DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 4/21/26, wherein:
Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) from claim 1 is/are:
a controller configured to receive one or more signals indicating measurement information related to the steam turbine;
measured by one or more detectors; and
a storage storing program instructions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. With regard to the storage, the Specifications mentions “a storage” in ¶36 and in Fig. 2, which identifies the storage as a computer storage, such as a hard disk drive or nonvolatile memory device.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a system and therefore, falls into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity
a controller configured to receive one or more signals indicating measurement information related to the steam turbine measured by one or more detectors, the measurement information comprising a generator output;
a computer; and
a storage storing program instructions for causing the computer to:
receive the measurement information from the controller;
calculate a past pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail from a previous time to a current time based on the measurement information;
store a contribution amount corresponding to an hour time interval to a future pitting corrosion propagation degree corresponding to each of a plurality of operation patterns;
receive an availability factor for each corresponding operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns in an operation plan of the steam turbine from a user interface;
calculate an in-operation time corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns of the steam turbine based on the availability factor;
calculate the future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail from the current time to a future time based on the contribution amount per one hour to the future pitting corrosion propagation degree corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns, the in-operation time corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns, and the past pitting corrosion propagation degree; and
generate display information for displaying:
past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information on the past pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail; and
future pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information on the future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail on the user interface.
These limitations constitute information gathering and predicting future pitting corrosion, which are used to determine if it is necessary to perform an inspection of a machine (Specification ¶4) and as such, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the following limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered mathematical concepts
calculate a past pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail from a previous time to a current time based on the measurement information;
calculate an in-operation time corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns of the steam turbine based on the availability factor;
calculate the future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail from the current time to a future time based on the contribution amount per one hour to the future pitting corrosion propagation degree corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns, the in-operation time corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns, and the past pitting corrosion propagation degree.
These limitations constitute calculating a past pitting corrosion propagation degree, calculating an in-operation time, and calculating the future pitting corrosion propagation degree, which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered mathematical concepts, in the form of a mathematical relationship, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols. See MPEP 2106.04(a). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a controller, a computer, a storage, and a user interface, which are interpreted as computer components. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the receiving, storing, and displaying limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the steps of the abstract idea amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the receiving, storing, and displaying limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec, and identifying storing information in memory as WURC, as recognized by Versata). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claim 5 further recites the additional element of the rotor, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitations:
a controller configured to receive one or more signals indicating measurement information related to the steam turbine; and
measured by one or more detectors; and
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Regarding the controller, the Specification refers to an on-site control apparatus 40 at ¶23, for example, but does not provide the structure which performs the receiving. With regard to the detectors, the Specification mentions detectors only ¶15, and does not provide any structure or further description of the detectors. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-8 are rejected as dependent on claim 1.
Claims 2-4, 6, and 7 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. Claims 2-4, 6, and 7 refer to “the display information is configured to make…” or “the display information for making…” which seems to be treating “the display information” as structure which can perform a step, not as simply as information that is displayed. This is confusing, since claim 1 does not treat “the display information” as structure and also since the term “display information” does not imply structure. Examiner suggests amending the claims as an active step of displaying the information included in the respective claims. For example, claim 2 would state:
2. (Currently Amended) The pitting corrosion propagation degree management system for the rotor dovetail in the rotor of the steam turbine according to claim 1, wherein:
the user interface further displays
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-8.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is Kazuhiro et al. (JP 2022119060). Kazuhiro discloses a corrosion damage calculation device for a turbine rotor blade (Kazuhiro [0007]).
Menon et al. (US 20180284707) is also closely applicable prior art of records. Menon discloses a system for generating recommended operating schedules for gas turbines (abstract).
With regard to claim 1: The prior art of record neither anticipates not fairly and reasonable teach a pitting corrosion propagation degree management system for a rotor dovetail in a rotor of a steam turbine for implanting a rotor blade of the steam turbine, the system comprising:
a controller configured to receive one or more signals indicating measurement information related to the steam turbine measured by one or more detectors, the measurement information comprising a generator output;
a computer; and
a storage storing program instructions for causing the computer to:
receive the measurement information from the controller;
calculate a past pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail from a previous time to a current time based on the measurement information;
store a contribution amount corresponding to an hour time interval to a future pitting corrosion propagation degree corresponding to each of a plurality of operation patterns;
receive an availability factor for each corresponding operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns in an operation plan of the steam turbine from a user interface;
calculate an in-operation time corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns of the steam turbine based on the availability factor;
calculate the future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail from the current time to a future time based on the contribution amount per one hour to the future pitting corrosion propagation degree corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns, the in-operation time corresponding to each operation pattern of the plurality of operation patterns, and the past pitting corrosion propagation degree; and
generate display information for displaying:
past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information on the past pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail; and
future pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information on the future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail on the user interface.
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are not found in the prior art. Claims 2-8 are dependent on claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Status of Claims
Examiner thanks Applicant for pointing out the support in the Specification for the amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC 101
A. The Claim Recite an Abstract Idea
Applicant argues that the claims do not set forth an abstract idea because the claims do not include features or steps that describe an abstract activity, but are directed to “technical solutions related to stress corrosion cracking and pitting corrosion propagation.” Remarks 6. Examiner respectfully disagrees, for all the reasons provided above. Moreover, no technical solutions have been identified.
B. The Claims Do Not Recite a Practical Application
Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of “an improved security architecture for organizations.” Remarks 6. Examiner respectfully disagrees, for all the reasons above, and thinks that this is a typo. Applicant further argues that the invention “provides technical improvements to detecting, calculating, and predicting stress corrosion cracking and pitting corrosion propagation.” Remarks 6. Applicant further points to several of the claim limitations as allegedly providing a technical improvement. At most, these limitations provide an improvement to an abstract idea. There is no improvement identified which is directed to technology itself.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Examiner has adjusted the rejection in response to the amendments.
Rejections under 35 USC 102/103
Examiner has withdrawn the rejections, in response to the amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights