the preceding cycle.
Schmitz 1 and Schmitz 2 are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, probabilistic model for low-cycle fatigue (LCF).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Schmitz 2 into Schmitz 1’s invention to extend the constant-amplitude probabilistic LCF framework to the operationally realistic case to optimize the total PoF with respect to find a design Ω under certain constraints such that surface integrals of the form of are minimized to provide an accurate assessment for fatigue damage as a function of activation and deactivation cycles (Schmitz 2: Abstract, Conclusion).
However, Schmitz 1 as modified by Schmitz 2 fails to teach explicitly (Claim 1 and 10) servicing the mechanical component, based on the determined LCF; and
wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions vary between the multiple operating cycles.
De Prosperis teaches servicing the mechanical component, based on the determined LCF ([0005] “plant core parts, such as the gas turbine, are ideally replaced/maintained just when their probability of failure has a substantial impact on plant reliability”; [0020] “it is possible to make an informed recommendation for rotor life extension or retirement”: the mechanical component is serviced (replaced, maintained, retired, or life-extended) based on the computed probability of failure / residual life); and
and wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions vary between the multiple operating cycles ([0033] "the acquisition and exploitation of a database of historical operating conditions for each specific unit"; [0020] "operational variables (model time, cycle, and temperature to assess their impact on low cycle fatigue and creep); material history (including models of the application environment, duty cycle, and maintenance practices)": the unit-specific historical operating conditions are recorded per operating cycle and differ from cycle to cycle). In particular, De Prosperis teaches determining a residual life expectancy and probability of failure of a gas-turbine component from a probabilistic physics-based life model driven by unit-specific historical operating conditions, and timing the servicing of the component (single-part replacement, full-rotor replacement, life extension, or retirement) to the computed probability of failure.
Schmitz 1, Schmitz 2, and De Prosperis are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, a probabilistic model for low-cycle fatigue (LCF) of a mechanical component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate De Prosperis into Schmitz 1 as modified by Schmitz 2's invention for the purpose of a probabilistic model for low-cycle fatigue (LCF) of a mechanical component to provide plant core parts replaced/maintained just when their probability of failure has a substantial impact on plant reliability, so as to minimize plant shut down or disruption (De Prosperis: [0005]).
As per Claim 2, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly wherein acquiring multiple cyclic operating conditions of the mechanical component in multiple operating cycles comprises: acquiring multiple historical cyclic operating conditions of the mechanical component itself in the multiple operating cycles, as the multiple cyclic operating conditions; or
acquiring respective probability distribution estimates of the multiple cyclic operating conditions of the mechanical component, as the multiple cyclic operating conditions, wherein the probability distribution estimates are obtained with reference to a statistical result of the multiple cyclic operating conditions, in the multiple operating cycles, of other components that are the same as the mechanical component but distributed at different geographical positions.
De Prosperis teaches wherein acquiring multiple cyclic operating conditions of the mechanical component in multiple operating cycles comprises:
acquiring multiple historical cyclic operating conditions of the mechanical component itself in the multiple operating cycles, as the multiple cyclic operating conditions (De Prosperis: [0033] "the acquisition and exploitation of a database of historical operating conditions for each specific unit": the historical operating conditions of each specific unit (the mechanical component itself) are acquired over its operating cycles and used as the multiple cyclic operating conditions driving the life model); or
acquiring respective probability distribution estimates of the multiple cyclic operating conditions of the mechanical component, as the multiple cyclic operating conditions, wherein the probability distribution estimates are obtained with reference to a statistical result of the multiple cyclic operating conditions, in the multiple operating cycles, of other components that are the same as the mechanical component but distributed at different geographical positions.
As per Claim 3, Schmitz 1 teaches wherein computing a Weibull scale parameter based on one corresponding cyclic operating condition in the multiple cyclic operating conditions comprises:
computing a cyclic strain state of a surface position of the mechanical component based on the cyclic operating condition and the surface position (section 2.3
PNG
media_image7.png
510
620
media_image7.png
Greyscale
: the CMB equation is solved from the cyclic strain field ε(x) at each surface position x of the component surface);
computing a pointwise definite LCF lifespan of the surface position based on the cyclic strain state and the surface position (section 2.3
PNG
media_image7.png
510
620
media_image7.png
Greyscale
: the pointwise definite scale field Nidet(x), the LCF lifespan at that surface position, follows from the strain field); and
computing the Weibull scale parameter for an entire surface area of the mechanical component based on the pointwise definite LCF lifespan (section 2.3
PNG
media_image7.png
510
620
media_image7.png
Greyscale
: the pointwise scale field is integrated over the entire component surface ∂Ω to give the component-level Weibull scale parameter).
As per Claim 4, Schmitz 1 teaches wherein computing a Weibull scale parameter based on one corresponding cyclic operating condition in the multiple cyclic operating conditions (section 2.3 equation (9)-(10)).
Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly in the case where the multiple cyclic operating conditions are respective probability distribution estimates of the multiple cyclic operating conditions, computing a Weibull scale parameter based on each case in one corresponding probability distribution in respective probability distributions of the multiple cyclic operating conditions.
Schmitz 2 teaches wherein computing a Weibull scale parameter based on one corresponding cyclic operating condition in the multiple cyclic operating conditions comprises: in the case where the multiple cyclic operating conditions are respective probability distribution estimates of the multiple cyclic operating conditions, computing a Weibull scale parameter based on each case in one corresponding probability distribution in respective probability distributions of the multiple cyclic operating conditions (section 1 "extended the model proposed in [1], [2] and [3] by a temperature model of the LCF parameters as well as the percentile bootstrap method in order to be able to consider uncertainties due to LCF test data."; section 3 "Using these parameter realizations in conjunction with the FEA postprocessing results in 2,000 values for the Weibull shape and scale parameter.": a Weibull scale parameter is computed per bootstrap realization across the respective probability distributions of the conditions).
As per Claim 5, Schmitz 1 teaches wherein computing a hazard rate of the mechanical component based on the Weibull scale parameter comprises: in the case where the multiple cyclic operating conditions are the multiple historical cyclic operating conditions, computing the hazard rate based on the Weibull scale parameter and a Weibull shape parameter that is independent of strain state (section 2.3
PNG
media_image8.png
898
692
media_image8.png
Greyscale
).
: the hazard rate uses the scale parameter Nidet together with the shape parameter m, which is a material scatter constant independent of the strain field).
However, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly in the case where the multiple cyclic operating conditions are respective probability distribution estimates of the multiple cyclic operating conditions, computing the hazard rate based on respective probability distributions of the multiple cyclic operating conditions and the Weibull scale parameter corresponding to each case in the probability distributions and a Weibull shape parameter that is independent of strain state.
Schmitz 2 teaches in the case where the multiple cyclic operating conditions are respective probability distribution estimates of the multiple cyclic operating conditions, computing the hazard rate based on respective probability distributions of the multiple cyclic operating conditions and the Weibull scale parameter corresponding to each case in the probability distributions and a Weibull shape parameter that is independent of strain state (section 1-2 equation (1)-(2); section 3 "the law of total probability yields the total PoF with respect to LCF crack initiation": the hazard/failure probability is computed across the respective parameter distributions using the per-realization Weibull scale and the strain-independent shape parameter).
As per Claim 6, Schmitz 1 teaches wherein determining LCF of the mechanical component comprises: in the case where the multiple cyclic operating conditions are the multiple historical cyclic operating conditions, computing a risk probability of the LCF occurring based on the hazard rates in the multiple operating cycles, to determine LCF of the mechanical component (section 2.2 equation (7) "From (6) we immediately deduce the following expressions for the distribution function": both the risk probability of LCF occurring up to cycle n and the probability distribution satisfied by the LCF lifespan random variable Ni, derived from the cumulative hazard rate over the operating cycles).
Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly in the case where the multiple cyclic operating conditions are respective probability distribution estimates of the multiple cyclic operating conditions, evaluating a probability distribution satisfied by an LCF lifespan of the mechanical component based on the hazard rates in the multiple operating cycles, to predict LCF of the mechanical component.
Schmitz 2 teaches in the case where the multiple cyclic operating conditions are respective probability distribution estimates of the multiple cyclic operating conditions, evaluating a probability distribution satisfied by an LCF lifespan of the mechanical component based on the hazard rates in the multiple operating cycles, to predict LCF of the mechanical component (section 3, Figure 2, “Using these parameter realizations in conjunction with the FEA postprocessing results in 2,000 values for the Weibull shape and scale parameter. Then, the law of total probability yields the total PoF with respect to LCF crack initiation.” on pg 5).
As per Claim 7, Schmitz 1 teaches wherein after computing a hazard rate based on the Weibull scale parameter, the method further comprises: computing a survival function based on the hazard rates of the multiple operating cycles, wherein the survival function is the probability of the mechanical component having no crack initiation in a predetermined cycle (section 2.2 equation (6): survival function defined as the probability of no crack initiation in the predetermined cycle).
As per Claim 9, Schmitz 1 teaches wherein after computing a hazard rate based on the Weibull scale parameter, the method further comprises: computing a probability distribution function satisfied by an LCF lifespan based on the hazard rates of the multiple operating cycles, wherein the probability distribution function is a cumulative distribution function or a probability mass function, wherein the cumulative distribution function is the probability of crack initiation occurring in the mechanical component in a stage from an initial cycle to a predetermined cycle, and the probability mass function is the extent to which the probability of crack initiation occurring in the mechanical component in a stage from an initial cycle to a predetermined cycle is higher than the probability of crack initiation occurring in a stage from an initial cycle to the cycle preceding the predetermined cycle (section 2.2 equation (7); section 2.3 equation (11) "which yields the probability for LCF crack initiation in the interval (0, n]": the cumulative distribution function for LCF crack initiation occurring in the mechanical component in the stage from the initial cycle 0 to the predetermined cycle n and the corresponding probability mass at cycle n is the first-difference FNi(n) − FNi(n−1), which is precisely the claim-recited extent).
As per Claim 12, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly wherein the servicing step is performed based on the determined LCF being close to 1.
De Prosperis teaches wherein the servicing step is performed based on the determined LCF being close to 1 (De Prosperis: [0034] "estimating the risk of failure associated with extending a life of a component beyond an initial manufacturing estimated end of life"; [0005] "plant core parts, such as the gas turbine, are ideally replaced/maintained just when their probability of failure has a substantial impact on plant reliability": servicing is performed when the computed probability of failure is high, i.e., the determined LCF probability approaches unity).
As per Claim 13, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly wherein the servicing step is not performed based on the determined LCF being much lower than 1.
De Prosperis teaches wherein the servicing step is not performed based on the determined LCF being much lower than 1 (De Prosperis: [0033] "identifying operating histories that may indicate that a unit may have been operated in more benign conditions than were assumed when a manufacturer's life expectancy was estimated": servicing is deferred, and the component life extended, when the computed probability of failure is low, i.e., the determined LCF probability is much lower than unity).
As per Claim 14, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly wherein the servicing step comprises overhauling or replacing the mechanical component.
De Prosperis teaches wherein the servicing step comprises overhauling or replacing the mechanical component (De Prosperis: [0026] "there is at least one TF for each single part so to allow a replacement of just the single part which is at the end of life or a replacement of the full rotor": the servicing comprises replacing the single component or the full rotor).
As per Claim 15, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly wherein the mechanical component is a gas turbine component.
De Prosperis teaches wherein the mechanical component is a gas turbine component (De Prosperis: [0021] "physics based models for predicting a probabilistic life of one or more gas turbine components": the mechanical component is a gas turbine component).
As per Claim 16, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly wherein the cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine component comprise one or more of temperature and rotation speed.
De Prosperis teaches wherein the cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine component comprise one or more of temperature and rotation speed (De Prosperis: [0025] "Examples of independent variables, vitalXs, are an ambient temperature, a rotor speed, a firing temperature, various internal geometrical clearances, etc. associated with a turbine": the operating conditions comprise temperature and rotor speed).
As per Claim 17, Schmitz 1 teaches wherein the Weibull scale parameter is computed based on the following equation
PNG
media_image9.png
256
719
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(section 2.3 "
PNG
media_image1.png
434
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
": the recited surface-integral Weibull-scale equation and the recited 1 − exp(·) hazard-state expression correspond to the Schmitz 1 CMB/Weibull surface-integral scale field and its exponential crack-initiation distribution).
As per Claim 18, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly wherein the mechanical component is a gas turbine component; wherein the cyclic operating conditions comprise one or more of temperature and rotation speed of the gas turbine component; wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions vary between the multiple operating cycles; wherein the servicing the gas turbine component comprises overhauling or replacing the gas turbine component; and wherein the overhauling or replacing the gas turbine component is based on the determined LCF being close to 1.
De Prosperis teaches wherein the mechanical component is a gas turbine component (De Prosperis: [0021] "physics based models for predicting a probabilistic life of one or more gas turbine components": the component is a gas turbine component);
wherein the cyclic operating conditions comprise one or more of temperature and rotation speed of the gas turbine component (De Prosperis: [0025] "an ambient temperature, a rotor speed, a firing temperature, various internal geometrical clearances, etc. associated with a turbine": the operating conditions comprise temperature and rotor speed);
wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions vary between the multiple operating cycles (De Prosperis: [0033] "a database of historical operating conditions for each specific unit"; [0020] "material history (including models of the application environment, duty cycle, and maintenance practices)": the operating conditions are recorded per cycle and differ from cycle to cycle);
wherein the servicing the gas turbine component comprises overhauling or replacing the gas turbine component (De Prosperis: [0026] "a replacement of just the single part which is at the end of life or a replacement of the full rotor": the servicing comprises replacing the single part or the full rotor); and
wherein the overhauling or replacing the gas turbine component is based on the determined LCF being close to 1 (De Prosperis: [0034] "estimating the risk of failure associated with extending a life of a component beyond an initial manufacturing estimated end of life": the overhaul or replacement is triggered when the computed probability of failure approaches unity).
As per Claim 19, Schmitz 1 teaches a method for servicing or designing a gas turbine component, comprising (section 2.1-2.3: a computer-implemented probabilistic low-cycle-fatigue model applied to a component, the gas-turbine and servicing-or-designing subject matter being addressed by the fillers below):
for each of the multiple operating cycles, computing a Weibull scale parameter based on one corresponding cyclic operating condition in the multiple cyclic operating conditions (section 2.3 "
PNG
media_image1.png
434
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
": the Weibull scale field is computed per cycle from the cyclic strain field);
for each of the multiple operating cycles, computing a hazard rate of the gas turbine component based on the Weibull scale parameter (section 1 “For the density of the intensity measure we employ a Weibull approach which is commonly used in reliability statistics, confer [7]. This results in a Weibull distribution for the number N of cycles to first crack initiation with a scale parameter given by the CMB equation.”; section 2.2 pg 586
PNG
media_image2.png
163
509
media_image2.png
Greyscale
:the per-cycle hazard rate is derived from the Weibull scale parameter);
determining a low cycle fatigue (LCF) of the gas turbine component based on the hazard rates in the multiple operating cycles (section 2.2
PNG
media_image3.png
127
610
media_image3.png
Greyscale
: LCF is determined as the cumulative crack-initiation probability from the hazard rates over the cycles); and
wherein the Weibull scale parameter is used to describe the effect of a geometric shape and a stress-strain state of the gas turbine component on an LCF lifespan expectation of the gas turbine component (section 2.3-2.4, “Inserting this into (7) and integrating over n, we arrive at the cumulative distribution function for the proposed probabilistic LCF model”
PNG
media_image4.png
199
637
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
462
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
: the scale field integrated over the surface ∂Ω and derived from the strain field ties geometry and stress-strain state to the LCF lifespan).
However, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly acquiring multiple cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine component in multiple operating cycles, wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine vary between the multiple operating cycles;
servicing or designing the gas turbine component, based on the determined LCF;
wherein the hazard rate is the probability of crack initiation occurring in a predetermined cycle when crack initiation has not occurred up till the cycle preceding the predetermined cycle, wherein the predetermined cycle is an operating cycle in the multiple operating cycles; and
wherein the cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine component comprises one or more of temperature and rotation speed.
Schmitz 2 teaches acquiring multiple cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine component in multiple operating cycles (Abstract, section 1 “An accurate assessment for fatigue damage as a function of activation and deactivation cycles is vital for the design of many engineering parts. In this paper we extend the probabilistic and local approach to this problem proposed in [1], [2] and [3] to the case of non-constant temperature fields and thermomechanical loading.”, "The necessity for a flexible service of a lot of engineering parts such as gas turbines leads to the importance of fatigue analysis"; section 3 "The transition from the shutdown state to the operating state and then back to the shutdown state is considered as one load cycle.”: the per-cycle operating conditions of the gas-turbine component are acquired over the successive load cycles); and
wherein the hazard rate is the probability of crack initiation occurring in a predetermined cycle when crack initiation has not occurred up till the cycle preceding the predetermined cycle, wherein the predetermined cycle is an operating cycle in the multiple operating cycles (section 2
PNG
media_image6.png
446
887
media_image6.png
Greyscale
:the hazard rate is the conditional probability of first crack initiation at the predetermined cycle given survival to the preceding cycle).
Schmitz 1 and Schmitz 2 are analogous art because they are both from the same field of endeavor, probabilistic model for low-cycle fatigue (LCF).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Schmitz 2 into Schmitz 1’s invention to extend the constant-amplitude probabilistic LCF framework to the operationally realistic case to optimize the total PoF with respect to find a design Ω under certain constraints such that surface integrals of the form of are minimized to provide an accurate assessment for fatigue damage as a function of activation and deactivation cycles (Schmitz 2: Abstract, Conclusion).
However, Schmitz 1 as modified by Schmitz 2 fails to teach explicitly wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine vary between the multiple operating cycles;
servicing or designing the gas turbine component, based on the determined LCF; and
wherein the cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine component comprises one or more of temperature and rotation speed.
De Prosperis teaches wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine vary between the multiple operating cycles ([0033] "the acquisition and exploitation of a database of historical operating conditions for each specific unit"; [0020] "operational variables (model time, cycle, and temperature to assess their impact on low cycle fatigue and creep); material history (including models of the application environment, duty cycle, and maintenance practices)": the unit-specific historical operating conditions are recorded per operating cycle and differ from cycle to cycle));
servicing or designing the gas turbine component, based on the determined LCF ([0020 "it is possible to make an informed recommendation for rotor life extension or retirement"; [0044] "at least the first three are applicable for a new design (e.g., life predictions for new designs)": the gas-turbine component is serviced, or a new design is produced, based on the computed probabilistic life); and
wherein the cyclic operating conditions of the gas turbine component comprises one or more of temperature and rotation speed ([0025] "an ambient temperature, a rotor speed, a firing temperature, various internal geometrical clearances, etc. associated with a turbine": the operating conditions comprise temperature and rotor speed).
Schmitz 1, Schmitz 2, and De Prosperis are analogous art because they are all from the same field of endeavor, a probabilistic model for low-cycle fatigue (LCF) of a mechanical component.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate De Prosperis into Schmitz 1 as modified by Schmitz 2's invention for the purpose of a probabilistic model for low-cycle fatigue (LCF) of a mechanical component to provide plant core parts replaced/maintained just when their probability of failure has a substantial impact on plant reliability, so as to minimize plant shut down or disruption (De Prosperis: [0005]).
As per Claim 20, Schmitz 1 teaches wherein the Weibull scale parameter is computed based on the following equation
PNG
media_image10.png
236
721
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(section 2.3 "
PNG
media_image1.png
434
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
": the recited surface-integral Weibull-scale equation and the recited 1 − exp(·) hazard-state expression correspond to the Schmitz 1 CMB/Weibull surface-integral scale field and its exponential crack-initiation distribution).
However, Schmitz 1 fails to teach explicitly wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions vary between the multiple operating cycles.
De Prosperis teaches wherein the acquired multiple cyclic operating conditions vary between the multiple operating cycles ([0033] "the acquisition and exploitation of a database of historical operating conditions for each specific unit"; [0020] "operational variables (model time, cycle, and temperature to assess their impact on low cycle fatigue and creep); material history (including models of the application environment, duty cycle, and maintenance practices)": the unit-specific historical operating conditions are recorded per operating cycle and differ from cycle to cycle).
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitz 1 ("A Probabilistic Model for LCF") in view of Schmitz 2 ("Probabilistic Analysis of LCF Crack Initiation Life of a Turbine Blade under Thermomechanical Loading") and De Prosperis (US 20140244133 A1), and further in view of Gensheimer ("A scalable discrete-time survival model for neural networks").
Schmitz 1 as modified by Schmitz 2 and De Prosperis teaches most all the instant invention as applied to claims 1-7 and 9-20 above.
As per Claim 8, Schmitz 1 as modified by Schmitz 2 and De Prosperis fails to teach explicitly wherein computing the survival function comprises: determining, for each operating cycle, a difference between the hazard rate and 1; and multiplying together the differences of each operating cycle in the multiple operating cycles, to obtain the survival function.
Gensheimer teaches wherein computing the survival function comprises: determining, for each operating cycle, a difference between the hazard rate and 1; and multiplying together the differences of each operating cycle in the multiple operating cycles, to obtain the survival function (Gensheimer: pg 3-4
PNG
media_image11.png
342
814
media_image11.png
Greyscale
: for each interval the difference between the conditional hazard probability and 1 is determined, and the differences are multiplied together over the intervals to obtain the survival probability, each operating cycle in the combination corresponding to one interval). In particular, Gensheimer teaches a discrete-time survival model in which time is divided into intervals, a conditional hazard probability is determined for each interval, and the survival probability through an interval is obtained by multiplying together the complements of the per-interval hazard probabilities.
Schmitz 1, Schmitz 2, De Prosperis, and Gensheimer are analogous art because they are all related to determining the probability of failure of a failure-time process from per-interval hazard rates.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Gensheimer into Schmitz 1 as modified by Schmitz 2 and De Prosperis’s invention for the purpose of a probabilistic model for low-cycle fatigue (LCF) of a mechanical component to optimize the total PoF with respect to find a design Ω under certain constraints such that surface integrals of the form of are minimized to provide an accurate assessment for fatigue damage as a function of activation and deactivation cycles (Schmitz 2: Abstract, Conclusion), and to provide plant core parts replaced/maintained just when their probability of failure has a substantial impact on plant reliability, so as to minimize plant shut down or disruption (De Prosperis: [0005]). Further the motivation is to provide a theoretically justified discrete-time computation of the survival probability that naturally deals with non-proportional hazards across the operating intervals accurately (Gensheimer: Introduction, pg 12).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed on 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully withdraws Rejection under 35 USC § 101 in view of the amendment and/or applicant’s arguments.
As per Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), applicant’s observation (Remarks p. 12) that the corresponding structure for the modules recited in claim 11 is disclosed at paragraphs [0028]–[0029] (rather than [0026]–[0027]) and further at paragraphs [0079]–[0080] and Fig. 3 is acknowledged. The interpretation of the claim 11 “module” limitations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained, with the corresponding structure understood to include at least the algorithm disclosed at paragraphs [0028]–[0029] and [0079]–[0080] and Fig. 3.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument – in view of De Prosperis.
Regarding the limitation “for each of the multiple operating cycles, computing a Weibull scale parameter based on one corresponding cyclic operating condition in the multiple cyclic operating conditions”, applicant has argued (Remarks pp. 15-16) that Section 2.3 of Schmitz 1 discloses an equation for strain ε, not the Weibull scale parameter, and that the Weibull scale parameter of Schmitz 1 (equation 16) is based on a gauge surface, a shape parameter, and a crack count rather than a corresponding cyclic operating condition. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on equation 16 of Schmitz 1. As set forth above, Schmitz 1 obtains the scale field Nidet(x) as the solution of the CMB equation from the cyclic strain field ε(x) at each surface position, and then “follow[s] a Weibull approach … for some shape parameter m” (Schmitz 1, section 2.3) ), such that the per-cycle Weibull scale parameter is computed from that cyclic strain field:
PNG
media_image12.png
237
674
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “one corresponding cyclic operating condition” is not limited to the temperature and rotation speed of dependent claims 16 and 18 and reads on the cyclic mechanical loading state to which the component is subjected in a given operating cycle. Moreover, in the combination the cyclic strain field of Schmitz 1 is itself produced by the operating conditions: De Prosperis identifies “operational variables (model time, cycle, and temperature)” and independent variables including “an ambient temperature, a rotor speed, a firing temperature” (De Prosperis, [0020], [0025]) that determine the component’s cyclic loading. The combined teachings therefore compute the Weibull scale parameter based on the corresponding cyclic operating condition, as claimed.
Applicant has argued that:
PNG
media_image13.png
218
685
media_image13.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner relies on the teaching in Schmitz 2 to teach the limitation “wherein the hazard rate is the probability of crack initiation occurring in a predetermined cycle when crack initiation has not occurred up till the cycle preceding the predetermined cycle, wherein the predetermined cycle is an operating cycle corresponding to the hazard rate in the multiple operating cycles”.
Schmitz 1 establishes “a Weibull distribution for the number N of cycles to first crack initiation with a scale parameter given by the CMB equation” (Schmitz 1, section 1), and the per-cycle crack-formation intensity is keyed to that scale field Nidet (Schmitz 1, section 2.3). Schmitz 2 defines the hazard rate as the instantaneous conditional failure rate derived from that same Weibull crack-count distribution (Schmitz 2, section 2, eq. 1). The combined teachings thus compute the hazard rate based on the Weibull scale parameter.
Furthermore, regarding the limitation “acquiring multiple cyclic operating conditions in multiple operating cycles”, applicant has argued (Remarks p. 17) that Schmitz 2 does not disclose this step. Examiner disagrees as Schmitz 2 discloses “the probabilistic and local approach to this problem proposed in [1], [2] and [3] to the case of non-constant temperature fields and thermomechanical loading” (Abstract) and section 3 of Schmitz 2describes this approach in detail where it states “The transition from the shutdown state to the operating state and then back to the shutdown state is considered as one load cycle. It is further assumed that the shutdown and operating state stay the same during the cycles.". The per-cycle activation/deactivation stress and temperature conditions of the component are acquired over the successive load cycles.
Regarding the limitation “Whether the acquired cyclic operating conditions vary between the operating cycles”: the arguments are moot with respect to the present ground and the limitation is De Prosperis, which does not model a fixed laboratory specimen but instead drives its probabilistic life model from each unit’s actual accumulated operating history. In particular, please see paragraph [0020] and [0033] of De Prosperis where it describes the unit-specific historical operating conditions are recorded per operating cycle and differ from cycle to cycle.
Applicant has further argued (Remarks pp. 17-18) that it is not clear how the proposed modification would result in Schmitz 1 performing the step of acquiring multiple cyclic operating conditions in multiple operating cycles. In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill would have understood the combined teachings of Schmitz 1, Schmitz 2, and De Prosperis to yield a probabilistic LCF model driven by the acquired per-cycle operating conditions of the component, as claimed.
Applicant has further argued (Remarks pp. 18) that the rejection fails to provide articulated reasoning with rational underpinning and is therefore conclusory. This argument is not persuasive. In response, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, for each reference added to the combination, a specific reason to combine drawn from the references themselves: Schmitz 2 is incorporated to provide to optimize the total PoF with respect to find a design Ω under certain constraints such that surface integrals of the form of are minimized to provide an accurate assessment for fatigue damage as a function of activation and deactivation cycles (Schmitz 2: Abstract, Conclusion), and De Prosperis is incorporated so that “plant core parts … are ideally replaced/maintained just when their probability of failure has a substantial impact on plant reliability,” thereby minimizing plant shutdown (De Prosperis, pg. 2 lines 26-31).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kvamme ("Continuous and Discrete-Time Survival Prediction with Neural Networks") teaches discrete-time survival prediction in which a survival probability is determined from per-interval hazard rates.
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights