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 .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 9 is a device. However, claim 10 does not belong a statutory class since its geared towards a program (i.e. software). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 10 is found to be directed to ineligible software per se (see MPEP 21.06.03(I)). It is noted that under Step 1, claim 10 is not directed to a statutory category, however, for the purpose of compact prosecution claim 10 will be further evaluated for subject matter eligibility as discussed below.
Under step 2A, prong 1: claims 1, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships or algorithms”) which the court has identified as abstract without significantly more. Claims 1, 9 and 10 are directed to the abstract idea of a dividing step of dividing a range of a single variable which indicates a state of the plant into a plurality of first range bands on the basis of a frequency distribution of the single variable; and a unit space creating step of creating a plurality of unit spaces which serve as a basis of calculation of the Mahalanobis distance on the basis of the respective data of the plurality of variables respectively corresponding to a plurality of second range bands of the single variable determined on the basis of the plurality of first range bands. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are a plant monitoring device and a program for monitoring a plant, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to create a plurality of unit spaces. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data processing are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “creating a plurality of unit spaces which serve as a basis of calculation of the Mahalanobis distance on the basis of the respective data of the plurality of variables respectively corresponding to a plurality of second range bands of the single variable determined on the basis of the plurality of first range bands”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the calculated Mahalanobis diostance.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 2-8 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claim 1, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nozuki et al. (US 2022/0413478 A1, hereinafter Noz).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 10, Noz discloses a method/device and program for monitoring a plant by using a Mahalanobis distance calculated from data of a plurality of variables each of which indicates a state of the plant, the method/device and program comprising:
a dividing step of dividing a range of a single variable which indicates a state of the plant into a plurality of first range bands on the basis of a frequency distribution of the single variable (see para. 0053, 0057, 0059, 0172 and Fig. 22); and
a unit space creating step of creating a plurality of unit spaces which serve as a basis of calculation of the Mahalanobis distance on the basis of the respective data of the plurality of variables respectively corresponding to a plurality of second range bands of the single variable determined on the basis of the plurality of first range bands (see abstract, 0142 and 0172).
Regarding claim 4, Noz discloses the method of monitoring a plant according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of second range bands correspond to the plurality of first range bands respectively (see figure 14).
Furthermore, 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nozuki et al. (WO 2021019760A1) which was published 2/04/2021. Pub (US 2022/0413478 A1) is used as a translation of (WO 2021019760A1) and thus rejected in the same manner as described above since it discloses the same features.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noz and further in view of Takahama et al. (US 2010/0198555 A1, hereinafter Tak)
Regarding claim 8, Noz discloses the method of monitoring a plant according to claim 1. However, Noz fails to disclose wherein the plant includes a gas turbine or a steam turbine, wherein the single variable indicating the state of the plant is an output of the plant, and wherein the output of the plant includes an output of a generator connected to the gas turbine or the steam turbine.
Tak discloses wherein the plant includes a gas turbine or a steam turbine, wherein the single variable indicating the state of the plant is an output of the plant, and wherein the output of the plant includes an output of a generator connected to the gas turbine or the steam turbine (see para. 0018, 0059.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Noz invention to incorporate a Mahalanobis method to a gas turbine system as taught by Tak for the benefit of determining a more accurate state of operation of a plant (see Tak para. 0006).
Examiner’s Note
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support to be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, the applicant(s) is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Examiner cites particular paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner and the additional related prior arts made of record that are considered pertinent to applicant(s) disclosure to further show the general state of the art.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 5-7, the cited prior art of record does not teach the limitations as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights