CTNF 18/406,310 CTNF 95314 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Application 18/406,310, filed on 01/08/2024 claims priority to JAPAN 2023-045671 filed on 03/22/2023. Status This office action is a first office action, non-final rejection based on the merits wherein claims 1-13 are pending and have been considered below. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed 01/08/2024 and 08/16/2024 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Documents A4 and A5 of IDS dated 01/05/2024 and document B7 of IDS dated 08/16/2024 have not been considered as they are in a foreign language. Examiner respectfully requests a copy of an English translation of these documents. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 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 generation section configured to generate display information ” in claims 1-13. 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 at least ¶ 109 the written 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below. Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product. Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined. A steam turbine nozzle deformation amount managing apparatus comprising a display information generation section configured to generate display information for displaying: past deformation amount related information indicating information on a past deformation amount of a nozzle of a steam turbine from the past to the present calculated based on measured information ; and future deformation amount related information indicating information on a future deformation amoun t of the nozzle calculated based on a future operating condition input via a user interface screen and the past deformation amount related information . The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a series of mathematical concepts where “generate” and “calculated” may include a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations/two-group significance tests for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. Regarding the limitation “ generate display information,” it is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for generating display information therefore it is an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine. Regarding “ past deformation amount of a nozzle of a steam turbine from the past to the present calculated based on measured information ,” the underlined limitation is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for calculating a past deformation therefore it is an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine. Regarding “ future deformation amoun t of the nozzle calculated based on a future operating condition input via a user interface screen and the past deformation amount related information” the underlined limitation is an abstract idea as it is a set of programming routines and patterns for calculating a future deformation therefore it is an algorithm or program which is a mathematical routine. In summary, the highlighted steps in the claims above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis. The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)]. Claim 1 recites the “display information” is “for displaying.” The published application, in at least ¶ 0109 supports a general purpose computer with a display. This element is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as the use of a monitor for displaying data. This additional element therefore only amounts to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”). The above claim, as a whole, is therefore directed to an abstract idea. Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claims do not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.) The claims do not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr , in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent claims 2-13 are similarly ineligible. The dependent claims merely add limitations which further detail or limit the abstract idea with limitations such as: “generates the display information” (claims 2-13), “a preparation threshold that is calculated” (claim 5), “recommended preparation time that is calculated” (claim 6), “recommended replacement time that is calculated” (claim 7), “recommended inspection time that is calculated” (claim 8), “second future deformation amount . . .calculated” (claim 9), “second preparation threshold that is calculated” (claim 10), “second recommended preparation time that is calculated” (claim 11), “second recommended replacement time that is calculated” (claim 12), and “second recommended inspection time that is calculated” (claim 13). These limitations do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significant more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself). Claims 2-8 and 10-13 recite the limitation “for displaying,” claim 9 recites the limitation “for further displaying, ” claims 5-6 and 10-11 recite the limitation “which it is recommended to start preparation for a new nozzle,” claims 7 and 12 recite the limitation “which it is recommended to replace the nozzle,” and claims 8 and 13 recite the limitation “which it is recommended to inspect the nozzle.” Each of this limitations is a limitation for the intended use of the invention and do not help to integrate the claim into a practical application or make it significant more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claim to a particular practical application itself). Considering all the limitations individually and in combination, the claimed additional elements do not show any inventive concept to applying algorithms such as improving the performance of a computer or any technology, and do not meaningfully limit the performance of the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama et al., hereinafter Fujiyama, U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0191606 A1 in view of Ganti et al., herein after Ganti, U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0364043 A1 . Regarding Independent claim 1 Fujiyama teaches: “ A steam turbine nozzle deformation amount managing apparatus” (Fujiyama, ¶ 0002, ¶ 0095-¶ 0096: Fujiyama teaches “maintaining plant equipment such as steam turbines for thermal power plants, against damage, efficiency decay and shutdown” (¶ 0002) where “damage” includes “creep deformation of a nozzle diaphragm” (¶ 0095) where “Creep deformation of a nozzle diaphragm causes damage to the nozzle” (¶ 0096).) comprising a display information generation section configured to generate display information for displaying: “past deformation amount related information indicating information on a past deformation amount of a nozzle of a steam turbine from the past to the present calculated based on measured information; and (Fujiyama, fig 12, ¶ 0100-¶ 0102: Fujiyama teaches “erosion of the nozzle blades” using “Statistical approximation to the relationship between each past operation time ‘t’ and an erosion amount Er, and their probability distribution P Er are given by the TA unit 29 based on erosion amounts measured by an erosion-amount measurement (EAM) unit 31 through image processing, etc.” (¶ 0100) where “past operation time ‘t’ and an erosion amount” disclose “past deformation amount related information indicating information on a past deformation amount of a nozzle of a steam turbine” and “ erosion amounts measured by an erosion-amount measurement (EAM) unit) discloses “measured information.” Fig. 12 depicts a “life distribution P Er (t cr ) of the timing in which the erosion amount reaches the allowable limit in view of efficiency” (¶ 0101) disclosing deformation amount from “the past to the present based on measured information.” ) “future deformation amount related information indicating information on a future deformation amount of the nozzle calculated based on a future operating condition input via a user interface screen and the past deformation amount related information ” (Fujiyama, fig 4, ¶ 0033-¶ 0035: Fujiyama teaches “The creep damage Φ c and the fatigue damage Φ f given as above are applied to creep-fatigue interaction property Φ f + Φ c = Dc (Φ f , Φ c ) (4) in the SLA database 10 and it probability distribution Pp to calculate the remaining life (duration and the number of times) in accordance with the damage accumulated so far ( past deformation amount related information ) and a future operation-expected pattern (future operating condition) ” (¶ 0046-¶ 0047) where “remaining life” discloses “future deformation amount related information” and where “creep damage” causes damage to the “nozzle” (see above). While Fujiyama teaches “an input unit configured to receive data on inspection, diagnosis, repair and operation histories for equipment that constitute a plant” (¶ 0008), a trend analysis unit (¶ 0099) disclosing using some type of computer and discloses several graphs as depicted, for example, in figures 4, 6-8, and 12-13, Fujiyama does not explicitly disclose a display information generation section for displaying. Ganti teaches fig. 6 which depicts “ computer system 80 having a display 81, a processor 82 ” (¶ 0093) disclosing a “display information generation section (processor) configured to generate display information for displaying.” It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama by including a display unit for displaying information as taught by Ganti as displaying data makes it easier to see trends and anomalies in order to provide a system where when needed “maintenance can be performed to improve those performance parameters and thus, the operating characteristics of the turbine” (Ganti, ¶ 0128). Regarding claim 2 Fujiyama as modified teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying both the information on the past deformation amount and the information on the future deformation amount in chronological order ” (Fujiyama, fig 4, fig 6, ¶ 0046-¶ 0047): Fujiyama teaches using “The creep damage Φ c and the fatigue damage Φ f given as above are applied to creep-fatigue interaction property Φ f + Φ c = Dc (Φ f , Φ c ) (4) in the SLA database 10 and it probability distribution Pp to calculate the remaining life (duration and the number of times) in accordance with the damage accumulated so far and a future operation-expected pattern” (¶ 0046-¶ 0047) where “damage accumulated so far” discloses “ information on the past deformation” and “probability distribution” discloses “ the information on the future deformation.” Moreover, “remaining life” is depicted in “chronological order” (see fig. 4). While Fujiyama teaches “an input unit configured to receive data on inspection, diagnosis, repair and operation histories for equipment that constitute a plant” (¶ 0008), a trend analysis unit (¶ 0099) disclosing using some type of computer and discloses several graphs as depicted, for example, in figures 4, 6-8, and 12-13, Fujiyama does not explicitly disclose a display information generation section for displaying. Ganti teaches fig. 6 which depicts “ computer system 80 having a display 81, a processor 82 ” (¶ 0093) disclosing a “display information generation section (processor) generates the display information for displaying.” It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including a display unit for displaying information as taught by Ganti as displaying data makes it easier to see trends and anomalies in order to provide a system where when needed “maintenance can be performed to improve those performance parameters and thus, the operating characteristics of the turbine” (Ganti, ¶ 0128). Regarding claim 3 Fujiyama as modified teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying the past deformation amount related information at predetermined time intervals ” (Fujiyama, fig. 12, ¶ 0100: Fig 12 depicts in a graphical manner the “assessments of erosion of the nozzle blades” where a “Statistical approximation to the relationship between each past operation time ‘t’ and an erosion amount Er” (¶ 0100) where “each past operation time” discloses “predetermined time” and “erosion amount” at “each past operation time” discloses “past deformation amount related information at predetermined time intervals.” While Fujiyama teaches “an input unit configured to receive data on inspection, diagnosis, repair and operation histories for equipment that constitute a plant” (¶ 0008), a trend analysis unit (¶ 0099) disclosing using some type of computer and discloses several graphs as depicted, for example, in figures 4, 6-8, and 12-13, Fujiyama does not explicitly disclose a display information generation section for displaying. Ganti teaches fig. 6 which depicts “ computer system 80 having a display 81, a processor 82 ” (¶ 0093) disclosing a “display information generation section (processor) generates the display information for displaying.” It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including a display unit for displaying information as taught by Ganti as displaying data makes it easier to see trends and anomalies in order to provide a system where when needed “maintenance can be performed to improve those performance parameters and thus, the operating characteristics of the turbine” (Ganti, ¶ 0128). Regarding claim 4 Fujiyama as modified teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying the future deformation amount related information each time the future operating condition is input” (Fujiyama, fig. 12, ¶ 0087: Fujiyama teaches “life-time calculation is performed with switching the future operation patterns to select the pattern with the minimum risk cost among feasible operation patterns” (¶ 0087) where the results of the “ life-time calculation” as depicted in fig. 12 shows “ future deformation amount related information” with respect to the “future operating condition” the “life-time calculation” has been switched to. While Fujiyama teaches “an input unit configured to receive data on inspection, diagnosis, repair and operation histories for equipment that constitute a plant” (¶ 0008), a trend analysis unit (¶ 0099) disclosing using some type of computer and discloses several graphs as depicted, for example, in figures 4, 6-8, and 12-13, Fujiyama does not explicitly disclose a display information generation section for displaying. Ganti teaches fig. 6 which depicts “ computer system 80 having a display 81, a processor 82 ” (¶ 0093) disclosing a “display information generation section (processor) generates the display information for displaying.” It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama by including a display unit for displaying information as taught by Ganti as displaying data makes it easier to see trends and anomalies in order to provide a system where when needed “maintenance can be performed to improve those performance parameters and thus, the operating characteristics of the turbine” (Ganti, ¶ 0128). Regarding claim 9 Fujiyama as modified teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for further displaying second future deformation amount related information that indicates information on a second future deformation amount of the nozzle in the future calculated based on a second future operating condition input via the user interface screen and the past deformation amount related information ” (Fujiyama, fig. 12, ¶ 0087: Fujiyama teaches “life-time calculation is performed with switching the future operation patterns to select the pattern with the minimum risk cost among feasible operation patterns” (¶ 0087) where the results of the “ life-time calculation” as depicted in fig. 12 shows “ future deformation amount related information” with respect to the “future operating condition” the “life-time calculation” has been switched to. Therefore, every time the “lifetime calculation” has been switched to different “future operation patterns” the future deformation amount related information changes thereby disclosing “ second future deformation amount related information” indicating “ second future deformation amount of the nozzle” as the erosion amount of fig. 12 is with respect to the nozzle . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama as modified by Ganti as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Yu et al., hereinafter Yu, U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0144685 A1 . Regarding claim 5 Fujiyama as modified teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying information related to a preparation threshold that is calculated based on the future deformation amount ” (Fujiyama, fig. 12, ¶ 0087: Fujiyama teaches “life-time calculation is performed with switching the future operation patterns to select the pattern with the minimum risk cost among feasible operation patterns” (¶ 0087) where the results of the “ life-time calculation” as depicted in fig. 12 discloses a “ a preparation threshold that is calculated based on the future deformation amount.” Fujiyama does not teach the preparation threshold “indicates a deformation amount at which it is recommended to start preparation for a new nozzle” or a display information generation section for displaying. Yu teaches “when the degradation prediction device and method is applied to a plant using a component subject to high temperature and high pressure like blades, vanes, . . . the degradation prediction device may provide an alert for potentially risky or caution-requiring states of these components” (¶ 0094) where the “alert” discloses a recommendation “ to start preparation for a new nozzle” as the “alert” allows a chance to replace or repair the component (¶ 0094) and “vanes” disclose “nozzle.” Additionally, fig. 1 depicts a configuration of a degradation prediction device which includes a processor ( display information generation section) and input/output module for “displaying” as the “input/output interface module 120 may include a screen to display information” (¶ 0086) used for displaying the alert (¶ 0021).) Both Fujiyama and Yu teach maintaining steam turbines therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including an indication to start preparation for a new nozzle as disclosed by Yu in order to reduce costs by minimizing down time by preparing for a replacement instead of replacement after a component has failed in order to improve “the stability and security of the plant or system” (Yu, ¶ 0094). Regarding claim 6 Fujiyama as modified does not teach: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a recommended preparation time that is calculated based on the future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to start preparation for a new nozzle. ” Yu teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a recommended preparation time that is calculated based on the future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to start preparation for a new nozzle ” (Yu, fig. 1, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0094: Yu teaches “when the degradation prediction device and method is applied to a plant using a component subject to high temperature and high pressure like blades, vanes, . . . the degradation prediction device may provide an alert for potentially risky or caution-requiring states of these components” where the alert is generated based on “ lifetime prediction value of the material used in these components” thereby allowing “a chance to replace or repair the component that uses the material before the component fails” (¶ 0094) where replacement of “ vanes” discloses “a new nozzle,” “lifetime prediction value of the material” discloses “future deformation amount,” and “ provide an alert for potentially risky or caution-requiring states of these components” discloses a recommendation to “start preparation for a new nozzle. ” Moreover, the “lifetime prediction value” discloses a “recommended preparation time.” Additionally, fig. 1 depicts a configuration of a degradation prediction device which includes a processor ( display information generation section) and input/output module for “displaying” as the “input/output interface module 120 may include a screen to display information” (¶ 0086) used for displaying the alert (¶ 0021).) Both Fujiyama and Yu teach maintaining steam turbines therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including an indication to start preparation for a new nozzle as disclosed by Yu in order to reduce costs by minimizing down time by preparing for a replacement instead of replacement after a component has failed in order to improve “the stability and security of the plant or system” (Yu, ¶ 0094). Regarding claim 10 Fujiyama as modified teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying information related to a second preparation threshold that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount” (Fujiyama, fig 12, ¶ 0087: Fujiyama teaches maintenance timing is decided when the maintenance expanses are lower than the risk cost (¶ 0087). “If the plant is required to operate beyond the maintenance timing, life-time calculation is performed with switching the operation patterns to select the pattern with the minimum risk cost among feasible operations patterns” (¶ 0087). When the “operation patterns” are switched, the future deformation amount related information changes thereby disclosing “a second preparation threshold that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount.” Fujiyama does not teach the second preparation threshold “indicates a deformation amount at which it is recommended to start preparation for a new nozzle” or a display information generation section for displaying. Yu teaches “when the degradation prediction device and method is applied to a plant using a component subject to high temperature and high pressure like blades, vanes, . . . the degradation prediction device may provide an alert for potentially risky or caution-requiring states of these components” (¶ 0094) where the “alert” discloses a recommendation “ to start preparation for a new nozzle” as the “alert” allows a chance to replace or repair the component (¶ 0094) and “vanes” disclose “nozzle.” Additionally, fig. 1 depicts a configuration of a degradation prediction device which includes a processor ( display information generation section) and input/output module for “displaying” as the “input/output interface module 120 may include a screen to display information” (¶ 0086) used for displaying the alert (¶ 0021).) Both Fujiyama and Yu teach maintaining steam turbines therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including an indication to start preparation for a new nozzle as disclosed by Yu in order to reduce costs by minimizing down time by preparing for a replacement instead of replacement after a component has failed in order to improve “the stability and security of the plant or system” (Yu, ¶ 0094). Regarding claim 11 Fujiyama as modified does not teach: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a second recommended preparation time that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to start preparation for a new nozzle. ” Yu teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a second recommended preparation time that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to start preparation for a new nozzle ” (Yu, fig. 1, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0094: Yu teaches “when the degradation prediction device and method is applied to a plant using a component subject to high temperature and high pressure like blades, vanes, . . . the degradation prediction device may provide an alert for potentially risky or caution-requiring states of these components” where the alert is generated based on “ lifetime prediction value of the material used in these components” thereby allowing “a chance to replace or repair the component that uses the material before the component fails” (¶ 0094) where replacement of “ vanes” discloses “a new nozzle., “lifetime prediction value of the material” discloses “future deformation amount.” The “lifetime prediction value of the material used in themes components” is “made using environmental information such as temperature (K), stress (MPa), and exposure time (hrs) data that the respective components encounter” (¶ 0094) therefore when the “ environmental information” changes, the “lifetime prediction value of the material” changes thereby providing a “second future deformation amount.” Moreover, the recalculated “lifetime prediction value” discloses a “second recommended preparation time.” “P rovide an alert for potentially risky or caution-requiring states of these components” discloses a recommendation to “start preparation for a new nozzle. ” Additionally, fig. 1 depicts a configuration of a degradation prediction device which includes a processor ( display information generation section) and input/output module for “displaying” as the “input/output interface module 120 may include a screen to display information” (¶ 0086) used for displaying the alert (¶ 0021).) Both Fujiyama and Yu teach maintaining steam turbines therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including an indication to start preparation for a new nozzle as disclosed by Yu in order to reduce costs by minimizing down time by preparing for a replacement instead of replacement after a component has failed in order to improve “the stability and security of the plant or system” (Yu, ¶ 0094) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama as modified by Ganti as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Fujiyama Kazunari et al., hereinafter Kazunari, JPA 1992282455 . Regarding claim 7 Fujiyama as modified does not teach: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a recommended replacement time that is calculated based on the future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to replace the nozzle. ” Kazunari teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a recommended replacement time that is calculated based on the future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to replace the (part)” Kazunari teaches “the number of years until the crack generation and the crack propagation/destruction are calculated, and the soundness of the member until the next regular inspection is confirmed. On the other hand, if the repair limit is exceeded, the part is replaced. The above results are displayed by the display device 10 of Fig. 2” (¶ 0050) where “the number of years until the crack generation and the crack propagation/destruction are calculated” discloses “future deformation amount” and “ soundness of the member ” discloses a “recommended replacement time” because if the “ repair limit is exceeded ” the part would not be sound and “ the part is replaced .” Fujiyama teaches “ creep-crack development ” where “ creep” is associated with the nozzle (¶ 0096). ). Therefore the combination of Fujiyama as modified by Ganti and Kazunari teach the limitation “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a second recommended replacement time that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to replace the nozzle ” Both Fujiyama and Kazunari teach maintaining steam turbines therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including an recommendation for replacing a part as disclosed by Kazunari in order to reduce costs by minimizing down time by replacing a part instead of replacing the part after it has failed in order to provide “a maintenance management method and a maintenance management apparatus for structural parts, which are capable of accurately detecting and evaluating complex deterioration/damage factors and performing appropriate processing on individual structural parts in accordance with the degree of deterioration/damage and the repair history” (Kazunari ¶ 0005). Regarding claim 12 Fujiyama as modified does not teach: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a second recommended replacement time that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to replace the nozzle ” Kazunari teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a second recommended replacement time that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to replace the (part)” Kazunari teaches “the number of years until the crack generation and the crack propagation/destruction are calculated, and the soundness of the member until the next regular inspection is confirmed. On the other hand, if the repair limit is exceeded, the part is replaced. The above results are displayed by the display device 10 of Fig. 2” (¶ 0050) where “the next regular inspection” discloses a subsequent inspection is performed therefore “the number of years until the crack generation and the crack propagation/destruction are calculated” discloses “second future deformation amount” and “ soundness of the member ” discloses a “second recommended replacement time” because if the “ repair limit is exceeded ” the part would not be sound and “ the part is replaced .” Fujiyama teaches “ creep-crack development ” where “ creep” is associated with the nozzle (¶ 0096). Therefore the combination of Fujiyama as modified by Ganti and Kazunari teach the limitation “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a second recommended replacement time that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to replace the nozzle ” Both Fujiyama and Kazunari teach maintaining steam turbines therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including an recommendation for replacing a part as disclosed by Kazunari in order to reduce costs by minimizing down time by replacing a part instead of replacing the part after it has failed in order to provide “a maintenance management method and a maintenance management apparatus for structural parts, which are capable of accurately detecting and evaluating complex deterioration/damage factors and performing appropriate processing on individual structural parts in accordance with the degree of deterioration/damage and the repair history” (Kazunari ¶ 0005) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiyama as modified by Ganti as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Abrol et al., hereinafter Abrol, U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0257666 A1 . Regarding claim 8 Fujiyama as modified does not teach: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a recommended inspection time that is calculated based on the future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to inspect the nozzle. ” Abrol teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a recommended inspection time that is calculated based on the future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to inspect the nozzle ” (Abrol, fig. 1, fig. 3, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0027): Abrol teaches “the turbine system 10 may use TMDM (turbomachinery degradation model) 64 to determine an estimated life of one or more components of the turbine system 10 depending on which mode of operation the turbine system 10 has been operated during an online time of the component” where “the maintenance interval input selector 100, the minimum limit 88, and/or the maximum limit 90 corresponding to the maintenance interval/time to outage may be adjusted according to an estimated life of one or more components within the turbine system 10” (¶ 0027) where “maintenance interval” discloses a “recommend inspection time,” “ estimated life” discloses “future deformation amount,” “one or more components within the turbine system 10” discloses a “nozzle,” and the GUI displays the maintenance interval/time to outage (see fig. 3, element 98).) Both Fujiyama and Abrol teach maintaining steam turbines (Abrol ¶ 0016) therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including an updating a maintenance schedule based on future deformation as taught by Abrol because updating maintenance schedules is important for preventing unscheduled interruptions to the system operation due to predicted damage to components in order to “preserve turbine engine efficiency and cost effectiveness” (Abrol, ¶ 0014). Regarding claim 13 Fujiyama as modified does not teach: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a second recommended inspection time that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to inspect the nozzle. ” Abrol teaches: “ the display information generation section generates the display information for displaying a second recommended inspection time that is calculated based on the second future deformation amount and at which it is recommended to inspect the nozzle ” (Abrol, fig. 1, fig. 3, ¶ 0021, ¶ 0027): Abrol teaches “the turbine system 10 may use TMDM (turbomachinery degradation model) 64 to determine an estimated life of one or more components of the turbine system 10 depending on which mode of operation the turbine system 10 has been operated during an online time of the component” where “the maintenance interval input selector 100, the minimum limit 88, and/or the maximum limit 90 corresponding to the maintenance interval/time to outage may be adjusted according to an estimated life of one or more components within the turbine system 10” (¶ 0027) where “maintenance interval/time to outage may be adjusted” discloses a “second recommend inspection time,” “estimated life” discloses “future deformation amount,” “one or more components within the turbine system 10” discloses a “nozzle,” and the GUI displays the maintenance interval/time to outage (see fig. 3, element 98).) Both Fujiyama and Abrol teach maintaining steam turbines (Abrol ¶ 0016) therefore it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of maintaining steam turbine against damage as taught by Fujiyama as modified by including an updating a maintenance schedule based on future deformation as taught by Abrol because updating maintenance schedules is important for preventing unscheduled interruptions to the system operation due to predicted damage to components in order to “preserve turbine engine efficiency and cost effectiveness” (Abrol, ¶ 0014) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Thatikonda et al., U.S. Pub. No. U.S. 2013/0274898 A1 teaches fault prediction of a turbo machine such as a turbine system (e.g., gas turbine, steam turbine, hydro-turbine, and/or wind turbine . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Denise R Karavias whose telephone number is (469)295-9152. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 3:00 M-F. 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, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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. /DENISE R KARAVIAS/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 13 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 14 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 15 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 16 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 17 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 18 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 19 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 20 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 21 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 22 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 23 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 24 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 25 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 26 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/406,310 Page 27 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights