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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant' s amendment and response filed 7/23/2026 has been entered and made record. This application contains 13 pending claims.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/23/2026 regarding claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 in claim 1-13 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 6-8 of the remark filed on 7/23/2026 that “… It is respectfully submitted that the § 101 rejection is not applicable to the amended claim and claims depending therefrom for at least the following reasons. First, the Office Action also alleges that independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (e.g., "mathematical concepts"). See page 7 of the Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees. … Specifically, the Office Action alleges that "In claim 1, the step identified in bold type ["generate display information for displaying:"] is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be abstract idea." See page 7 of the Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees. "[Glenerating display information for displaying" does not include any mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations. Therefore, because amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, amended claim 1 and its dependent claims are patent eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A set forth in Section III of the Revised 2019 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance issued January 7, 2019 ("the 2019 Guidance").”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. The steps of “calculate a past thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade from the past to the present based on measured information”; “calculate: a startup frequency which is a startup count per specified operating time based on a future operating condition”; “a thinning rate based on the startup frequency and a formula for calculating the thinning rate based on the startup frequency”; “a future thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade from the present to a predetermined date in the future based on the thinning rate, the annual availability factor and the past thinning amount calculated by the fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section”, “generate display information for displaying”: “past thinning amount related information indicating information on the past thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade calculated by the fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section”; and “future thinning amount related information indicating information on the future thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade calculated by the future thinning amount arithmetic operation section” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea. A mathematical concept is a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers and/or mental steps. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations 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. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the remark filed that “… Second, the Office Action also alleges that the limitations of claim 1 do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. See pages 7-8 of the Action. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is integrated into a practical application. … Even if amended claim I were directed to an abstract idea, the recited features of … as recited in amended claim 1, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because it improves other technology (e.g., accuracy of thinning calculations in the field of predicting thinning amount of rotor blades, ability for the user to visually confirm changes in the amount of thinning of the rotor blade). … Accordingly, the claims integrate features into a practical application that dramatically improves (1) the accuracy of thinning calculations in the field of predicting thinning amount of rotor blades and/or (2) the ability for the user to visually confirm changes in the amount of thinning of the rotor blade. Therefore, because the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application of the alleged abstract idea, amended claim 1 and its dependent claims are patent eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A set forth in Section III of the 2019 Guidance.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees applicant’s argument. Practical application can be demonstrated by additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element “input via a user interface screen, including an annual availability factor of the steam turbine and the startup count in each startup mode including a cold startup” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvement of accuracy of thinning calculations in the field of predicting thinning amount of rotor blades, ability for the user to visually confirm changes in the amount of thinning of the rotor blade relates to improvement to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the current claims do not recite additional elements that are indicative of integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-13 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Therefore, claims 2-13 are also patent ineligible.
Hence, the Examiner submits that the rejections of Claims 1-13 are proper.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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:
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.
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 limitations are “a fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section configured to”; “a future thinning amount arithmetic operation section configured to calculate”; and “a display information generation section configured to generate display information” in claim 1. The claim describes the various modules in functional terms of what they do, rather than how they do it. Under 35 USC 112(f), the Specification must identify a specific and readily-identifiable algorithm in the Specification associated with the claimed function.
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, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For example, [0097] discloses “The arithmetic operation result storage section 64 stores results arithmetically operated in the arithmetic operation unit 70. The arithmetic operation result storage section 64 stores information on the thinning amount from the past to the present, which is arithmetically operated in the fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section 71”; [0099] discloses “The arithmetic operation result storage section 64 stores a recommended inspection time at which the future thinning amount reaches the inspection threshold, which is calculated by the arithmetic operation in the future thinning amount arithmetic operation section 72.”; and [0117] discloses “The display information generation section 73 is an arithmetic operation block that generates display information to be displayed on the display part of the user interface 50. The display information generation section 73 generates display information based on the information stored in the arithmetic operation result storage section 64 and the template storage section 65. Incidentally, the display information generation section 73 may directly receive the arithmetic operation results of the fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section 71 and the future thinning amount arithmetic operation section 72 and generate the display information based on the information stored in the template storage section 65, for example.”
In order to exam the merit, Examiner interprets the above mentioned limitations performed by a generic processor.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A steam turbine rotor blade thinning amount managing apparatus for managing an amount of thinning of a first-stage rotor blade of a steam turbine caused by solid particles contained in working steam for working the steam turbine, the steam turbine rotor blade thinning amount managing apparatus comprising;
a fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section configured to calculate a past thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade from the past to the present based on measured information;
a future thinning amount arithmetic operation section configured to calculate:
a startup frequency which is a startup count per specified operating time based on a future operating condition, input via a user interface screen, including an annual availability factor of the steam turbine and the startup count in each startup mode including a cold startup;
a thinning rate based on the startup frequency and a formula for calculating the thinning rate based on the startup frequency; and
a future thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade from the present to a predetermined date in the future based on the thinning rate, the annual availability factor and the past thinning amount calculated by the fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section, and
a display information generation section configured to generate display information for displaying:
past thinning amount related information indicating information on the past thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade calculated by the fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section; and
future thinning amount related information indicating information on the future thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade calculated by the future thinning amount arithmetic operation section.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (apparatus for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
In claim 1, the step identified in bold type is a mathematical concept, therefore, it is considered to be abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The claim comprises the following additional elements:
a future thinning amount arithmetic operation section; input via a user interface screen, including an annual availability factor of the steam turbine and the startup count in each startup mode including a cold startup; a display information generation section.
The additional element “input via a user interface screen, including an annual availability factor of the steam turbine and the startup count in each startup mode including a cold startup” is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it only adds an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The additional elements “a future thinning amount arithmetic operation section”; and “a display information generation section” are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are considered a generic computer element. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional in a relevant art as evidenced by the prior art of record (Step 2B analysis).
For example, past thinning amount related information indicating information on a past thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade from the past to the present calculated based on measured information is disclosed by “Tomita JP 2018132037A”, [0007], [0008], [0034], [0043]; and “Goto JP 2003067038A”, [0024], [0030], [0054], [0059].
For example, future thinning amount related information indicating information on a future thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade calculated based on a future operating condition is disclosed by “Tomita JP 2018132037A”, FIG. 9, [0008], [0023], [0034], [0043]; and “Goto JP 2003067038A”, [0035], [0045], [0046], [0054], [0056], [0059].
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-13, the most pertinent prior arts are “Tomita JP 2018132037A”, “Goto JP 2003067038A”, “Fujiyama JP 2001032724A”, “Matsumoto US 20210398087”, ”Fujiwara WO 2020066196A1”, and “Shi CN 101320259A”.
As to claim 1, Tomita teaches generate information: past thinning amount related information indicating information on the past thinning amount of the first-stage rotor calculated by the fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section
(Tomita, [0002], [0007], [0008], [0032], [0043], FIGs. 8 and 9); and
future thinning amount related information indicating information on the future thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade calculated by the future thinning amount arithmetic operation section (Tomita, [0002], [0007], [0023], [0032], [0043], FIG. 9).
Goto teaches a display information generation section configured to generate display information for displaying (Goto, [0037], FIG. 3); and
future thinning amount related information indicating information on a future thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade calculated based on a future operating condition input via a user interface screen (Goto, [0035], FIG. 2, [0036]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “a fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section configured to calculate a past thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade from the past to the present based on measured information”;
“a future thinning amount arithmetic operation section configured to calculate: a startup frequency which is a startup count per specified operating time based on a future operating condition, input via a user interface screen, including an annual availability factor of the steam turbine and the startup count in each startup mode including a cold startup;
a thinning rate based on the startup frequency and a formula for calculating the thinning rate based on the startup frequency; and
a future thinning amount of the first-stage rotor blade from the present to a predetermined date in the future based on the thinning rate, the annual availability factor and the past thinning amount calculated by the fixed-cycle thinning amount arithmetic operation section.” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-13 are also distinguish over the prior art for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights