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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mano et al. (JP 7068419) in view of Ren et al. (CN 110516848).
Regarding to claims 1, 8-9:
Mano et al. discloses a blade damage evaluation system comprising one or more computers configured to evaluate damage of a plurality of blades of a turbine that is driven to rotate by a flow of steam or gas,
wherein the one or more computers are configured to:
acquire design data related to structure and configuration of the turbine and a peripheral component associated with the turbine (page 3, 6th paragraph: The storage unit stores the plant configuration, the plant design value, the design condition, the history data);
acquire maintenance data related to maintenance of the turbine and the peripheral component (page 3, 7th paragraph: The storage may store the historical data);
acquire operation data related to an operating state of the turbine and the peripheral component from respective sensors that are provided in the turbine and the peripheral component from a plurality of sensors provided in the turbine and the peripheral component (page 3, 4th paragraph: The operation data acquisition unit acquires operation data during operation of the power generator from various sensors attached in advance to the power generation device 10 and its peripheral devices);
make a structural evaluation related to inflow and collision of solid particles into the turbine based on the design data and the maintenance data (page 4, 6th paragraph: The collision angle and speed can be calculated and set based on the plant design value);
make an operational evaluation about the operating state of the turbine and the peripheral component related to the inflow and collision of solid particles into the turbine based on the operation data (page 4, 6th paragraph: The number of particles M and the material property value can be calculated and set from the operation data, wherein the operation data obtained by the operation data acquisition unit at the time of evaluation); and
as a damage evaluation according to the structural evaluation and the operational evaluation, calculate a survival rate by applying a plurality of factors affecting survival time of the turbine, which are selected from among a plurality of design information, a plurality of maintenance information, and a plurality of operation information included in the design data, the maintenance data, and the operation data, to a formula that is determined in advance by way of survival time analysis of the turbine, the survival rate indicating an erosion amount of at least one blade among the plurality of blades unreached to a predetermined threshold at arbitrary time in future (page 3, 8-10th paragraphs: The damage generation unit generates an SPE (solid particle erosion) damage amount per unit time or the damage rate/speed, wherein the damage rate E is expressed as Equation 1: E = F(f, g), wherein f is the operation data and the plant design data and g is the scale amount (page 4, 2nd paragraph). Page 6, last paragraph: The remaining life evaluation unit using the future operation plan, the damage speed, the state quantity, the plant design value,… predicts future damage to estimate when the remaining life reaches the alarm threshold (page 7, 4th paragraph)).
Mano et al. however does not teach wherein the formula that is determined in advance by way of survival time analysis of the turbine according to a Cox proportional hazard model.
Ren et al. discloses a survival analysis model based on historical operational and maintenance data of electric power equipment (Abstract) according to Cox proportional risk model (page 2, lines 32-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mano’s method to cacluate the survival rate/time from a formula according to Cox proportional risk/hazard model as disclosed by Ren et al. to be able to predict the failure rate of the electric power equipment based on historical operation and maintenance data (Abstract).
Mano et al. also discloses the following claims:
Regarding to claim 5: wherein: the operation data include at least one of conditions including temperature, flow rate, and pressure of the steam before and after first-stage rotor blades or first-stage stator blades in the turbine; opening degree of a steam valve as the peripheral component; opening degree of a bypass valve as the peripheral component; and number of a cold starting and stopping (page 2, last paragraph: The operation data is turbine output, temperature, steam pressure, temperature and pressure before and after the steam valve).
Regarding to claim 6: wherein the formula is derived by using field data of at least one of the plurality of blades reached the threshold; and field data of at least one of the plurality of blades unreached the threshold (page 2, 7th paragraph: A steam turbine has a plurality of blades including a stationary blade and a moving blade; as a result, the survival rate of the turbine depends on the condition of both stationary blades and removing blade, wherein the condition of the blades, either reaches/unreaches to a predetermined condition, is the field data of the blades).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 are 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 to claim 3: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the design data include at least one of design information of a power plant provided with the turbine, design information of a boiler or a heat exchanger as the peripheral component, design information of a main steam pipe or a water supply pipe as the peripheral component, design information of a steam valve as the peripheral component, and design information of the turbine; the design information of the power plant includes at least one of power generation capacity and information as to whether the power plant is a combined-cycle power plant or a conventional power plant; the design information of the boiler or the heat exchanger includes at least one of temperature during rated operation, pressure during the rated operation, fuel type, model, capacity, and a material of a tube of the heat exchanger; the design information of the main steam pipe or the water supply pipe includes at least one of a material of the main steam pipe or the water supply pipe, length of the main steam pipe or the water supply pipe, exposure temperature of the main steam pipe or the water supply pipe, and information on presence/absence of a bypass flow passage for the main steam pipe or the water supply pipe; the design information of the steam valve includes at least one of information on presence/absence of a fine mesh and information on presence/absence of an auxiliary valve; and the design information of the turbine includes at least one of temperature of the steam to be injected into the turbine, flow rate of the steam to be injected into the turbine, pressure of the steam to be injected into the turbine, number of admissions, number of the plurality of blades as rotor blades; blade length, rotor blades-stator blades distance, pitch circle diameter, rotational circumferential speed; number of the plurality of blades as stator blades; an outflow angle, and blade strength characteristics is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding to claim 4: The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that wherein the maintenance data include at least one of maintenance information of a boiler or a heat exchanger as the peripheral component, maintenance information of a main steam pipe or a water supply pipe as the peripheral component, and maintenance information of the turbine; the maintenance information of the boiler or the heat exchanger includes at least one of number of maintenance time, frequency of maintenance, maintenance timing, a descaling method, a flushing method, and information as to whether a tube of the heat exchanger has been replaced or not; the maintenance information of the main steam pipe or the water supply pipe includes at least one of number of maintenance times, frequency of maintenance, maintenance timing, a descaling method, and a flushing method; and the maintenance information of the turbine includes at least one of number of maintenance times, frequency of maintenance, maintenance timing, a replacement history of first-stage rotor blades or first-stage stator blades; and a maintenance history of the first-stage rotor blades or the first-stage stator blades is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853