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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a machine (claims 1 and 20, an apparatus) or a manufacture (claim 12, a non-transitory computer readable medium), which are statutory categories.
2.1 However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship. The limitations include:
iteratively determine a volume of a chemical compound in a system of a turbine engine based on a pressure measurement, a temperature measurement, and a constant that corresponds to a thermodynamic state, iteratively determine the volume of the chemical compound using a thermodynamic state model; and determine a mass of the chemical compound based on the volume of the chemical compound and a volume of system; iteratively determine a mass loss of the chemical compound based on the mass of the chemical compound using a system of equations.
These limitations describe mathematical calculations, including iterative solving of thermodynamic equations and optimization formulas. Mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations are identified as abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)).
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The only additional non-mathematical element in the claim is: “adjust use of the system of the chemical compound based on the mass loss of the chemical compound”. This limitation is purely functional and described at a high level of generality. It does not require any specific control action, improve a control mechanism, improve turbine engine technology, alter how the circuitry itself operates, or meaningfully limit the abstract mathematical processing. The limitation “adjust use of the system” is a result-oriented instruction that merely states the intended outcome of the mathematical calculations. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the mathematical calculations into practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional elements of “non-linear solver circuitry”, “the non-linear solver circuitry” and “optimization circuitry” are purely functional without structural or technological detail. They correspond to generic computer hardware performing abstract mathematical functions. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-11 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Regarding claim 2, the additional element “alert generation circuitry to output an alert based on the mass loss of the chemical compound” does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Generating an alert based on the mass loss of the chemical compound is merely receiving the result of a mathematical calculation and providing a notification based on the result, which constitute nothing more than a post-solution activity, In Flook, the Supreme Court held that updating an alarm limit based on a mathematically computer value did not constitute an inventive application of the calculation because the alarm step was merely a “post-solution activity” that added nothing of significance to the algorithm itself. Similarly, here, issuing an alert notification or warning based on computed value is an example of insignificant extra-solution activity compared to Flook’s alarm update.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation reciting “selecting a volume estimate; applying the volume estimate, the pressure measurement, the temperature measurement, and the constant to the thermodynamic state model to generate a residual; if the residual does not satisfy a threshold: adjusting the volume estimate; and performing an additional iteration; and when the residual satisfies the threshold, outputting the volume estimate as the volume of the chemical compound” describes an iterative numerical solving procedure, i.e., selecting a value, computing a residual of a thermodynamic model, adjusting the value, and repeating until convergence. Such process is a mathematical operation identified as abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)).
2.2. Claims 12 and 20 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim 1.
The addition elements “non-transitory computer readable medium” and “processor circuitry” (claim 12) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
Dependent claims 13-19 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11-13, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Winkes (Pub. No. US 2013/0173063) in view of Hauge et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0169982) (hereinafter Hauge).
As per claims 1, 4, 11-12, 15 and 20, while Winkes teaches an apparatus including a control unit and a model unit configured to iteratively solve non-linear thermodynamic state equations based on measured pressure, temperature, and thermodynamic parameters using numeric optimization methods such as sequential quadratic programming (see ¶¶ [[0019]-[0020], [0023]-[0024]) and while Winkes further teaches thermodynamic relationships that include volume/volumetric flow terms together with pressure and temperature (see ¶¶ [[0047]-[0053]), Winkes fails to explicitly teach
Winkes fails to explicitly teach iteratively determine a volume of a chemical compound in a system of a turbine engine based on a pressure measurement, a temperature measurement, and a constant, but Winkes does provides equations in which volume is a state variable (see ¶¶ [0050]-[0051]). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to solve those same equations for volume when pressure, temperature, and thermodynamic constants are known. Re-arranging, or numerically solving a known state equation for a different unknown variable, particularly using the same non-linear solver framework, already disclosed in Winkes, is a predictable and routine application of numerical methods and therefore it is an obvious design choice.
Although Winkes does not teach determining the mass of the chemical compound based on the volume of the chemical compound and a volume of system, Winkes does compute mass flow and other density-dependent quantities from thermodynamic state variables (see ¶¶ [0047]-[0053]). Determining mass = density x volume once volume, pressure and temperature are known is a fundamental thermodynamic calculation well within the one having ordinary skill in the art and therefore would have been obvious.
Winkes further teaches optimization and control operations (see ¶¶ [0019] and [0021], i.e., “determination or calculation method and/or optimization algorithm” and "control loop"), but fails to teach “iteratively determine a mass loss of the chemical compound based on the mass of the chemical compound using a system of equations”.
However, Hauge teaches iterative mass-balance and leak/mass-loss determination in fluid networks using non-linear solvers, Newton-based updates, and equation-of-state (PVT) modeling (see ¶¶ [0070]-[0083] and [0176]-[0183], the examiner notes that mass-balance is determined based on “equations for flow into and out of a branch” (¶[0080]), Hauge further teaches that when a leak is detected, the leak rate may be calculated by subtracting model-calculated flow from measured flow at inlet or outlet nodes, and that a “lost volume” (i.e., cumulative mass/volume loss) may be computed by “integrating one or more differences with respect to time” (see ¶ [0191]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate this known mass-loss computation into the solver framework of Winkes because both Hauge and Winkes address iterative solution of thermodynamic and physical-system equations and using similar numerical methods and integrating mass-flow determination into the existing optimization loop of Winkes would provide a more accurate and complete analysis of the mass flow of the chemical compound within the system, thereby improving the reliability of the model-based control decisions.
Winkes teaches component control circuitry that adjusts compressor actuators, such as guide vanes, valves, and rotational speed, based on model-derived state variables (see ¶¶ [0044]-[0059]).
However, Winkes fails to teach adjusting operation specifically “based on mass loss of the chemical compound”.
Hauge teaches solving branch and node mass-conservation residuals by equating flow into and out of each branch and node (see ¶¶ [0080]-[0082]), repeatedly updating pressures, flows, an densities through iterative numerical solvers including Newton-Raphson and Wegstein accelerators (see ¶¶ [0071]-[0076] and [0083]), and applying equation-of-state (PVT) relationships to relate pressure and temperature to molar volume and density (see ¶ [0176]). Hauge further teaches “comparing measurement information and simulated information to detect a fluid leak in a hydrocarbon fluid production network” identifies the discrepancy as a fluid leak and computes a leak rate (i.e., mass loss over time) (see ¶¶ [0177] and [0180]). Hauge further teaches adjusting system operation based on the model-determined loss quantity (see ¶ [0179]). It would have been obvious to incorporate the mass-loss computation taught by Hauge into the solver framework of Winkes, because it would adjust the operation of the system of the chemical compound, thereby enabling accurate and responsive analysis of the chemical compound flow and improving control accuracy.
As per claims 2 and 13, the combination of Winkes and Hauge teach the system as stated above. Hauge further teaches alert generation circuitry to output an alert based on the mass loss of the chemical compound (see ¶ [0112], i.e., “responsive to model-based results, one or more notifications (e.g., instructions, commands, alarms, etc.) may be communicated” and ¶ [0131], i.e., “issue one or more commands, instructions, alarms, etc., based at least in part on execution of a leak detection method”).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Winkes in view of Hauge and further in view of Allen et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0195143) (hereinafter Allen).
As per claims 5 and 16, the combination of Winkes and Hauge teaches the system as stated above except that the system of equations corresponds to a derivative of mass with respect to time, the temperature measurement, input thermal energy, thermal energy loss, and latent heat, the latent heat corresponding to the thermodynamic state.
Allen teaches applying the first law of thermodynamics using measured temperatures, input thermal energy, thermal energy losses, and enthalpy differences, and explains that the difference between HHV and LHV reflects latent heat inherent to thermodynamic state (¶¶ [0006]-[0007], i.e., “The higher heating value (HHV) is obtained when all the H.sub.2O formed as a result of combustion is in liquid form whereas the lower heating value (LHV) is obtained when all the H.sub.2O formed as a result of combustion takes the form of a gas. The higher heating value exceeds the lower heating value by amount commensurate with the magnitude of energy that would be released were all H.sub.2O in the products condensed into liquid, which is sometimes referred to as the latent heat. Note that the energy characterized by the latent heat is not recovered in the combustion process”).
Although none of the prior art alone explicitly recites writing the governing relations as a system of equations comprising a derivative of mass (dm/dt), temperature, input thermal energy, thermal losses, and latent heat, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the solver of Winkes with the energy-balance formulation of Allen and the mass-loss modeling of Hauge. Winkes and Allen collectively teach that mass change in a thermo-fluid system is dictated by coupled mass and energy-balance equations, where dm/dt follows directly from the net energy input relative to the latent heat associated with the fluid’s thermodynamic state. Thus, deriving the combined equation form (expressing dm/dt in terms of temperature, thermal input, thermal losses, and latent heat) would require only routine mathematical and algebraic manipulation of standard first law energy balance, as explicitly shown in Allen’s derivations and as routinely performed in thermodynamic modeling. Doing so would enable more accurate mass and mass loss estimation, thereby, it would improve control responsiveness.
Claims 6, 7, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Winkes in view of Hauge and further in view of Ahmad (Pub. No. US 2008/0056946).
As per claims 6 and 17, the combination of Winkes and Hauge teaches the system as stated above except that the optimization circuitry is to determine a thermal time constant based on the mass loss.
Ahmad teaches determining thermal time constants from transient thermal phenomena using mathematical modeling and signal interpretation to characterize system dynamics (see ¶¶ [0142]-[0143]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ahmad’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge because it would characterize the system’s thermal behavior, thereby, the optimization of the system would be improved.
As per claims 7 and 18, the combination of Winkes and Hauge teaches the system as stated above except that the component control circuitry is to adjust use of the system of the chemical compound based on a comparison of the thermal time constant to a threshold.
However, Ahmad teaches determining a thermal time constant as meaningful diagnostic parameter derived from system thermal/mass-transfer dynamics (see ¶¶ [0142]-[0144]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ahmad’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that thermal time constant is a diagnostic measure that indicate the system state and using the thermal time constant as a control trigger would enhance system responsiveness to thermally induced degradation or anomalies, thereby improving operational accuracy, safety, and efficiency of the system.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Winkes in view of Hauge and further in view of Raghavachari (Pub. No. US 2003/0086789).
As per claims 8 and 9, the combination of Winkes and Hauge teaches the system as stated above except that the optimization circuitry is to determine a trend based on the mass loss and a previous mass loss.
Raghavachari teaches determining a dynamic rate-of-change of mass from sequential mass measurements and using it in compressor control logic (see ¶¶ [0013]-[0014] and [0063], the examiner notes that a dynamic rate-of-change of mass is a trend metric requiring both a current mass value and a prior mass value, mathematically Δm/Δt =(m(t)-m(t-Δt))/Δt, and function identically to “trend based on mass loss and previous mass loss). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Raghavachari’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge’s teaching because trend-based mass mass-loss metrics indicate the system operation, thereby appropriate actions would be taken to prevent system anomalies/downtime.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkes in
view of Hauge and further in view of de Bock et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0354641) (hereinafter Bock).
the combination of Winkes and Hauge teaches the system as stated above except that the component control circuitry is to adjust components of the turbine engine to reroute heat in the turbine engine based on the mass loss of the chemical compound.
Bock teaches a power-thermal management system (PTMS) having component control circuitry configured to reroute heat among multiple heat sinks or engine subsystems to optimize thermal performance (¶¶ [0007]-[0009] and [0027], i.e., redirection of heat-rejection paths). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bock’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge’s teaching because it would improve the thermal system robustness, thereby ensuring more accurate and proactive thermal load redistribution and engine protection.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winkes in
view of Hauge and further in view of Ladner (Pub. No. US 2014/0260622).
As per claim 19, the combination of Winkes and Hauge teaches the system as stated above except that the instructions cause the processor circuitry to determine the mass of the chemical compound based on vibration data sensed by a sensor.
However, Ladner teaches mass determination based on sensed vibration data using resonant frequency modes detected by accelerometers or strain gauges (see abstract and ¶ [0023]). Ladner further teaches thermodynamic mass-determination techniques, describing the PVT method, the use of equilibrium thermodynamic relations, and using pressure, temperature, volume data to compute liquid mass (see ¶ [0005]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Ladner’s teaching into the combination of Winkes and Hauge’s teaching it would enhance the determination of fluid mass using the thermodynamic modeling techniques, thereby, enabling more accurate and responsive determination of the chemical compound’s mass and improve the precision of subsequent control actions.
Examiner’s notes
Claims 3 and 14 distinguish over the prior art of record. Although Hauge
repeatedly refers to “thresholds”, these disclosures relate to leak detection probability thresholds, alarm thresholds, or GUI-based indicator thresholds, not to numerical convergence thresholds for solving an equation of state to determine volume. None of the prior art of record teaches or suggests that the non-linear solver circuitry is to iteratively determine the volume of the chemical compound in the system by: selecting a volume estimate; applying the volume estimate, the pressure measurement, the temperature measurement, and the constant to the thermodynamic state model to generate a residual; if the residual does not satisfy a threshold: adjusting the volume estimate; and performing an additional iteration; and when the residual satisfies the threshold, outputting the volume estimate as the volume of the chemical compound, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Prior art
The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
Vangari et al. [‘404] discloses a method for determining mass differential in a hot gas path component of a gas turbine includes monitoring operational conditions of the gas turbine; determining whether changes in a gas turbine wheelspace temperature has occurred; determining whether a wheelspace temperature has changed by comparing the wheelspace temperature to at least one of a compressor inlet temperature and a compressor discharge temperature indicates a change in temperature; in response to determining the wheelspace temperature indicates a change in temperature has occurred; determining whether at least one of the following exists: a gas turbine exhaust temperature indicates a simultaneous change with the temperature change between wheelspace temperature compared to the at least one of the compressor inlet temperature and the compressor discharge temperature, and a gas turbine vibrational change. In response to at least one of the simultaneous change and the vibrational change existing, indicating a mass deviation in the hot gas path component of the gas turbine.
Cavacece et al. [‘911] discloses thermal analysis of a bearing unit, carried out by entering the input and boundary conditions of the application, defining contact areas and load distribution between components of the bearing unit, calculating the conduction resistances and the thermal convection of the components, calculating the heat generated by friction between the components in contact and the heat distribution thereof on a plurality of isothermal nodes which discretize the bearing unit, defining a thermal interaction between the isothermal nodes, thermally balancing the isothermal nodes, calculating the temperature range of the bearing unit, comparing the resulting operating temperature on an isothermal node of a sealing means of the bearing unit and the related maximum allowable temperature, and if the operating temperature and maximum allowable temperature values are different from each other, repeat the process.
Nistler et al. [‘504] discloses methods and systems are provided for indexing an injector map and subsequently controlling fuel injection to an engine. In one embodiment, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium with memory comprises fuel injector activation data indexed in the memory according to an input parameter, instructions for determining a modified pressure value based on a determined pressure and a modified pressure function, and instructions for generating a fuel injector activation output by interpolating among the indexed fuel injector activation data with the modified pressure value as the input parameter.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857