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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of the claims
The amendment received on has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-7 are amended. Claim 8 is newly added. Thus, claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/10/2026 with respect to claims 1-8 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A method for evaluating a lifetime of repairing or replacing a turbomachine part having a wear developing with turbomachine operating time, the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage, comprising the following steps:
S0: carrying out material tests on the turbomachine part establishing a correspondence between thermomechanical stresses exerted on the turbomachine part and a lifetime at constant wear of the turbomachine part, to generate a database and determine a relationship expressing the wear of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time, based on the database, the wear of the turbomachine part being defined by a plurality of wear depths meshing an outer surface of the turbomachine part;
S1: determining an average damage of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time based on a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the turbomachine part as a function of the wear of the turbomachine part and of the relationship expressing the wear of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time, wherein the average damage of the turbomachine part per unit time corresponds to an average damage of the turbomachine part during a turbomachine operating cycle, the average damage increasing with the wear depths;
S2: determining a damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part;
S3: determining a cumulative damage of the turbomachine operating part corresponding to the damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part, said cumulative damage corresponding to the integral of the average damage as a function of turbomachine operating time between an initial time and a final time:
E_cum = E_rupt =
∫
t
t
_
r
u
p
t
E
_
m
o
y
(
t
)
d
t
thereby obtaining the cumulative damage while accounting for a predicted geometrical change of the turbomachine part over the course of the lifetime of the turbomachine part, the lifetime of the turbomachine part consisting of a plurality of the turbomachine operating cycles with respect to time;
S4: deducing therefrom the lifetime of the turbomachine operating part, said lifetime corresponding to the final time; and
S5: repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the limitation of “carrying out material tests on the turbomachine part establishing a correspondence between thermomechanical stresses exerted on the turbomachine part and a lifetime at constant wear of the turbomachine part, to generate a database and determine a relationship expressing the wear of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time, based on the database, the wear of the turbomachine part being defined by a plurality of wear depths meshing an outer surface of the turbomachine part (page 10, lines 11-19, page 7, line 20- page 8, lines 7, page 10, line 11-16)” is a routine data gathering with mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and/or mathematical calculations. Determining a relationship (i.e. evaluation/analysis or mathematical calculations) for carrying out material tests on the turbomachine part to generate a database (i.e. routine data gathering) is an indicative of routine data gathering with mental observations, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and/or mathematical calculations. Further, the limitation of “determining an average damage of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time based on a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the turbomachine part as a function of the wear of the turbomachine part and of the relationship expressing the wear of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time, wherein the average damage of the turbomachine part per unit time corresponds to an average damage of the turbomachine part during a turbomachine operating cycle, the average damage increasing with the wear depths (page 10, lines 17-22: the average damage of the part corresponds to an average damage of the part per unit of time; page 12, lines 16-22: the average damage of the part increase with the wear depth),” “determining a damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part (page 13, lines 16-20: t_rupt at the time of failure of the part),” “determining a cumulative damage of the turbomachine operating part corresponding to the damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part, said cumulative damage corresponding to the integral of the average damage as a function of turbomachine operating time between an initial time and a final time: E_cum = E_rupt =
∫
t
t
_
r
u
p
t
E
_
m
o
y
(
t
)
d
t
, thereby obtaining the cumulative damage while accounting for a predicted geometrical change of the turbomachine part over the course of the lifetime of the turbomachine part, the lifetime of the turbomachine part consisting of a plurality of the turbomachine operating cycles with respect to time (page 13, lines 10-33: cumulative damage),” and “deducing therefrom the lifetime of the turbomachine operating part, said lifetime corresponding to the final time (page 3, lines 16-21)” are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind and mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical concepts” and “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 8.
For example, the limitation of “collecting data on a set of turbomachine parts assembled in turbomachines in operation, the data being representative of the geometry of the turbomachine part with respect to an operating time of the turbomachine, a to generate a database and determine a relationship expressing the wear of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time, based on the database, the wear of the turbomachine part being defined by a plurality of wear depths meshing an outer surface of the turbomachine part (page 10, lines 11-19, page 7, line 20- page 8, lines 7, page 10, line 11-16)” is a routine data gathering with mental processes including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and/or mathematical calculations. Determining a relationship (i.e. evaluation/analysis or mathematical calculations) for the collecting data on a set of turbomachine parts assembled in turbomachines in operation to generate a database (i.e. routine data gathering) is an indicative of routine data gathering with mental observations, evaluation, judgement, and opinion or mathematical calculations. Further, the limitation of “determining an average damage of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time based on a relationship expressing the stresses applied to the turbomachine part as a function of the wear of the turbomachine part and of the relationship expressing the wear of the turbomachine part as a function of turbomachine operating time, wherein the average damage of the turbomachine part per unit time corresponds to an average damage of the turbomachine part during a turbomachine operating cycle, the average damage increasing with the wear depths (page 10, lines 17-22: the average damage of the part corresponds to an average damage of the part per unit of time; page 12, lines 16-22: the average damage of the part increase with the wear depth),” “determining a damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part (page 13, lines 16-20: t_rupt at the time of failure of the part),” “determining a cumulative damage of the turbomachine operating part corresponding to the damage at failure of the turbomachine operating part, said cumulative damage corresponding to the integral of the average damage as a function of turbomachine operating time between an initial time and a final time: E_cum = E_rupt =
∫
t
t
_
r
u
p
t
E
_
m
o
y
(
t
)
d
t
, thereby obtaining the cumulative damage while accounting for a predicted geometrical change of the turbomachine part over the course of the lifetime of the turbomachine part, the lifetime of the turbomachine part consisting of a plurality of the turbomachine operating cycles with respect to time (page 13, lines 10-33: cumulative damage),” and “deducing therefrom the lifetime of the turbomachine operating part, said lifetime corresponding to the final time (page 3, lines 16-21)” are mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind and mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical concepts” and/or “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a method for evaluating a lifetime of repairing or replacing a turbomachine part having a wear developing with turbomachine operating time, the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage turbomachine or turbomachine part (preamble); repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional; and
In Claim 8: a method for repairing or replacing a turbomachine part having a wear developing with turbomachine operating time, the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage (preamble); repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional.
The additional elements such as turbomachine or turbomachine part recited at a high-level of generality without descriptions of its specific structure/features to perform the claimed features for producing the mathematical process addressed above (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements of “a method for evaluating a lifetime of repairing or replacing a turbomachine part having a wear developing with turbomachine operating time, the wear modifying a geometry of the turbomachine part such that the turbomachine part undergoes propagating damage turbomachine or turbomachine part” in claims 1and 8 are preamble statements reciting purpose or intended use (See MPEP 2111.02)(II)). Further, note that the additional elements of “repairing or replacing the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part in order to withdraw the turbomachine part from use, before the geometry of the turbomachine part is modified causing a physical failure of the turbomachine part or causing the turbomachine part to become no longer functional” in claims 1 and 8 are insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) based on abstract idea (i.e., lifetime of the turbomachine part) that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Maintenance is an insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under the Step 2B.
Claim 1 does not present tangible or physical elements/components and/or integration of improvements to be indicative of specific features/structure/acts, for example, how and or with what to deduce therefrom the lifetime of the turbomachine part, said lifetime corresponding to the final time and repair or replace the turbomachine part based on when the turbomachine operating time corresponds to the lifetime of the turbomachine part. Therefore, the claim has no significance more beyond the abstract idea. Further, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II and MPEP 2106.05(a).II: Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). This is just a processor running mathematics and mental processes. Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 8. Therefore, the independent claims 1 and 8 are ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-7,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are further directed to an abstract idea (i.e., mathematical calculations and/or mental processes) as described in claim 1. The limitation of “the turbomachine part is a low-pressure compressor disc” in claim 5 merely further describes the abstract idea (i.e., evaluating a lifetime) of the turbomachine part. The explanation for the rejection of claim 1 therefore is incorporated herein and applied to claims 2-7. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODAK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights