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 . Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are pending.
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 1-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claims 1-7 and 9-11 are to a system (i.e., a machine) and therefore directed to a statutory category of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
generate display information for displaying:
past damage degree related information indicating information regarding a damage degree of a high temperature component from the past to the present calculated based on measured information; and
future damage degree related information indicating information regarding a future damage degree of the high temperature component in the future calculated based on a future operation plan and the past damage degree related information, wherein the future operation plan includes a ratio of (A) a number of days of each of a plurality of operation patterns indicating temporal change of loads of the steam turbine in one day to (B) a number of days of one year, and
display a graph for the turbine casing or the turbine rotating part indicating the past damage degree related information and the future damage degree related information over time, the graph including a first graph of the turbine casing that includes a line indicating a threshold value for replacement of the turbine casing, and a second graph of the turbine rotating part that includes a line indicating a threshold value for inspection of the turbine rotating part.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, calculating damage degree related information, past and present, for a steam turbine high temperature component. The claims are written so broadly that an administrator could perform the recited evaluation steps with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the rules or instructions pertaining to calculating damage degree related information, past and present, for a steam turbine high temperature component, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: a computer; a storage storing program instructions for causing the computer to; on an input display screen of a user interface; input through the input display screen of the user interface; the program instructions cause the computer to.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0039] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed in combination. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, per Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two pertaining to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
The analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-11 further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or information. There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application or add significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 2-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered. The headings and page numbers below correspond to those used by applicant in the remarks.
Claim Interpretation; Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
In view of applicant’s amendments, the claims are being interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation, and there is no interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) applied. Applicant’s amendments have also obviated the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). These rejections are withdrawn.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant offers remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on pages 7-11. While well taken, they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers, after restating amended claim 1:
It is respectfully submitted that the § 101 rejection is not applicable to the amended claim and claims depending therefrom for at least the following reasons.
First, the Office Action also alleges that independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (e.g., "mental process", "certain methods of organizing human activity - managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people"). See pages 7-8 of the Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Amended claim 1 do not recite matter that falls within at least one concept enumerated in the groupings of abstract ideas in the 2019 Guidance. For instance, the claim does not recite any a) mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, or calculations. Moreover, the claim does not recite b) certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Furthermore, the claim does not recite c) a mental process because elements of the claimed computer- implemented system are not practically performed in the human mind.
For example, claim 1 as amended recites the features of "the program instructions cause the computer to display a graph for the turbine casing or the turbine rotating part indicating the past damage degree related information and the future damage degree related information over time, the graph including a first graph of the turbine casing that includes a line indicating threshold value for replacement of the turbine casing, and a second graph of the turbine rotating part that includes a line indicating a threshold value for inspection of the turbine rotating part" (emphasis added). These claim features cannot be certain methods of organizing human activity - managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claim features also cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite certain methods of organizing human activity nor a mental process.
Therefore, because amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, amended claim 1 and its dependent claims are patent eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A set forth in Section III of the Revised 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019 ("the 2019 Guidance").
Examiner first notes that the directed to inquiry is performed at Step 2A Prong Two and not at Step 2A Prong One, as applicant has suggested. At Step 2A Prong One, the question being asked is does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Examiner’s position is that an abstract idea is recited. Applicant’s claims describe the steps that an administrator or individual may perform, in the context of determining damage information. There’s nothing especially technical about these steps, as an individual may chart, using pen and paper, a graph for the turbine casing or the turbine rotating part indicating the past damage degree related information and the future damage degree related information over time.
Applicant continues (brackets indicate citations omitted for brevity):
Second, the Office Action also alleges that the limitations of claim 1 do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. See pages 8-9 of the Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. Courts found that a claim can be integrated into a practical application if limitations of the claims improve (1) the functioning of a computer or (2) other technology or technological field (see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981)).
Even if amended claim 1 were directed to an abstract idea, the recited features of "the program instructions cause the computer to display a graph for the turbine casing or the turbine rotating part indicating the past damage degree related information and the future damage degree related information over time, the graph including a first graph of the turbine casing that includes a line indicating a threshold value for replacement of the turbine casing, and a second graph of the turbine rotating part that includes a line indicating a threshold value for inspection of the turbine rotating part" (emphasis added) as recited in amended claim 1, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it improves other technology (e.g., replacement of the turbine casing of a steam turbine, inspection of the turbine rotating part of the steam turbine, and/or operation planning of the steam turbine).
With this claimed configuration, the claims as amended improve replacement of the turbine casing of a steam turbine, inspection of the turbine rotating part of the steam turbine, and/or operation planning of the steam turbine by (1) displaying a graph for the turbine casing or the turbine rotating part indicating the past damage degree related information and the future damage degree related information over time, (2) displaying a first graph of the turbine casing that includes a line indicating a threshold value for replacement of the turbine casing, and (3) displaying a second graph of the turbine rotating part that includes a line indicating a threshold value for inspection of the turbine rotating part.
For example, the specification states, at paragraphs [0007], [0190] and [0191], effects of improving replacement of the turbine casing of a steam turbine and/or inspection of the turbine rotating part of the steam turbine, as follows:
[…]
Moreover, the threshold value for replacement and that for inspection can provides significant benefits. For example, referring to FIG.14 of the original drawings, paragraph [021] of the original specification states that "both the calculation result based on the future operation plan and the reference calculation result are displayed as the future damage degrees." That is, the user such as electric power supplier can make an operation plan of the steam turbine. The user watching the display illustrating FIG.14 can realize approximately when the curve L2 or L3 reaches the threshold value. This is the valuable information for the user to make a decision about the operation plan, e.g. a light operation, a tough operation etc.
Accordingly, the claims integrate features into a practical application that dramatically improves the replacement of the turbine casing of a steam turbine, inspection of the turbine rotating part of the steam turbine, and/or operation planning of the steam turbine.
Therefore, because the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application of the alleged abstract idea, amended claim 1 and its dependent claims are patent eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A set forth in Section III of the 2019 Guidance.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicants respectfully request withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Examiner disagrees. While applicant may have potentially arrived at an improvement to the abstract idea, this is distinct from an improvement to a technical field, as suggested by applicant.
Examiner’s position is that the combination of elements – e.g., a computer; a storage storing program instructions for causing the computer to; on an input display screen of a user interface; input through the input display screen of the user interface; the program instructions cause the computer to – are generic computing elements being used in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in [0039] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system also applied to the tasks of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a generic computing system, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, when viewed alone or in combination.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s clarifying remarks and amendments have overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. These rejections are withdrawn.
Hosoka (previously cited), at best, discloses (1) inputting running load, the seawater temperature, and change information to a simulation model, and (2) calculating a future heat balance using the simulation model. That is, Hosoka is silent about a future operation plan including a ratio of (A) a number of days of each of a plurality of operation patterns indicating temporal change of loads of the steam turbine in one day to (B) a number of days of one year.
Gotoh (previously cited) also fails to disclose the above-noted features (i) of "the future operation plan includes a ratio of (A) a number of days of each of a plurality of operation patterns indicating temporal change of loads of the steam turbine in one day to (B) a number of days of one year," as recited in amended claim 1.
In an updated search, examiner identified the following references, which, while generally relevant to the field of endeavor, stop short of the specificity required by the claim:
US 20030004659, which teaches in the Abstract: In order to provide an operation and maintenance planning aiding system for a power generation installation which prepares an operation plan for a plurality of power generation units by making use of actual plant data and based on a total judgement including a variety of circumstances of the machine and apparatus or the parts thereof in the power generation units, in the system the plurality of power generation units 41, 42, 51 and 52, a power supply command center 3 and a service center 1 are arranged and connected via a communication network 6, the service center 1 obtains the plant data via the communication network 6 from the plurality of power generation units 41, 42, 51 and 52, calculates in real time a power generation efficiency of a concerned power generation unit for every plurality of power generation units 41, 42 51 and 52 by making use of the obtained plant data and design data of the concerned power generation unit and prepares an operation and maintenance plan for each of the power generation units based on the calculated power generation efficiency.
US 6636813, which teaches in the Abstract: A life management system for high-temperature parts of a gas turbine has one server system 3 and a plurality of client systems 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d, all of which are connected via an Intranet. Further, the server system 3 manages a program for performing evaluation of the remaining life and the life management, and each of the client systems 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d has a subprogram for accessing the database 4 and for entering data respectively. The clients are dedicated to different objects and share respective element data such as real component damage, design, materials, etc. which are necessary for the evaluation of the remaining life. Further, this system enables the operation of the gas turbine to be optimized based on the damage of the evaluated parts, hence contributing to operational cost reduction of the gas turbine.
US 20130283104, which teaches in the Abstract: A system for predicting a failure of equipment from prior maintenance data of the equipment collected during a time duration estimate a number of preceding failures of the equipment prior to the time duration. The system constructs a model, based on the prior maintenance data, of an impact of an external intervention on a failure of the equipment. The system constructs a model, based on the constructed model of the impact of the external intervention and the estimated number of preceding failures, of a replacement policy of the equipment and a probability of a subsequent failure of the equipment in a subsequent time period.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20030004659, which teaches in the Abstract: In order to provide an operation and maintenance planning aiding system for a power generation installation which prepares an operation plan for a plurality of power generation units by making use of actual plant data and based on a total judgement including a variety of circumstances of the machine and apparatus or the parts thereof in the power generation units, in the system the plurality of power generation units 41, 42, 51 and 52, a power supply command center 3 and a service center 1 are arranged and connected via a communication network 6, the service center 1 obtains the plant data via the communication network 6 from the plurality of power generation units 41, 42, 51 and 52, calculates in real time a power generation efficiency of a concerned power generation unit for every plurality of power generation units 41, 42 51 and 52 by making use of the obtained plant data and design data of the concerned power generation unit and prepares an operation and maintenance plan for each of the power generation units based on the calculated power generation efficiency.
US 6636813, which teaches in the Abstract: A life management system for high-temperature parts of a gas turbine has one server system 3 and a plurality of client systems 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d, all of which are connected via an Intranet. Further, the server system 3 manages a program for performing evaluation of the remaining life and the life management, and each of the client systems 5a, 5b, 5c, and 5d has a subprogram for accessing the database 4 and for entering data respectively. The clients are dedicated to different objects and share respective element data such as real component damage, design, materials, etc. which are necessary for the evaluation of the remaining life. Further, this system enables the operation of the gas turbine to be optimized based on the damage of the evaluated parts, hence contributing to operational cost reduction of the gas turbine.
US 20130283104, which teaches in the Abstract: A system for predicting a failure of equipment from prior maintenance data of the equipment collected during a time duration estimate a number of preceding failures of the equipment prior to the time duration. The system constructs a model, based on the prior maintenance data, of an impact of an external intervention on a failure of the equipment. The system constructs a model, based on the constructed model of the impact of the external intervention and the estimated number of preceding failures, of a replacement policy of the equipment and a probability of a subsequent failure of the equipment in a subsequent time period.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF whose telephone number is (571)270-5091. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 6:00 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, SARAH MONFELDT can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
JOHN SAMUEL WASAFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/JOHN S. WASAFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629