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 .
Drawings Objections
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because figures 4A and 4B do not have descriptive legend’s on their (X) and (Y) axis. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims repeat the word: trend plot. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea of identifying, using a processor configured to operate a machine learning (ML) module, relevant ranges of measurement values for at least a portion of the measurements encoded by the streams of data, wherein the ML module is adapted to predict the relevant ranges of measurement values based on, at least in part, the past measurement records from the one or more pieces of rotating equipment; extracting, using the processor configured to operate the machine learning (ML) module, a subset of the at least a portion of the measurements, wherein the subset is identified by the ML module as more capable of distinguishing normal and abnormal operating conditions for the one or more pieces of rotating equipment than a remainder of the at least a portion of the measurements; and within the relevant ranges of measurement values such that the one or more pieces of rotating equipment are monitored continuously for deviations from the normal operating conditions. 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 accessing streams of data encoding measurements taken at one or more pieces of rotating equipment; accessing a database encoding past measurement records from the one or more pieces of rotating equipment; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generating, on a display device, at least one plot based on the subset of the at least a portion of the measurements, which is considered an extra solution activity such as outputting data (i.e. generating a plot). Other additional components are a processor and a display, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to generate an output on a display. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “wherein the subset is identified by the ML module as more capable of distinguishing normal and abnormal operating conditions for the one or more pieces of rotating equipment than a remainder of the at least a portion of the measurements”) 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 generated plot report.
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, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the types of sensors, data used and the abstract steps of claims 1 and 11 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-20 are 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.
The terms “relevant” and “capable” in claims 1 and 11, are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “relevant”, in line 7 and “capable”, in line 13 are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent from, and inherit the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively. Thus, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph for at least the same reasons specified above with respect to claims 1 and 11.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Cella et al. (US 2020/0201292 A1, hereinafter Cel).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Cel discloses a computer-implemented method and a computer system comprising one or more computer processors configured to operate a machine learning (ML) module and perform operations of:
accessing streams of data encoding measurements taken at one or more pieces of rotating equipment (see para. 0036 and 0168);
accessing a database encoding past measurement records from the one or more pieces of rotating equipment (see para. 0099);
identifying, using a processor configured to operate a machine learning (ML) module (see para. 0084), relevant ranges (i.e. acceptable range) of measurement values for at least a portion of the measurements encoded by the streams of data (see para. 0042), wherein the ML module is adapted to predict the relevant ranges of measurement values based on, at least in part, the past measurement records from the one or more pieces of rotating equipment (see para. 0502-0503 and 0848);
extracting, using the processor configured to operate the machine learning (ML) module, a subset of the at least a portion of the measurements (see para. 0041), wherein the subset is identified by the ML module as more capable of distinguishing normal and abnormal operating conditions for the one or more pieces of rotating equipment than a remainder of the at least a portion of the measurements (see para. 0532, 0574 and 0675); and
generating, on a display device, at least one plot based on the subset of the at least a portion of the measurements and within the relevant ranges of measurement values such that the one or more pieces of rotating equipment are monitored continuously for deviations (i.e. unusual vibrations) from the normal operating conditions (see para. 0254-0255).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 1 and 11, wherein the measurements are taken from a plurality of sensors disposed at the one or more pieces of rotating equipment (see para. 0041), a phase reference sensor disposed at the one or more pieces of rotating equipment (see para. 0205), and
wherein the streams of data include process data associated with the one or more pieces of rotating equipment (see para. 0046 and 0154).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 2 and 12, further comprising: comparing a measured phase based on the measurements from at least one of the plurality of sensors and a reference phase from the phase reference sensor (see para. 0029, 0200 and 0206); and
generating at least one measurement based on results of comparing the measured phase and the reference phase (see para. 0200).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 2 and 12, wherein the plurality of sensors comprise at least one of: an accelerometer, a velocity sensor, a displacement sensor, a proximity sensor, and a strain gauge (see para. 0441 and 1016).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 2 and 12, wherein the process data associated with the one or more pieces of rotating equipment include: a flow rate, a pressure, a temperature, and a valve position (see para. 0243, 0425 and 1016).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 1 and 11, further comprising:
building the database that correlates the past measurement records from the one or more pieces of rotating equipment with operating conditions of the one or more pieces of rotating equipment (see para. 0278 and 0396).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 6 and 16, wherein building the database further comprises: receiving, from an analyst, data encoding a determination by the analyst that correlates at least one of the past measurement records from the one or more pieces of rotating equipment with at least one of the operating conditions of the one or more pieces of rotating equipment (see para. 0217, 0221 and 0226).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 6 and 16, wherein the relevant ranges of measurement values cover a temporal range in addition to a vertical range for the measurement values (see para. 0293, 0625 and 0450).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 1 and 11, wherein said generating provides, on the display device, two or more plots based on the subset, wherein the two or more plots are generated dynamically as the one or more pieces of rotating equipment are operating (see para. 0182, 0325 and 0349).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cel.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Cel discloses the computer-implemented method/system of claims 6 and 16, wherein the subset of the at least a portion of the measurements comprise: a Bode plot and a trend plot (see para. 0182 and 0346).
However, Cel fails to expressly disclose wherein the subset of the at least a portion of the measurements comprise: a shaft centerline plot, an orbit plot, a polar plot and a waterfall plot.
It is known in the art that in the stream data analyzer module (From Cel) may provide a manual or automated mechanism for extracting meaningful information from the stream data in a variety of plotting and report formats (see para. 0326, 0331 and 0345-0346). The fact that Cel recognizes the variety of plotting makes the non-disclosed limitations a choice for a POSITA.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cel’s invention to incorporate different types of plotting for the benefit of having the analyst to analyze the stream data and to generate a very large array of snapshots. It would be appreciated in light of Cel’s disclosure that much larger arrays of snapshots are created than ever would have been possible by scheduling the collection of snapshots beforehand, i.e., during the initial data acquisition for the measurement point in question. Further, the various reports from the reports module include trend plots of various smart bands, overalls along with statistical patterns, and the like. In embodiments, the reports module may also be configured to compare incoming data to historical data. By way of these examples, the reports module may search for and analyze adverse trends, sudden changes, machinery defect patterns, and the like (see para. 0331, 0325 and 0346).
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