DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 1/4/24, wherein:
Claims 1-7 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) is/are: a display information generator configured to generate display information for displaying in claim 1.
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.
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 1-7 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 display information generator configured to generate display information for displaying;
past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information on a past pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail from the past to the present calculated based on measured information; and
future pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information on a future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail calculated based on a future operation plan input through an input screen of a user interface and the past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information.
These limitations constitute information display, 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.
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 display information generator and a user interface, which are interpreted as a computer component. The computer component is 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. 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. 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, 6, and 7 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 are 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 1-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “a display information generator configured to generate display information for displaying” invokes 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. The Specification refers to the display information generator at ¶35, for example, but does not provide the structure which performs the displaying. 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.
Notice
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazuhiro et al. (JP 2022119060).
Referring to claim 1:
Kazuhiro discloses 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 {Kazuhiro [0007]; calculates the depth of pitting corrosion in the implant in time series based on the growth rate of pitting corrosion according to the time-series corrosion characteristics [0007]}, the system comprising a display information generator configured to generate display information for displaying {Kazuhiro [0014]; The display device 20 is, for example, a monitor [0014]};
past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information on a past pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail from the past to the present calculated based on measured information {Kazuhiro [0023][0039]; The operating data acquisition unit 106 acquires operating data from the start of operation to the present time from the turbine information output device 40 corresponding to the low-pressure turbine rotor to be evaluated [0023] and As a result, the pitting depth computing unit 112 can estimate the pitting depth D with a cumulative probability of 25% by using the estimation expressions (1) and (2) from the time the operation is started to the time T04 [0039]}; and
future pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information on a future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor dovetail calculated based on a future operation plan input through an input screen of a user interface and the past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information {Kazuhiro [0039][0040]; from the current point in time T04 onward, prediction is possible by maintaining the current inclination D1 (C=H, tn=03, P=25, ty=z5) until the corrosion parameter C is changed [0039]}.
Referring to claim 2:
Kazuhiro discloses wherein the display information generator generates the display information for making both the past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information and the future pitting corrosion propagation degree related information to be displayed on the display part in chronological order {Kazuhiro [0038][0051][0052] and Fig. 6; the corrosion parameter generation unit 110 digitizes the degree of corrosion damage of the low-pressure turbine blade root 220b to be calculated in time series [0051] where a time series indicates the use of time order}.
Referring to claim 3:
Kazuhiro discloses wherein the display information generator generates the display information for making the past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information to be displayed on the display part, at a predetermined time interval {Kazuhiro [0045][0046] and Figs. 6-8; where Fig. 8 shows predetermined time intervals are displayed}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro et al. (JP 2022119060), in view of Menon et al. (US 20180284707).
Referring to claim 4:
Kazuhiro discloses a corrosion damage calculation device for a turbine rotor blade (Kazuhiro [0007]). Kazuhiro does not disclose wherein the display information generator generates the display information for making the future pitting corrosion propagation degree related information to be displayed on the display part, every time the future operation plan is input.
However, Menon discloses a similar system for generating recommended operating schedules for gas turbines (abstract). Menon discloses wherein the display information generator generates the display information for making the future pitting corrosion propagation degree related information to be displayed on the display part, every time the future operation plan is input {Menon [0158]; during operation of the plant asset during the maintenance interval, the portion of the operating schedule corresponding to the current day is updated based on current fuel and electricity prices, actual operation data for the plant asset (e.g., historical hourly values of the power output and operating temperature for past hours of the maintenance interval), forecasted fuel and electricity prices for the remaining hours of the maintenance interval, and the price of life value determined at step 2302. For example, the inner loop processing described above (e.g., step 2104 of methodology 2100) can be re-executed using the current and historical data for the current day in place of forecasted data for past hours of the maintenance interval, and updated forecast data for the remaining hours of the maintenance interval [0158]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Kazuhiro to incorporate generating output information as the input information is updated as taught by Menon because this would provide a manner for updating the information (Menon [0158]), thus aiding the user by providing an updated output responsive to a change in the input.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiro et al. (JP 2022119060), in view of Venedikis et al. (US 20180196894).
Referring to claim 5:
Kazuhiro discloses wherein: the rotor corresponds to implanting parts of blades of three stages before a final stage of a low-pressure turbine {Kazuhiro [0013][0028] [0029][0049] and Fig. 4; a plurality of turbine stages each including a pair of a stator blade and a rotor blade along an axial direction of a rotary shaft of the turbine rotor. . . the implanting portion of the rotor blade disposed along the axial direction of the rotation shaft of the low-pressure turbine rotor is referred to as a low-pressure turbine rotor blade implanting portion [0013]}.
Kazuhiro discloses a corrosion damage calculation device for a turbine rotor blade (Kazuhiro [0007]). Kazuhiro does not disclose the display information generator generates the display information for making information related to an inspection threshold value calculated based on the future pitting corrosion propagation degree and indicating a pitting corrosion propagation degree by which an inspection of the rotor is recommended, to be displayed on the display part.
However, Venedikis discloses a similar system for monitoring the operating conditions of a steam turbine and developing an adaptive inspection interval of the steam turbine (abstract). Venedikis discloses the display information generator generates the display information for making information related to an inspection threshold value calculated based on the future pitting corrosion propagation degree and indicating a pitting corrosion propagation degree by which an inspection of the rotor is recommended, to be displayed on the display part {Venedikis [0008][0024][0029][0040]; if analysis of the unit specific data for operation of a particular steam turbine at a specific plant indicates a low wear and low likelihood of corrosive damage under the ongoing operational conditions, the availability of that particular steam turbine may be increased by extending the fixed/static inspection intervals conventionally prescribed in accordance with a fleet model formula [0024] and provide a displayed or printed output of the adapted inspection interval or an inspection schedule based on the adapted interval [0040]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Kazuhiro to incorporate displaying inspection recommendations as taught by Venedikis because this would provide a manner for adjusting inspection/ maintenance intervals based upon specific plant operational conditions (Venedikis [0024]), thus aiding the user by enhancing operational flexibility and improving the costs of operation.
Referring to claim 6:
Kazuhiro discloses a corrosion damage calculation device for a turbine rotor blade (Kazuhiro [0007]). Kazuhiro does not disclose wherein the display information generator generates the display information for making second pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information regarding a second future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor in the future calculated based on a second future operation plan input through an operation using a user interface screen and the past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information, to be further displayed on the display part.
However, Venedikis discloses a similar system for monitoring the operating conditions of a steam turbine and developing an adaptive inspection interval of the steam turbine (abstract). Venedikis discloses wherein the display information generator generates the display information for making second pitting corrosion propagation degree related information indicating information regarding a second future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor in the future calculated based on a second future operation plan input through an operation using a user interface screen and the past pitting corrosion propagation degree related information, to be further displayed on the display part {Venedikis [0008][0024][0029]-[0031][0035][0040]; if analysis of the unit specific data for operation of a particular steam turbine at a specific plant indicates a low wear and low likelihood of corrosive damage under the ongoing operational conditions, the availability of that particular steam turbine may be increased by extending the fixed/static inspection intervals conventionally prescribed in accordance with a fleet model formula. Conversely, if analyzed unit specific data for a particular steam turbine at a specific plant indicates greater wear/corrosion or an increased potential for corrosive damage due to the operational conditions at the specific plant, the fixed/static interval prescribed by the fleet model formula may be decreased, resulting in planned outages occurring at shorter intervals [0024]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Kazuhiro to incorporate generating display information based on a second future pitting corrosion propagation degree of the rotor as taught by Venedikis because this would provide a manner for adjusting inspection/ maintenance intervals based upon specific plant operational conditions (Venedikis [0024]), thus aiding the user by enhancing operational flexibility and improving the costs of operation.
Referring to claim 7:
Kazuhiro discloses wherein the display information generator generates the display information for making information related to an inspection recommendation date calculated based on a second pitting corrosion propagation degree and at which an inspection of the rotor is recommended, to be displayed on the display part {Venedikis [0008][0024] [0029][0040]; provide a displayed or printed output of the adapted inspection interval or an inspection schedule based on the adapted interval [0040]}.
Conclusion
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