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 9-12 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 9-12 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 9-12 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:
receive one or more signals indicating measurement information related to the steam turbine that is measured, wherein the measurement information comprises at least one of a main steam pressure, a main steam temperature, a reheat steam temperature, a rotation number of a turbine rotor, an inlet pressure, an outlet pressure of a nozzle, or a temperature of the turbine casing;
receive the measurement information at a predetermined time interval,
calculate a past damage degree of the high temperature component from past to present based on the measurement information,
store a previously-calculated stress history regarding a plurality of operation patterns,
receive a future operation plan, the future operation plan including a ratio of (A) a number of days of each of the 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,
calculate an in-operation time of each of the plurality of operation patterns based on the future operation plan,
calculate a damage degree increment of each of the plurality of operation patterns based on the previously-calculated stress-by-pattern history and the calculated in-operation time of the plurality of operation patterns,
calculate a future damage degree of the high temperature component from the present to future by use of the calculated damage degree increment of each of the plurality of operation patterns, and
generate display information for displaying:
past damage degree related information indicating information regarding the past damage degree of the high temperature component from the past to the present calculated based on the measurement information; and
future damage degree related information indicating information regarding the future damage degree of the high temperature component.
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, estimating future damage degree related information 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 estimating future damage degree related information 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.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above describe the mathematical calculations associated with estimating future damage degree related information for a steam turbine high temperature component, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts, including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts 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 controller configured to; from the controller; via one or more detectors; by the one or more detectors; a computer; a storage storing program instructions for causing the computer to; through an user interface; on the user interface.
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 9-12 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 1-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/26 have been fully considered. The headings below correspond to those used by applicant in the remarks.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicant first offers, after
Applicant offers, after restating amended claim 1 and highlighting corresponding support in the specification:
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 3-4 of the Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Amended claim 1 does 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 "a controller configured to receive, via one or more detectors, one or more signals indicating measurement information related to the steam turbine that is measured by the one or more detectors, wherein the measurement information comprises at least one of a main steam pressure, a main steam temperature, a reheat steam temperature, a rotation number of a turbine rotor, an inlet pressure, an outlet pressure of a nozzle, or a temperature of the turbine casing" (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 to applicant’s specification that have been 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 4-5 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 "a controller configured to receive, via one or more detectors, one or more signals indicating measurement information related to the steam turbine that is measured by the one or more detectors, ... receive, from the controller, the measurement information at a predetermined time interval, ... calculate a past damage degree of the high temperature component from past to present based on the measurement information, ... receive a future operation plan through an user interface, ... calculate a future damage degree of the high temperature component from the present to future ..., and generate display information on the user interface for displaying: past damage degree related information ... calculated based on the measurement information; and future damage degree related information ..." (emphasis added) as recited in amended claim 1, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it improves other technology (e.g., operation planning of the steam turbine based on measurement information measured by one or more detectors).
With this claimed configuration, the claims as amended improve operation planning of the steam turbine based on measurement information measured by one or more detectors by (1) receiving, by a controller via one or more detectors, one or more signals indicating measurement information, (2) receiving, from the controller, the measurement information at a predetermined time interval, (3) calculating a past damage degree of the high temperature component from past to present based on the measurement information, (4) receiving a future operation plan through an user interface, (5) calculating a future damage degree of the high temperature component from the present to future, and (6) generating display information on the user interface for displaying: past damage degree related information calculated based on the measurement information, and future damage degree related information.
For example, the specification states, at paragraphs [0016], [0022], [0027], [0136] and [0224], effects of improving operation planning of the steam turbine based on measurement information measured by one or more detectors, as follows: […]
Accordingly, the claims integrate features into a practical application that dramatically improves the operation planning of the steam turbine by measuring measurement information using one or more detectors.
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.
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 controller configured to; from the controller; via one or more detectors; by the one or more detectors; a computer; a storage storing program instructions for causing the computer to; through an user interface; on the user interface – 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. There is no improvement to a technical field, as suggested by applicant.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190304212, which teaches: A device includes a transceiver, a processor, a network interface, and a display interface. The transceiver is configured to receive health data from an aircraft. The processor is configured to determine whether the health data indicates a maintenance condition. The network interface is configured to send a first query to a maintenance database and to receive a first response to the first query indicating a list of parts associated with the maintenance condition. The network interface is also configured to send a second query to a historical maintenance database based on the list of parts and to receive a second response to the second query indicating failure rates of the parts. The display interface is configured to provide a graphical user interface (GUI) to a display. The processor is configured to generate the GUI indicating the list of parts ordered based on the failure rates.
US 20210004742, which teaches: A computing system accesses one or more data sources to determine maintenance optimization data associated with an asset within a set of assets. The maintenance optimization data may include one or more of: upcoming maintenance events for the asset, such as may be predicted based on analysis of historical maintenance information of the asset, a time series of predicted value of the asset over a time period around the upcoming maintenance event, such as within a few days or hours of the maintenance event, and/or a recommended window of time to initiate and/or perform upcoming maintenance events, which may be based on a combination of the expected upcoming maintenance events, and the time series of predicted value of the particular asset, for example.
US 20240086860, which teaches: A method for predicting and managing a maintenance schedule for a fleet of vehicles is provided. The method includes receiving vehicle data from a vehicle in a fleet of vehicles, and determining, based on the vehicle data, a health status of the vehicle. The health status includes an indication of a health status of components of the vehicle. The method further includes generating a prediction of a maintenance servicing for the vehicle based on the health status of the vehicle, in which the prediction of the maintenance servicing for the vehicle corresponds to a predicted maintenance servicing for at least one of the components of the vehicle. The method further includes transmitting information to schedule an action addressing the maintenance servicing for the vehicle. The schedule is determined based on the predicted maintenance servicing for the at least one of the components of the vehicle.
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
Prosecution Insights