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 04/27/2023 and 11/06/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, except where lined through.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites language stating parts “configured to” perform a function. Applicant’s specification points to Figure 2 as disclosing the structure of the various “parts” of claim 1, however no other details as to the design or composition of these parts are given.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitations:
“an overall performance function acquisition part configured to obtain an overall performance function” in Claim 1
“an individual performance function definition part configured to define a plurality of individual performance functions” in Claim 1
“a model generation part configured to generate a performance estimation model” in Claim 1
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The only mention of any structure in Applicant's specification comes from [0026] and directs to Figure 2. Figure 2 does not contain any clarifying information and still recites language related to "parts" without any details provided. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, an apparatus for evaluating performance of a device, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine. Independent Claim 8 recites, in part, a method, therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent Claim 9 recites, in part, a computer-readable storage medium that stores a program, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“define a plurality of individual performance functions each of which indicates a change over time in the performance index caused by a plurality of change factors of the performance index, respectively”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical relationship/concept.
“generate a performance estimation model for the evaluation target device by performing superposition of the plurality of individual performance functions”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical relationship/concept (combining functions).
“determine a coefficient of each of the plurality of individual performance functions in the superposition so that the superposition of the plurality of individual performance functions becomes close to the overall performance function”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses identifying a factor of an equation.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“an overall performance function acquisition part configured to”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (function acquisition part) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“obtain an overall performance function which indicates a change over time in performance index of an evaluation target device, on the basis of data acquired during operation of the evaluation target device”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“an individual performance function definition part configured to”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (function definition part) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a model generation part configured to”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (model generation part) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the model generation part is configured to”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (model generation part) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “an overall performance function acquisition part configured to”, “an individual performance function definition part configured to”, “a model generation part configured to”, and “wherein the model generation part is configured to” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element(s) of “obtain an overall performance function which indicates a change over time in performance index of an evaluation target device, on the basis of data acquired during operation of the evaluation target device” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the model generation part is configured to determine the coefficient of each of the plurality of individual performance functions by using a Bayesian inference method”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (inference methods) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the training data comprises at least one of image data, video data, and audio data” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (inference methods) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the model generation part is configured to obtain a posterior distribution of the coefficient in the Bayesian inference using a random number generation algorithm”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the model generation part is configured to obtain a posterior distribution of the coefficient in the Bayesian inference using a random number generation algorithm” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 4 recites in part:
“determine a range or a shape of a prior distribution of the coefficient in the Bayesian inference, on the basis of data previously acquired or physical assumptions”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical relationship/concept.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the model generation part is configured to”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (model generation part) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein the model generation part is configured to” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 5 recites in part:
“define the individual performance function, for each of the plurality of change factors, on the basis of a theoretical value or a measured value of a parameter related to the change factor”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical relationship/concept.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the individual performance function definition part is configured to”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (function definition part) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein the individual performance function definition part is configured to” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 6 recites in part:
“define the individual performance function, on the basis of a first correlation between a value of the parameter and a magnitude of performance change of the evaluation target device, and a second correlation between a value of the parameter and a time”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical relationship/concept.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the individual performance function definition part is configured to”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (function definition part) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein the individual performance function definition part is configured to” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 7 recites in part:
“acquire the second correlation by fitting a base curve having a shape of a correlation between a value of the parameter and a time to a measured value of the parameter”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers a mathematical relationship/concept.
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the individual performance function definition part is configured to”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (function definition part) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “wherein the individual performance function definition part is configured to” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1 and 8, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejections of Claims 1 and 8, with the exception of the limitation(s) covered below.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“A computer-readable storage medium that stores a program”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (storage) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “A computer-readable storage medium that stores a program” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nyvad et al (US 20210388815 A1, hereinafter Nyvad).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyvad et al (US 20210388815 A1, hereinafter Nyvad), in view of Aisu et al (US 20180203961 A1, hereinafter Aisu), and in view of Nixon et al (US 7206646 B2, hereinafter Nixon).
Regarding Claim 1:
Nyvad teaches
An apparatus for evaluating performance of a device, comprising: an overall performance function acquisition part configured to obtain an overall performance function (Nyvad [0010]: "Using operational data from a group of wind turbines to train an initial thermal model for a first wind turbine produces a modified thermal model that more accurately reflects the expected thermal behaviour of the wind turbine in operation, and is therefore sufficiently reliable to base control of the wind turbine on thereafter"; [0013]: "The method may comprise receiving one or more temperature signals that are indicative of temperatures of respective components of the first wind turbine, and evaluating the performance of the first wind turbine in accordance with the or each temperature signal and the modified thermal model to determine a performance index for the first wind turbine. The performance index therefore provides an indication of whether the thermal state of the wind turbine is as expected for the present operating conditions");
an individual performance function definition part configured to define a plurality of individual performance functions each of which indicates a change over time in the performance index caused by a plurality of change factors of the performance index, respectively (Nyvad [0018]: "For example, the initial thermal model may be created independently of any operational data from the first wind turbine, optionally using operational data from other wind turbines, and then the initial thermal model may be trained using operational data from the first wind turbine, thereby producing a modified thermal model dynamically as the first wind turbine is operated"; [0035]: "the performance index is also used to alter other aspects of wind turbine operation, such as operation of cooling systems and other auxiliary systems. The performance index is also used to adjust and optimise servicing schedules, noting that if component temperatures are regularly outside of the ideal range, wear and fatigue will increase and so more regular servicing will be beneficial" (EN): Since the thermal model is dynamically updated during operation, that means that new sensor or operational data is being input into the model leading to a change over time for the thermal model)
Nyvad does not distinctly disclose
which indicates a change over time in performance index of an evaluation target device, on the basis of data acquired during operation of the evaluation target device
However, Aisu teaches
which indicates a change over time in performance index of an evaluation target device, on the basis of data acquired during operation of the evaluation target device (Aisu [0080]: “The calculation of the value of the parameter is cyclically performed. In this way, the deterioration-model generator 231 generates a deterioration model, which is data indicating a transition of the parameter, on the basis of values of the parameter at a plurality of times”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Nyvad and Aisu before him or her, to modify the system and method for controlling a wind turbine of Nyvad to include the methods of operation-draft-plan creation for identifying deteriorating components as shown in Aisu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use the deterioration model generator of Aisu in order to generate a performance plan for deteriorating components of an apparatus (Aisu [0005]: “an operation plan is created according to durable years of the equipment or the like, an update period of a lease agreement, or the like. An appropriate operation plan cannot be created unless a progress of deterioration of the equipment or the like is highly accurately grasped. However, the progress of the deterioration of the equipment or the like is different depending on a use situation, an environment of a setting place, or the like”).
Nyvad + Aisu does not distinctly disclose
a model generation part configured to generate a performance estimation model for the evaluation target device by performing superposition of the plurality of individual performance
wherein the model generation part is configured to determine a coefficient of each of the plurality of individual performance functions in the superposition so that the superposition of the plurality of individual performance functions becomes close to the overall performance function
However, Nixon teaches
a model generation part configured to generate a performance estimation model for the evaluation target device by performing superposition of the plurality of individual performance (Nixon [Col 21 lines 33-41]: “In this case, the user may connect the outputs of certain known process and equipment monitoring or diagnostic applications to a new function (which may be, for example, a process performance function) which combines or evaluates these outputs in some way to make a diagnostic determination. Alternatively, a new diagnostic application using both process control data 201 and equipment monitoring data 202 may be created to perform plant diagnostics.”; (EN): the principle of superposition states that any system that adheres to the principle is a linear system and conversely that any linear system exhibits the superposition principle. The combination of outputs of certain known processes to create a new function is analogous to the superposition principle of combining functions)
wherein the model generation part is configured to determine a coefficient of each of the plurality of individual performance functions in the superposition so that the superposition of the plurality of individual performance functions becomes close to the overall performance function (Nixon [Col 21 lines 33-41]: “In this case, the user may connect the outputs of certain known process and equipment monitoring or diagnostic applications to a new function (which may be, for example, a process performance function) which combines or evaluates these outputs in some way to make a diagnostic determination. Alternatively, a new diagnostic application using both process control data 201 and equipment monitoring data 202 may be created to perform plant diagnostics.”; (EN): the principle of superposition states that any system that adheres to the principle is a linear system and conversely that any linear system exhibits the superposition principle. The combination of outputs of certain known processes to create a new function is analogous to the superposition principle of combining functions)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Nyvad + Aisu and Nixon before him or her, to modify the system and method for controlling a wind turbine of Nyvad to include the process control system for equipment monitoring and control as shown in Nixon. The motivation for doing so would have been to use the combination of models and functions in order to generate a new model/function to track the performance of a processing plant (Nixon [Col 1 line 57-Col 2 line 5]: “While a typical process control system has many process control and instrumentation devices, such as valves, transmitters, sensors, etc. connected to one or more process controllers which execute software that controls these devices during the operation of the process, there are many other supporting devices which are also necessary for or related to process operation. These additional devices include, for example, power supply equipment, power generation and distribution equipment, rotating equipment such as turbines, etc., which are located at numerous places in a typical plant. While this additional equipment does not necessarily create or use process variables and, in many instances, is not controlled or even coupled to a process controller for the purpose of affecting the process operation, this equipment is nevertheless important to and ultimately necessary for proper operation of the process.”).
Regarding Claim 2:
Nyvad does not distinctly disclose
The apparatus for evaluating performance of a device according to Claim 1, wherein the model generation part is configured to determine the coefficient of each of the plurality of individual performance functions by using a Bayesian inference method.
However, Aisu teaches
The apparatus for evaluating performance of a device according to Claim 1, wherein the model generation part is configured to determine the coefficient of each of the plurality of individual performance functions by using a Bayesian inference method (Aisu [0096]: "The estimation of an internal parameter performed by the deterioration-model generator 231 is explained now. As an estimation method for an internal parameter, Bayesian estimation or the like is used").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Nyvad and Aisu before him or her, to modify the system and method for controlling a wind turbine of Nyvad to include the methods of operation-draft-plan creation for identifying deteriorating components as shown in Aisu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use the deterioration model generator of Aisu in order to generate a performance plan for deteriorating components of an apparatus (Aisu [0005]: “an operation plan is created according to durable years of the equipment or the like, an update period of a lease agreement, or the like. An appropriate operation plan cannot be created unless a progress of deterioration of the equipment or the like is highly accurately grasped. However, the progress of the deterioration of the equipment or the like is different depending on a use situation, an environment of a setting place, or the like”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Nyvad does not distinctly disclose
The apparatus for evaluating performance of a device according to Claim 2, wherein the model generation part is configured to determine a range or a shape of a prior distribution of the coefficient in the Bayesian inference, on the basis of data previously acquired or physical assumptions.
However, Aisu teaches
The apparatus for evaluating performance of a device according to Claim 2, wherein the model generation part is configured to determine a range or a shape of a prior distribution of the coefficient in the Bayesian inference, on the basis of data previously acquired or physical assumptions (Aisu [0084]: "In FIG. 2, at times t1 and t2, normal distributions are shown on the three graphs. The normal distributions are probability density distributions of the parameter calculated by the deterioration-model generator 231 at the times t1 and t2. Variation of the probability density distribution at the time t2 is larger than variation of the probability density distribution at the time t1. In this way, in general, an estimated probability density distribution often increases according to the elapse of time.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Nyvad and Aisu before him or her, to modify the system and method for controlling a wind turbine of Nyvad to include the methods of operation-draft-plan creation for identifying deteriorating components as shown in Aisu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use the deterioration model generator of Aisu in order to generate a performance plan for deteriorating components of an apparatus (Aisu [0005]: “an operation plan is created according to durable years of the equipment or the like, an update period of a lease agreement, or the like. An appropriate operation plan cannot be created unless a progress of deterioration of the equipment or the like is highly accurately grasped. However, the progress of the deterioration of the equipment or the like is different depending on a use situation, an environment of a setting place, or the like”).
Regarding Claim 5:
Nyvad teaches
The apparatus for evaluating performance of a device according to claim 1 wherein the individual performance function definition part is configured to define the individual performance function, for each of the plurality of change factors, on the basis of a theoretical value or a measured value of a parameter related to the change factor (Nyvad [0013]: "The method may comprise receiving one or more temperature signals that are indicative of temperatures of respective components of the first wind turbine, and evaluating the performance of the first wind turbine in accordance with the or each temperature signal and the modified thermal model to determine a performance index for the first wind turbine. The performance index therefore provides an indication of whether the thermal state of the wind turbine is as expected for the present operating conditions"; [0035]: "the performance index is also used to alter other aspects of wind turbine operation, such as operation of cooling systems and other auxiliary systems. The performance index is also used to adjust and optimise servicing schedules, noting that if component temperatures are regularly outside of the ideal range, wear and fatigue will increase and so more regular servicing will be beneficial").
Regarding Claim 8:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1 and 8, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejections of Claims 1 and 8, with the exception of the limitation(s) covered below.
Nyvad does not distinctly disclose
A computer-readable storage medium that stores a program
However, Aisu teaches
A computer-readable storage medium that stores a program (Aisu [0276]: “The operation-draft-plan creation apparatus in this embodiment may be realized by installing, in the computer apparatus 4, in advance, a program executed in the operation-draft-plan creation apparatus or may be realized by storing the program in a storage medium such as a CD-ROM or distributing the program via a network and installing the program in the computer apparatus 4 as appropriate”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Nyvad and Aisu before him or her, to modify the system and method for controlling a wind turbine of Nyvad to include the methods of operation-draft-plan creation for identifying deteriorating components as shown in Aisu. The motivation for doing so would have been to use the deterioration model generator of Aisu in order to generate a performance plan for deteriorating components of an apparatus (Aisu [0005]: “an operation plan is created according to durable years of the equipment or the like, an update period of a lease agreement, or the like. An appropriate operation plan cannot be created unless a progress of deterioration of the equipment or the like is highly accurately grasped. However, the progress of the deterioration of the equipment or the like is different depending on a use situation, an environment of a setting place, or the like”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230324860 A1 – systems and methods for estimating energy consumption data for a building
US 20210158213 A1 – learning model management system executes a provisional evaluation when the number of feedback data is equal to or less than a threshold of a definite evaluation but is more than a threshold of a provisional evaluation
US 20210089937 A1 – A system that provides a mathematical formulation for new problem of model validation and model selection in presence of test data feedback
US 20200380388 A1 – constructing prediction models and conducting predictive maintenance for systems that provide sparse sensor data
US 20200320381 A1 – systems, methods, and computer storage media for providing factors that explain the generated results of a deep neural network
US 20100152905 A1 – method, computer program product and system are provided for modeling non-controllable parameters affecting system performance
US 20010034582 A1 – A thermal efficiency diagnostic of a combined power generation plant is performed by using measurement data relative to energy input/output of the respective equipment of the combined power generation plant
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/COREY M SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128