DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 04/08/2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are currently amended.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 6 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b), second paragraph, as allegedly being indefinite.
This rejection is respectfully traversed.
It is submitted that claim 1 has been amended to include structural recitations and therefore is no longer subject to claim construction under 112(f), which renders the rejection under 112(b) moot. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
Applicant has amended the claims away from any 112(b) issues by removing indefinite language.
The rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 6-7 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Even if the Examiner considers that the claims recite an abstract idea, the supposed abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
That is, claim 1, as amended, now clearly integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application of image recognition. Specifically, claim 1, as amended, now requires that the evaluation target device includes a turbine, wherein the processor generates based on the performance estimation model, a signal to adjust a flow rate of a working fluid supplied to the turbine to perform management of operation or maintenance of the evaluation target device and outputs the signal, which integrates the claim into a practical application. In addition, independent claims 8 and 9 have each been amended to include similar features to claim 1.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application, Examiner disagrees. Applicant states that the practical application of the present disclosure is that of image recognition, but there is no mention of image recognition anywhere in the claims or the specification, so there cannot be a practical application of the abstract ideas if there is no mention of that application in the disclosure.
Applicant argues that the inclusion of a turbine and signal to adjust the flow rate of a fluid is enough to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The inclusion of a turbine simply indicates a field of use for the presented method and the inclusion of a signal used to adjust a flow rate is merely stating the outcome of the method and that it indicates that maintenance or management is required on the device.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 7-10 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103:
Claims 1, 5, and 8 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).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyvad et al (US 20210388815 Al, hereinafter Nyvad), in view of Aisu et al (US 20180203961 Al, hereinafter Aisu), and in view of Nixon et al (US 7206646 B2, hereinafter Nixon).
Each of these rejections is respectfully traversed.
Assuming that the above understanding in the Office action is appropriate, as the Examiner also acknowledges, Nyvad does not describe the configuration (the "model generation part") to "generate a performance estimation model for the evaluation target device by performing superposition of the plurality of individual performance functions" of claim 1 of the present application, and the configuration 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".
Aisu describes (see Abstract) an operation-draft-plan creation apparatus configured to acquire a deterioration model of a similar measurement target which is a measurement target considered to be similar to an operation target (facility or equipment) on the basis of a measurement value of the similar measurement target, perform a simulation concerning performance deterioration of the operation target on the basis of the deterioration model and a use case example of the operation target, and create an operation plan of the operation target on the basis of a simulation result.
As described above, Aisu describes creating a deterioration model by connecting time- series data, but does not describe creating a deterioration model by performing superposition of a plurality of functions (that is, the configuration corresponding to the "model generation part" of claim 1 of the present application).
That is, in Nixon, each of the outputs connected to obtain the process performance function is one point of data indicating a process state (pressure, temperature, etc.) at a specific time point, and is not a function having time as a variable.
Therefore, Nixon does not describe the "plurality of individual performance functions each of which indicates a change over time in the performance index", much less acquiring "the superposition of the plurality of individual performance functions".
From the above, none of Nyvad, Aisu and Nixon discloses or suggests 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 functions" of claim 1 of the present application.
Therefore, claim 1 of the present application is not obvious over these cited references.
Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the applied reference of Aisu was mischaracterized as teaching creating a deterioration model by performing superposition of a plurality of functions, Examiner agrees. Upon further consideration of the Aisu reference, it does not appear that the superposition of functions is used, but rather that different instances of time series data are combined in a fashion that is not similar to that of the instant application.
Applicant argues that the applied reference of Nixon does not represent a function having time as a variable, Examiner agrees. Nixon, as best understood, features data points that represent process states at specific points in time, but does teach a function that operates on time as a parameter.
In light of the arguments presented, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
“wherein the processor generates based on the performance estimation model, a signal to adjust a flow rate of a working fluid supplied to the turbine to perform management of operation or maintenance of the evaluation target device and outputs the signal”. 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, based on a performance function, that maintenance or management of a device is required.
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:
“a memory”. 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 (memory) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“a processor that executes a stored program causing the processor 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 (processor) (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.
“wherein the evaluation target device includes a turbine”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (turbines) 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.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “a memory” and “a processor that executes a stored program causing the processor 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 (memory and processor) (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").
The additional element(s) of “wherein the evaluation target device includes a turbine” 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 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 processor determines 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 processor determines the coefficient of each of the plurality of individual performance functions by using a Bayesian inference method” 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 processor obtains 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 processor obtains 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:
“determines 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 processor determines”. 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 (processor) (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 processor determines” 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 (processor) (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 processor defines”. 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 (processor) (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 processor defines” 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 (processor) (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 processor defines”. 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 (processor) (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 processor defines” 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 (processor) (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 (storage) (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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210388815 A1 – A method of controlling a wind turbine
US 20180203961 A1 – An operation-draft-plan creation apparatus
US 7206646 B2 – process control systems within process plants
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights