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;
storing a previously-calculated stress history regarding a plurality of operation patterns under an operation condition in future;
receive the measurement information at a predetermined time interval,
calculate temperature distributions of an evaluation part of the high temperature component based on the measurement information,
calculate a thermal stress at the evaluation part based on the calculated temperature distributions of the evaluation part,
calculate a past damage degree of the high temperature component from past to present based on the calculated thermal stress at the evaluation part,
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,
read the previously-calculated stress history corresponding to the future operation pattern referred in the future operation plan,
calculate a contribution amount per one hour to a damage degree based on the previously-calculated stress history read,
calculate a damage degree increment of each of the plurality of operation patterns by multiplying the contribution amount per one hour to the damage degree by 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; from the storage; program instructions for causing the computer; through an user interface; on the user interface; received through 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 8/17/26 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 restating amended claim 1 and highlighting corresponding support in the specification:
The Office Action alleges that independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (e.g., "mental process", "certain methods of organizing human activity", "mathematical concepts"). See page 4 of the Action. However, amended claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
First, amended claim 1 does not recite a mental process. The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("2019 Guidance") explains that the "mental processes" grouping encompasses concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. However, a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Amended claim 1 recites, inter alia, "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 temperature distributions of an evaluation part of the high temperature component based on the measurement information"; "calculate a thermal stress at the evaluation part based on the calculated temperature distributions of the evaluation part"; "calculate a past damage degree of the high temperature component from past to present based on the calculated thermal stress at the evaluation part"; "read the previously-calculated stress history from the storage corresponding to the future operation pattern referred in the future operation plan received through the user interface"; "calculate a contribution amount per one hour to a damage degree based on the previously-calculated stress history read from the storage"; and "calculate a damage degree increment of each of the plurality of operation patterns by multiplying the contribution amount per one hour to the damage degree by the calculated in-operation time of the plurality of operation patterns."
In a non-limiting example, with the configuration of the above-noted limitations of amended claim 1, the controller can receive real-time physical signals from detectors measuring actual steam turbine conditions, calculate temperature distributions across an evaluation part of a high-temperature turbine component, derive thermal stresses from those temperature distributions, calculate a contribution amount per one hour to damage degree from a previously- calculated stress history, and multiply that contribution amount by in-operation times for multiple operation patterns to derive damage degree increments. These are not simple observations, evaluations, or judgments that a person could practically perform in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper. A human mind cannot receive electromagnetic signals from physical detectors, nor can it practically calculate temperature distributions and thermal stresses at an evaluation part of a turbine component based on continuously acquired measurement data at a predetermined time interval. The claimed operations involve iterative, multi-variable numerical computations on streams of real-time sensor data that are fundamentally beyond the capacity of mental performance. Accordingly, claim 1 as amended does not recite a mental process.
Second, amended claim 1 does not recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping encompasses fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Amended claim 1 is directed to a damage degree management system for a high-temperature component of a steam turbine. The claim recites receiving physical measurement signals from detectors, calculating temperature distributions and thermal stresses, and computing past and future damage degrees for turbine components. None of these limitations involve managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people; nor do they involve fundamental economic principles, commercial transactions, or legal interactions.
The Office Action characterizes the claim as describing "rules or instructions pertaining to estimating future damage degree related information for a steam turbine high temperature component." See page 4 of the Office Action. However, the claimed limitations are not directed to managing interactions between people or following social rules. Rather, they are directed to the acquisition and processing of physical measurement data from industrial machinery and the computation of damage metrics based on that data. The fact that a calculated result may inform a human decision does not transform the technical computations themselves into a method of organizing human activity. Accordingly, claim 1 as amended does not recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Third, amended claim 1 does not recite mathematical concepts. While claim 1 recites computational steps (e.g., calculating temperature distributions, thermal stress, and damage degree), the claims are not "directed to" mathematical concepts in the abstract. The 2019 Guidance makes clear that a claim that merely uses a mathematical calculation does not render the claim directed to the mathematical concept itself. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) ("a claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be determined to not recite a mathematical concept").
Here, the mathematical calculations recited in amended claim 1 are applied to specific technical inputs, for example, measurement information acquired from physical detectors on a steam turbine, and produce specific technical outputs, for example, damage degree assessments for high-temperature turbine components that are displayed to a user. The calculations are inextricably tied to the physical context of monitoring and predicting damage in steam turbine components. Accordingly, claim 1 as amended does not recite a mathematical concept as an abstract idea.
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?
Contrary to applicant’s assertion, examiner didn’t indicate that the human mind is capable of receiving “electromagnetic signals from physical detectors.” Rather, examiner’s position is that the claims, as currently written, 1) recite an abstract idea; 2) include additional elements that, when viewed alone or as an ordered combination, merely facilitate the tasks of said abstract idea. There’s nothing especially technical about the calculating steps, as an individual may determine temperature distributions, a past damage degree, a contribution amount, and a damage degree increment using pen, paper, and/or reference charts, for example.
The additional abstract idea groupings identified by the examiner appear to be appropriate, given that applicant explicitly calls out the interaction between managers {[0052] of applicant’s specification} and mathematical steps {[0099], [0100] of applicant’s specification as filed}.
Applicant continues:
Even assuming, arguendo, that amended claim 1 recites an abstract idea, the claim nonetheless integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it solves particular problems to improve a particular technical field, for example, the field of operation planning and maintenance management for steam turbines, for at least the following reasons.
First, the specification identifies the specific technical problems solved by amended claim 1. For example, high-temperature parts such as a casing and a rotor used for a steam turbine "gradually consume their lives over time due to creep and fatigue, and there is a risk that a crack or damage occurs on the parts in the course of time." See paragraph [0003] of the original specification. Recently, in power generation facilities, an introduction of renewable energy is being accelerated as a measure for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emission. See paragraph [0004] of the original specification. In power generation utilizing renewable energy, the power generation amount changes according to weather and the like. Id. In order to compensate for this intermittent power generation, thermal power plants are required to operate as regulating power sources with fluctuating output demands. Such operation necessitates a wide variety of operational patterns.
Operating as a regulating power source increases the number of times of startup and the frequency of load fluctuations. See paragraphs [0004]-[0005] of the original specification. As a result, the "operating temperature of high temperature parts in particular, namely, rotors and turbine casings of a high-pressure turbine and an intermediate-pressure turbine used under a high-temperature environment, of the steam turbine, is difficult to maintain a steady state" (emphasis added). See paragraph [0005] of the original specification. "This increases a crack propagation degree due to fatigue damage, which becomes a severe condition in terms of remaining life." Id.
The specification identifies the specific technical problem to be solved: "to provide a damage degree management system for steam turbine high temperature components with which it is possible to recognize, in chronological order, a damage degree from the past to the present predicted based on measured information, and a future damage degree predicted based on a future operation plan" (emphasis added). See paragraph [0007] of the original specification.
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. Specifically, applicant’s specification, while highlighting challenges surrounding crack propagation due to fatigue damage, doesn’t claim a technological problem associated with a technology, e.g., sensors. Instead, applicant’s claimed invention reflects improvements to managing fatigue damage, i.e., an abstract process or idea.
Applicant continues:
Second, amended claim 1 provides technical solutions to address the identified specific technical problem. Specifically, amended claim 1 provides the technical solution to these problems through a specific combination of elements, including: (1) a controller that receives physical measurement signals from one or more detectors measuring actual conditions of the steam turbine; (2) calculating temperature distributions of an evaluation part of the high- temperature component based on the measurement information; (3) calculating a thermal stress at the evaluation part based on the calculated temperature distributions; (4) calculating a past damage degree based on the calculated thermal stress; (5) a storage storing a previously- calculated stress history regarding a plurality of operation patterns under an operation condition in future; (6) reading the previously-calculated stress history from the storage corresponding to the future operation pattern referred in the future operation plan received through the user interface; (7) calculating a contribution amount per one hour to a damage degree based on the previously-calculated stress history read from the storage; (8) calculating a damage degree increment by multiplying the contribution amount per one hour by the calculated in-operation time; and (9) generating display information on a user interface for displaying both past and future damage degree related information.
Third, the "previously-calculated stress history" as recited in amended claim 1 constitutes specialized technical knowledge that enables the improvement in predicting future damage degrees. Of particular significance is the recitation of "a storage storing a previously-calculated stress history regarding a plurality of operation patterns under an operation condition in future" (emphasis added). This is not merely generic data storage. The previously-calculated stress history regarding the plurality of operation patterns represents specialized technical knowledge, specifically, the correspondence between particular operating patterns and their resulting stress histories. The specialized technical knowledge is derived from experience in designing and manufacturing steam turbines. See paragraphs [0037] and [0048] of the original specification (describing how a stress history is previously calculated for each pattern of the start-up condition and the daily load condition, and stored in the stress storage by pattern).
The claimed system stores this specialized technical knowledge and utilizes it to calculate the damage degree of the high-temperature component. As described in the specification, the future predictor "reads, from the stress storage by pattern, the previously-calculated stress-by- pattern" and "calculates a contribution amount Adj per one hour to the damage degree based on the stress of the j-th pattern, and then multiplies the contribution amount Adj per one hour to the damage degree by the in-operation time of the j-th pattern, to thereby derive a damage degree increment ADmj due to the j-th pattern." See paragraph [0100] of the original specification.
This specialized knowledge enables the system to determine the specific stress history corresponding to a particular operating pattern when the user inputs it through the user interface, and to calculate the damage degree of the high-temperature components for that specific pattern based on the determined stress history. Because there are various operating patterns for a regulating power source used to balance the intermittent output of renewable energy, the ability to calculate the future damage degree for each of the plurality of operation patterns is achieved precisely by storing and utilizing this specialized stress history data. With this key technical feature, the system can predict the damage progression for the wide variety of operational patterns that modern thermal power plants must accommodate.
Fourth, the claimed system can provide a concrete improvement to the technology of steam turbine maintenance and operation planning. As the specification explains, using the damage degree management system, "it is possible to display the damage degree from the past to the present predicted based on the operation data of the actual machine, and the future damage degree predicted based on the operation condition assumed in the future, in chronological order." See paragraph [0190] of the original specification. "Accordingly, the user can visually confirm the change with time of the damage degree." Id. The system can enable the user to "visually confirm the recommended inspection timing and the replacement recommendation date regarding the turbine casing" and "properly perform preparations for an adjustment of a process and a workplace, securement of budget, and so on." See paragraph [0192] of the original specification. Further, "by changing the operation condition on the input screen of the future operation plan, the user can visually confirm a difference in the future damage degree based on the operation condition." See paragraph [0193] of the original specification.
Applicant’s arguments here, while well taken, appear to conflate the abstract idea with the additional elements. The abstract idea identified by examiner includes:
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 temperature distributions of an evaluation part of the high temperature component based on the measurement information,
calculate a thermal stress at the evaluation part based on the calculated temperature distributions of the evaluation part,
calculate a past damage degree of the high temperature component from past to present based on the calculated thermal stress at the evaluation part,
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,
read the previously-calculated stress history corresponding to the future operation pattern referred in the future operation plan,
calculate a contribution amount per one hour to a damage degree based on the previously-calculated stress history read,
calculate a damage degree increment of each of the plurality of operation patterns by multiplying the contribution amount per one hour to the damage degree by 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.
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 a previously-calculated stress history regarding a plurality of operation patterns under an operation condition in future, and program instructions for causing the computer to; from the storage; through an user interface; on the user interface; received through 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. This isn’t a “specialized knowledge” or improvement to GUIs, as applicant remarks. Rather, 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.
Applicant continues:
The practical benefits of this technical improvement are significant. When the user (e.g., typically an electric power company) inputs the plurality of operation patterns through the user interface, the stored previously-calculated stress history allows the system to determine the damage degree for each pattern. This enables the power company to identify the appropriate time for component replacement well in advance. Furthermore, this feature allows the power company to formulate maintenance plans early, e.g., covering aspects such as parts procurement and maintenance scheduling, thereby contributing to the reliability and profitability of their operations. These are concrete improvements to the technical field of power plant operation and maintenance, not merely the automation of an abstract concept on a generic computer.
These are not merely abstract calculations applied on a generic computer. The claimed system acquires real physical data from detectors on a steam turbine, performs specific thermodynamic computations (temperature distributions and thermal stresses at an evaluation part), applies those computations to predict crack propagation and damage degree, and provides actionable maintenance planning information through a user interface. The claim is directed to a specific technological solution for predicting the remaining life of physical steam turbine components and improving the planning of their inspection, maintenance, and replacement which is a concrete improvement to the technical field of industrial power plant operation.
Fourth, the Office Action has characterized the additional elements as "merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer" per MPEP § 2106.05(f). See page 5 of the Office Action. However, this characterization overlooks the specific technological context in which the claimed system operates. The "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" is not a generic computing element but is a component of an industrial control system that interfaces with physical sensors on a steam turbine to acquire real-world operational data. The claimed system calculates temperature distributions and thermal stresses at specific evaluation parts of turbine components, which are engineering computations rooted in the physical properties of the steam turbine, not generic data processing.
Moreover, the improvement here is not merely to the abstract idea itself, but to the technical field of steam turbine operation and maintenance planning. The specification makes clear that the system addresses the real-world technical problem of increasing fatigue damage caused by the shift to load-following operation in power plants accommodating renewable energy (see paragraphs [0004]-[0005] of the original specification), and provides a concrete solution that enables plant operators to predict damage progression and plan maintenance accordingly (see paragraphs [0190]-[0193], [0224] of the original specification).
Accordingly, even if amended claim 1 were found to recite an abstract idea, the claim integrates any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technical solution that improves the field of steam turbine operation planning and maintenance management.
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. Specifically, applicant’s specification, while highlighting challenges surrounding crack propagation due to fatigue damage, doesn’t claim a technological problem associated with a technology, e.g., sensors. Instead, applicant’s claimed invention reflects improvements to managing fatigue damage, i.e., an abstract process or idea.
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 a previously-calculated stress history regarding a plurality of operation patterns under an operation condition in future, and program instructions for causing the computer to; from the storage; through an user interface; on the user interface; received through 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 20140058534, which teaches: [0026] The power plant 10 also may include a steam turbine engine 50 and a heat recovery steam generation (HRSG) system 52. The steam turbine engine 50 may drive a second load 54. The second load 54 may also be an electrical generator for generating electrical power. However, both the first and second loads 48, 54 may be other types of loads capable of being driven by the gas turbine engine 34 and steam turbine engine 50, respectively.
US 20180173214, which teaches: [0019] The steam turbine system 16 includes a turbine 48, shaft 50, and load 52 (e.g., electrical generator). As the hot, pressurized steam in line 46 enters the steam turbine 48, the steam contacts turbine blades attached to turbine rotor disks 54 (e.g., turbine stages). As the steam passes through the turbine stages in the turbine 48, the steam induces the turbine blades to rotate the rotor disks 54. The rotation of the rotor disks 54 induces rotation of the shaft 50. As illustrated, the load 52 (e.g., electrical generator) connects to the shaft 50. Accordingly, as the shaft 50 rotates, the load 52 (e.g., electrical generator) uses the rotation energy to generate electricity for the power grid. As the pressurized steam in line 46 passes through the turbine 48, the steam loses energy (i.e., expands and cools).
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
Prosecution Insights