DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The claims submitted during the preliminary amendment filed on 09/06/2023 are under examination.
The claims 1-11 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 & 11 is/are in independent form.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
in claims 1- 10:
“signal acquisition part”: Spec, paras. 021-023, Fig. 1, item 110
“a determination part”: item 120
“an operating condition decision part”: item 130
In claim 9:
“an operating state identification part”: Fig. 6, item 210
“a map creation part”: fig. 6, item 220
In claim 10:
“an operating state identification part”: Fig. 6, item 210
“a map creation part”: item 220
“a control target value decision part”: fig. 9, item 310
“a control part”: Fig. 9, item 320
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, the acronym “AE” from “AE signal” should be written in full form. See spec, para. [016]
The claim 11 also has acronym “AE” also recites acronym AE.
Regarding claims 2- 10, these claims are also objected because of their dependency with objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1- 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1- 10, the claim limitations with generic placeholder word “part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See 112(f) interpretation set forth above. 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.
Examiner acknowledges that the specification and applicant’s drawing do clearly mention these terms in figs. 1, 6, 9 & associated texts. However, the specifications fails to specify how these parts are implemented. Specifically, the specification fails to specify whether they are software programs, or hardware elements or combination of both. Here, the specification merely shows them as various black-box entities as part of the decision device but do not describe how they are implemented thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. See 1MPEP 2181 (I) (A).
Again, the paras. 021- 031 of the specification, do describe how these various parts of the decision device work but still do not describe whatsoever about what makes these structures of the parts other than showing them as pure black box entities. Showing generic placeholders in a black-box entities and describing what are their function still fail to describe the required structural details of these entities.
Applicant’s specification describe the respective function but still fails to provide how these parts’ structures themselves are implemented thereby failing to satisfy metes and bounds of the claim.
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- 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1
The claim is reproduced below.
1. (Original) An operating condition decision device for a rotating machine, comprising:
[a] a signal acquisition part for acquiring an AE signal from an AE sensor disposed on a fixed part of the rotating machine;
[b] a determination part for determining the presence or absence of rubbing in the rotating machine, based on the AE signal; and
[c] an operating condition decision part for, if the determination part determines that the rubbing is present, deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress the rubbing.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to a “An operating condition decision device”, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim(s) recite(s) limitations [b] and [c]. These limitation(s) is/are considered an abstract idea based exception because they can be practically performed in human’s mind via observation and using user’s judgement as most with the aid of pen and paper. That is, these limitations [b] and [c] as drafted, under BRI, cover performances of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer element, namely a determination part and an operating condition decision part. Here, nothing in these claim limitation preclude these limitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in limitation [b] by observing already acquired AE signal, human can decide if there is rubbing or not in the rotating machine. Similarly, in limitation [c] by using his/her judgement, human user can choose/select a rubbing suppression technique that would be appropriate for the given situation. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element(s) of limitation [a], “a determination part”, and “an operating condition decision part”. The limitation [a] is merely used as data gathering step hence is akin to adding of an insignificant extra-solution activity that cannot provide a practical application. The using of determination part and an operating condition decision part are recited at high level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, the individual/combination of additional element(s) fail(s) to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it/they do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the using of the determination part and an operating condition decision part amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. The limitation [a] is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as can be demonstrated by cited arts and examiner takes an Official notice to that effect per even under Berkheimer memo. Hence, the limitation [a]’s acquiring AE signal amount(s) to no more than data gathering step and hence still is akin to adding of an insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2- 8, these claims depend on claim 1 and also adds other new limitations. Therefore, they recite same abstract idea and additional elements set forth above. These added limitations also can be practically performed in human’s mind and hence still abstract. That is, none of the added limitations of the claims 2- 8 represent additional elements. Accordingly, these claims also fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9- 10, these claims depend on claim 1 and also add other new limitations. Therefore, they recite same abstract idea and additional elements set forth above in claim 1. The claimed “an operating state identification part for identifying an operating state of the rotating machine; a map creation part for creating a map based on a determination result of the determination part and the operating state identified by the operating state identification part” of claim 9 can be practically performed in human’s mind but for the recitation of respective parts and device. The limitation of “a display part for displaying the map created by the map creation part” is an additional element.
Here, the display limitation is discussed at high-level of generality hence is akin to adding of an insignificant extra solution activity that is well-known in the art. The various parts are used computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, in the claim 9, the additional elements in combination or individually fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similar to claim 9, the claim 10 also recites various parts coupled with respective functions. Here, all of these functions can be practically performed in human’s mind hence still abstract. The parts are recited at high-level of generality hence are nothing more than using computer elements as tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10’s additional elements individually or in combination fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is reproduced below for convenience.
11. (Currently Amended) An operating condition decision method for a rotating machine, comprising:
[a] a step of acquiring an AE signal from an AE sensor disposed on a fixed part of the rotating machine;
[b] a step of determining the presence or absence of rubbing in the rotating machine, based on the AE signal; and
[c] a step of, if the rubbing is determined to be present by the determination part, deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress the rubbing.
Step 1: Yes. This claim recites series of steps hence is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The claim recites limitations [b] and [c] that can be practically performed in human’s mind hence abstract. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites an additional element of limitation [a] to acquire AE signal. This AE signal represents any signal received from vibration sensor. Thus, this step is mere data gathering step required to perform subsequent abstract idea. The step [a] is akin to adding of an insignificant extra-solution activity and fails to impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. There are no other additional elements. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of acquiring AE signal from an AE sensor disposed on a fixed part of the rotating machine does not go beyond mere gathering of the data hence is akin to adding of a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity per Berkheimer memo. This limitation fails to provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tralshawala et al. (US 20170254783 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tralshawala teaches an operating condition decision device [“example computing system 300”] for a rotating machine [“state of a component in a machine”, e.g., “compressor 14”], comprising: (Fig. 1-3, Abstract, [2026, 039]);
a signal acquisition part [reader (e.g., “emissions (AE) data receiver 312”) of the values from the sensors 18/20 of fig. 1] for acquiring an AE signal [“AE waves generated by each component being monitored are captured by the sensing devices”] from an AE sensor disposed on a fixed part of the rotating machine ([025-035, 041]);
a determination part [analyzing the “AE signals” part for rubbing] for determining [“identify features of interest within the AE signal” by analyzing the received AE signal such as “Crack rubbing events 330”, Step 460, fig. 3] the presence [see fig. 7 for rubbing presence with events 820 & 822] or absence of rubbing in the rotating machine based on the AE signal ([025, 042-045, 049]); and
an operating condition decision part [“health response system 326”] for, if the determination part determines [“In Step 460, crack initiation, rubbing ,or propagation are distinguished from one another”] that the rubbing is present, deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition [one or more of the responses of step 490 which includes “inspection, repair, emergency shut down, and/or decommissioning.”] imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress the rubbing ([045-046]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 incorporated. Thus, Tralshawala teaches an operating condition decision method [“FIG. 4 is an example flow diagram of a method 400”] for a rotating machine, comprising:
a step of acquiring an AE signal [“In step 410 AE signals that are representative of acoustic emission waves propagating through a component of a machine are received”] from an AE sensor disposed on a fixed part of the rotating machine ([046]);
a step of determining the presence or absence of rubbing in the rotating machine, based on the AE signal; and a step of, if the rubbing is determined to be present by the determination part, deciding [“step 490, a response is generated” such as shut down] a rubbing suppression operating condition imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress the rubbing ([044- 048]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tralshawala et al. (US 20170254783 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Tralshawala teaches The operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 1, wherein the determination part is configured to determine the presence or absence of the rubbing, based on a rubbing detection index [“frequency domain features… the variations in these distributions, wavelets, and the like”] calculated based on information on frequency domain data
Tralsahwala may not explicitly teach the frequency domain data necessarily to include “a phase” information as claimed.
However, PHOSITA knows that a phase information is well-known parameter considered during signal analysis of the sensed data in frequency domain. Therefore, considering of “a phase” of the AE signal is implicitly disclosed by Tralsahwala to PHOSITA since it is a most common parameter used during frequency domain data analysis. See MPEP 2144.01.
Claim(s) 2- 3 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tralshawala et al. (US 20170254783 A1) in view of Arar (US 20130104564 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tralshawala teaches operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 1 set forth above. Tralshawala further teaches its system to generate response when the determination part determines that the rubbing is present. Still further, Tralshawala teaches its operation condition device 300 to determine operation mode [“step 420, operational data regarding the operating conditions of the machine are received”] of the monitored machine after AE signal is received ([046]).
However, Tralshawala still fails to select different rubbing suppression depending on the identified operating condition. Thus, Tralshawala fails to teach remaining limitations of the claim.
Arar relates to control operating of a rotating machine (gas turbine) to ensure rotating blades do not rub against their seals by selecting different rubbing suppression method depending on the operating mode of the rotating machine ([025], fig. 1). More specifically, Arar teaches an operating condition decision device [a controller 24 for “active clearance control system 26”] for the rotating machine according to the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to wherein the rubbing suppression operating condition is set in advance for each operation mode [“During steady-state operation”, “during a start-up phase of the gas turbine” have different clearance control process] of the rotating machine, and wherein the operating condition decision part is configured to select the rubbing suppression operating condition corresponding to the operation mode implemented in the rotating machine ([004, 0022, 027-028]). In summary, Arar clearly teaches that performing different rubbing suppression operating conditions depending on the detected operating condition of the rotating machine.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Arar and Tralshawala because they both related to determining and avoiding rubbing in the rotating machine having various operating conditions and (2) modify the operating condition decision device to include missing limitations from Arar so that different rubbing suppression operating conditions are selected depending on the detected operational mode in Tralshawala’s step 420. Doing so would allow to generate and utilize most appropriate responses to the detected rubbing events by factoring on the inherently present different thermal expansion characteristics depending on the operating mode (e.g., “during startup and cools during shutdown”) to improve the system of Tralshawala (Arar, [004]).
Regarding claim 3, Tralsahwala in view of Arar teaches the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to The operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to wherein the operation mode involves fluctuations in rotation speed or load of the rotating machine (Arar, [027-028]).
Regarding claim 7, Tralsahwala in view of Arar teaches The operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 2, wherein the operating condition decision part is configured to, if the rubbing is determined to be present, decide the rubbing suppression operating condition so that a clearance [“clearance control process”] between the fixed part and a rotating part in the rotating machine is increased (Arar, [027-028]).
Claim(s) 9- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tralshawala et al. (US 20170254783 A1) in view of Kubo et al. (US 20130184852 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Tralshawala teaches an operation assistance device for a rotating machine, comprising: the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 1; an operating state identification part for identifying [step 420] an operating state of the rotating machine ([046]).
Tralsahwala fails to teach a map creation part for creating a map based on a determination result of the determination part and the operating state identified by the operating state identification part; and a display part for displaying the map created by the map creation part.
Kubo teaches an operation assistance device comprising: a map creation part for creating a map [“entry prohibited area 309” vs not prohibited area] based on a determination result of the determination part and the operating state identified by the operating state identification part; and a display part for displaying [“which display of a machining program portion in which collision determination has been invalidate”] the map created by the map creation part ([045, 051, 0105]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Kubo and Tralshawala because they both related to operating condition detecting device including determining and avoiding rubbing/collision of the rotating machine and (2) modify the device of Tralshawala to include missing limitations as in Kubo. Doing so would allow to inform the operator of Tralshawala about situations where rubbing can occur thereby helping to minimize occurring of rubbing events.
Regarding claim 9, Tralshawala teaches an control device for a rotating machine, comprising: the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 1; an operating state identification part for identifying an operating state of the rotating machine (Fig. 4, [046]);
Tralsahwala fails but Kubo teaches a control device for rotating machine comprising a map creation part for creating a map based on a determination result of the determination part and the operating state identified by the operating state identification part; a control target value decision part for deciding a control target value for a control parameter of the rotating machine, based on the map created by the map creation part; and a control part for controlling the control parameter, based on the control target value decided by the control target value decision part ([045, 051, 0105]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Kubo and Tralshawala because they both related to operating condition detecting device including determining and avoiding rubbing/collision of the rotating machine and (2) modify the device of Tralshawala to include missing limitations as in Kubo. Doing so would allow to inform the operator of Tralshawala about situations where rubbing can occur thereby helping to minimize occurring of rubbing events.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4- 6 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claims 4- 6, they recite novel and non-obvious subject matter over prior arts of the record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Baba (JP 2017073020 A) teaches time-frequency analysis unit 110 determines that the rubbing operation has started (Fig. 12).
2) Pobedubski et al. (US 20160097270 A1) teaches the control system functions the setup according to the operating mode for operational interaction with the setup using the integration of the set up with the drilling system (Abstract).
3) Kant (US 20050114082 A1) teaches a system for detecting a rub in a turbomachine (Abstract).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Thomas Lee can be reached on 571-272-3667. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41, 86 USPQ2d at 1623. In addition, merely referencing a specialized computer (e.g., a "bank computer"), some undefined component of a computer system (e.g., "access control manager"), "logic," "code," or elements that are essentially a black box designed to perform the recited function, will not be sufficient because there must be some explanation of how the computer or the computer component performs the claimed function.
2 “for monitoring the health of components in other machines, including various turbomachines, compressors, gas turbines, steam turbines, or generators”
Prosecution Insights