DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-18, and 20 are amended, claims 11 and 19 are cancelled, and claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/7/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the rejections of independent claims 1, 18, and 20 under 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 of the response unpersuasive for the following reasons.
On page 7 of the response, Applicant contends that “[t]he recited action step is not merely an instruction to ‘use’ the computed prognostic asset health state evolution in some unspecified way. Rather, it requires that an action relating to the asset itself be automatically performed based on the computed evolution.”
Examiner submits that by the very nature of the computed prognostic health state evolution as relating to the asset, any action (e.g., displaying information related to the prognostic health state evolution) would fall within the scope of “performing an action related to the asset.” The nature of the action in the independent claims is entirely unspecified and therefore not characterized in a manner that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (e.g., using the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such as via improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field or applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine).
Applicant notes on pages 7-8 that claims 21 and 22 recite further characterization of the “action” in terms of “adjusting an operating point of the asset based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution” in which the asset is “part of a power generation system, a power distribution system, or a power transmission system” and the operating point is one of “a load, a voltage, or a current of the asset.”
Examiner submits that characterizing the action as “adjusting an operating point of the asset” in which the asset is “part of a power generation system, a power distribution system, or a power transmission system” and the operating point is one of “a load, a voltage, or a current of the asset” does not appear to have a meaningfully particularized relation to the “prognostic asset health state evolution” itself or to the manner of generating it, such that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The application of the result of the processing steps in generating health state evolution data to any one of a power generation system, a power distribution system, or a power transmission system in which the action is adjusting any one of a load, voltage, or current does not appear to have sufficient functional nexus such the combined effect constitutes a sufficient application of the judicial exception in a technically meaningful way as to constitute an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the limitations in claims 21 and 22 appear to merely link the steps falling within the judicial exception to a relatively broad technical field of power distribution, generation, transmission inherently electrical loads manifesting as currents and voltages.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant contends on page 8 of the response that the claimed invention provides a technological improvement in terms of efficiency as described in Applicant’s specification (e.g., [0143] and [0238]) and as evidenced by an inventive concept.
Examiner submits that whatever efficiency gains made as described in [0143] and [0238] are derived by and confined to the judicial exception (Markov Chain modeling) without significant influence by additional elements falling outside the abstract idea. As noted above, with regard to integration into a practical application, the claims do not appear to include a combination of elements in which the judicial exception is limited in a meaningful way with respect to a technology such that these combinations of elements are deemed as not amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the rejections of independent claims 1, 18, and 20 under 103, and as noted by Applicant on pages 9-10 of the response, the amendments to claims 1, 18, and 20 overcome the rejections, which are withdrawn.
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 1-10, 12-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention in each of these claims is directed to the abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1, substantially representative of independent claims 18 and 20, recites:
“A method of performing a prognostic health analysis for an asset, the method comprising:
performing a plurality of independent stochastic simulations using transition probabilities of a discrete Markov Chain model, wherein the discrete Markov Chain model has a state space that comprises a set of asset health states and wherein each of the plurality of independent stochastic simulations simulates a future evolution in the state space of the discrete Markov Chain model over a prognostic horizon;
computing a prognostic asset health state evolution over the prognostic horizon from the plurality of independent stochastic simulations, wherein computing the prognostic asset health state evolution comprises computing a time-dependent scalar function based on probabilities that the discrete Markov Chain model is in a particular state at a particular time as determined from each of the plurality of independent stochastic simulations, wherein the time-dependent scalar function comprises a weighted combination of probabilities for the discrete Markov Chain model to be in respective ones of the states of the state space;
generating output based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution; and
automatically performing an action relating to the asset based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution.”
The claim limitations considered to fall within in the abstract idea are highlighted in bold font above and the remaining features are “additional elements.”
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis entails determining whether the claimed subject matter falls within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1 and 18 recite a method and claim 20 recites an article of manufacture and therefore all fall within a statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis entails determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception such as an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the highlighted portions of claim 1 fall within the abstract idea judicial exception. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the highlighted subject matter falls within the mental processes category (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and the mathematical concepts category (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).
The recited function “performing a prognostic health analysis for an asset,” falls within the mental processes exception because it may be performed as mental processes (evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The recited functions:
“performing a plurality of independent stochastic simulations using transition probabilities of a discrete Markov Chain model, wherein the discrete Markov Chain model has a state space that comprises a set of asset health states and wherein each of the plurality of independent stochastic simulations simulates a future evolution in the state space of the discrete Markov Chain model over a prognostic horizon,” and
“computing a prognostic asset health state evolution over the prognostic horizon from the plurality of independent stochastic simulations, wherein computing the prognostic asset health state evolution comprises computing a time-dependent scalar function based on probabilities that the discrete Markov Chain model is in a particular state at a particular time as determined from each of the plurality of independent stochastic simulations, wherein the time-dependent scalar function comprises a weighted combination of probabilities for the discrete Markov Chain model to be in respective ones of the states of the state space” are determined by the Examiner as falling within the mathematical relationships sub-category of mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Performing a plurality of independent stochastic simulations using transition probabilities of a discrete Markov Chain model falls within the mathematical relationships sub-category because Markov Chain modelling is fundamentally characterized by mathematical calculations/relations (statistical/probabilistic calculations). Determining a prognostic asset health state evolution over the prognostic horizon from the plurality of independent stochastic simulations by use of a time-dependent scalar function based on probabilities that the discrete Markov Chain model is in a particular state at a particular time as determined from each of the plurality of independent stochastic simulations, wherein the time-dependent scalar function comprises a weighted combination of probabilities for the discrete Markov Chain model to be in respective ones of the states of the state space is also fundamentally characterized by mathematical calculations/relations as disclosed by Applicant’s specification (e.g., [0192]) and therefore also constitutes mathematical relationships.
Similar limitations comprising mathematical relationships type mathematical concepts are recited by claims 5 and 12 now depending from claim 18.
In claim 5, computing confidence information or variance information for the prognostic asset health state evolution as a function of time over the prognostic horizon from the plurality of independent stochastic simulations, wherein the output is further generated based on the confidence or variance information is implemented as mathematical (statistical) relationships of numeric values.
In claim 12, determining the transition probabilities from historical data comprising sensor data for a plurality of assets is implemented via mathematical (statistical) relationships of numeric values.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the analysis entails determining whether the claim includes additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception” (MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
MPEP § 2106.04(d) sets forth considerations to be applied in Step 2A, Prong Two for determining whether or not a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. Based on the individual and collective limitations of claims 1, 18, and 20 and applying a broadest reasonable interpretation, the most applicable of such considerations appear to include: improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)); applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)); and effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology such as a signal processing device, none of the “additional elements” such as “generating output based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution” and “automatically performing an action relating to the asset based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution,” in any combination appear to integrate the abstract idea in a manner that technologically improves any aspect of a device or system that may be used to implement the highlighted steps or a device for implementing the highlighted steps such as a computer. Neither of these elements appear to relate to the abstract idea in particularized manner that functionally results in the combination of either or both of these elements with the elements falling within the judicial exception constituting an improvement in a technology field. Instead, these elements represent insignificant post-solution activity.
Regarding application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, the additional elements “generating output based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution,” and “automatically performing an action relating to the asset based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution” are implemented in a general rather than a particularized manner of implementing and utilizing health state evaluation for an asset and therefore constitute extra solution activity.
Regarding a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, none of claims 1, 5, 12, 18, and 20 includes any such transformation or reduction. Instead, each of the claims as a whole entails applying standard processing techniques (Markov Chain numerical modeling and a scalar function via generic computer processing) to the information to obtain asset health parameter information with the additional elements failing to provide a meaningful integration of the abstract idea in an application that transforms an article to a different state. The additional elements therefore represent extra-solution activity that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In view of the various considerations encompassed by the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, none of claims 1, 5, 12, 18, and 20 include additional elements that integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1, 5, 12, 18, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Regarding Step 2B, and as set forth in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the additional elements in claims 1, 5, 12, 18, and 20 constitute extra solution activity and therefore fail to result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception as well as failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the at least some of the additional elements appear to be generic and well understood as evidenced by the disclosures of Kirschnick (US 2017/0236064 A1) (disclosing “computing” of a prognostic asset health state in [0100]-[0101], [0105]-[0106] and automatically performing an action relating to the asset based on a malfunction in [0107]), and Mazzaro (US 2015/0106058 A1) (disclosing “automatically performing an action relating to the asset based on a computed health state in [0044]; FIG. 9 blocks 272 and 276, [0074] and [0076]). Therefore, the additional elements are insufficient for the claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 18, and 20 and dependent claims 5 and 12 are therefore not patent eligible under 101.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-17, and 21-22 depending from claim 18, provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm that includes the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One). None of dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 13-17, and 21-22 recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two), and all fail the “significantly more” test under the step 2B for substantially similar reasons as discussed with regards to the independent claims.
For example, claim 2 further characterize the nature of the “asset” (as a power system asset or industrial asset) which only characterizes the source/nature of the data and therefore does not represent an additional element.
Similarly, claim 3 only characterizes the nature of the output data in terms of being either an RUL or PoF, and therefore also fails to include a meaningful additional element.
Claim 4 recites that computing the prognostic asset health state evolution comprises computing a remaining useful life, which may be performed via mental processes (e.g., evaluation of data relating to equipment health and judgement in determining remaining life) and therefore falls within the mental processes judicial exception.
Claims 6-8 further characterizes the nature/content of the output information and therefore includes no further significant additional elements.
Claim 9 further characterizes the nature of the state space information utilized for/in the Markov modeling and therefore falls within the same judicial exception (mathematical concepts).
Claim 10 recites that the health state evolution calculation includes “computing, for a plurality of times within the prognostic horizon, a probability distribution in the state space,” which falls within the mathematical relations sub-category of the mathematical concepts exception because generating a probability distribution is fundamentally characterized by mathematical calculations/relations (e.g., summation as described in Applicant’s specification). Claims 10 further recites “mapping the probability distribution to a scalar” in which “the prognostic asset health state evolution is obtained as a time evolution of the scalar” which falls within the mathematical concepts exception for the same reasons as “computing a time-dependent scalar function based on probabilities” in claim 1.
Claim 13 recites that determining the transition probabilities comprises “computing the function from sensor data for the plurality of assets,” “identifying transitions within the state space of the discrete Markov Chain model based on the function,” and “computing the transition probabilities within the state space of the discrete Markov Chain model.” Computing the function from sensor data for the plurality of assets falls within the mathematical concepts exception because as disclosed in Applicant’s specification such computation of the function entails mathematical processing of sensor data in the Markov Chain modeling to determine probabilities and then processes that data via a scalar function (e.g., summation). Identifying transitions within the state space of the discrete Markov Chain model based on the function, and computing the transition probabilities within the state space of the discrete Markov Chain model each/both fall within the mathematical concepts exception because each is performed as part of the statistical/probabilistic processing of the Markov modeling.
Claim 14 characterizes the independent stochastic simulations as being Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations, which are numerical processing algorithms that are fundamentally characterizes by mathematical calculations/relations and therefore fall within the mathematical concepts exception.
Claim 15 recites “receiving sensor measurement data captured during operation of the asset,” which represents high-level data collection using ordinary means and therefore constitutes extra solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 15 further recites “updating the prognostic asset health state evolution based on the received sensor measurement data,” which is an extension of the “computing a prognostic asset health state evolution” step in claim 1 and therefore falls within the same judicial exception.
Claim 16 recites that the plurality of simulations comprise simulations for different ambient or operating scenarios, which is an extension of the “performing a plurality of independent stochastic simulations” step in claim 1 and therefore falls within the same judicial exception.
Claim 17 further characterizes the “asset” as being a power transformer, a distributed energy resource, DER, unit, or a power generator, which only characterizes the source/nature of the data and therefore does not represent an additional element. The feature (not limiting the scope because it is an alternative) that the prognostic horizon is at least one year, is a modeling/distribution parameter such that this element is an extension of the “computing a prognostic asset health state evolution” element in claim 18 and falls within the same judicial exception.
Claim 21 includes the additional element characterizing performing the action as “automatically adjusting an operating point of the asset based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution,” which represents a high-level output response having no particularized functional relation to the steps falling within the judicial exception (e.g., combined effect with the processing steps constituting a technological improvement) and therefore constitutes insignificant post solution activity that neither integrates the judicial exception into a practical application nor results in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 22 further characterizes the “asset” as being any one of a power generation, power distribution, or power transmission system and further narrows the additional element set forth in claim 21 in terms of the “operating point” being any of “a load, a voltage, or a current of the asset.” This further characterization of the asset and the operating point that is adjusted further narrows the technical field but does not appear, in the overall context of the claim, to effectuate an integration of the judicial exception into a practical application in a meaningful way because there does not appear to be a significant combined functional relation (particularized relation) between the list alternative types of asset and/or the types of operating point adjustment and the manner/nature of the health state evolution generated by the steps falling within the judicial exception. For example, the effect of combining “computing a prognostic asset health state evolution” over a prognostic horizon “from the plurality of independent stochastic simulations” and “adjusting an operating point” that may be “a load” does not appear to be any more significant than when combined with the other claimed alternatives (voltage, current) or within any other of a wide variety of potential types of “operating points.” Therefore, the additional element set forth by claim 22 appears to represent substantially insignificant post solution activity that fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also fails to result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Subject Matter Patentably Distinct Over the Prior Arts
Claims 1-10, 12-18, and 20-22 are found to be patentably distinct over the prior arts for the following reasons.
Regarding independent claim 18, the most pertinent prior arts are Kirschnick (US 2017/0236064 A1) and Mazzaro (US 2015/0106058 A1). As set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 2/26/2026, the combination of Kirschnick and Mazzaro teaches or otherwise renders obvious “A method of performing a prognostic health analysis for an asset, the method comprising:
performing a plurality of independent stochastic simulations using transition probabilities of a discrete Markov Chain model, wherein the discrete Markov Chain model has a state space that comprises a set of asset health states and wherein each of the plurality of independent stochastic simulations simulates a future evolution in the state space of the discrete Markov Chain model over a prognostic horizon;
computing a prognostic asset health state evolution over the prognostic horizon from the plurality of independent stochastic simulations, wherein computing the prognostic asset health state evolution comprises computing a function based on probabilities that the discrete Markov Chain model is in particular states during the prognostic horizon as determined from each of the plurality of independent stochastic simulations”
“generating output based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution; and
automatically performing an action relating to the asset based on the computed prognostic asset health state evolution.”
The prior arts to not disclose or fairly suggest “wherein the function comprises a weighted combination of probabilities for the discrete Markov Chain model to be in respective ones of the states of the state space” in combination with the other elements of claim 18.
Dependent claims 2-5, 6-10, 12-17, and 21-22 depend from claim 18 and are likewise found patentably distinct from the prior arts.
Independent claims 1 and 20 include substantially the same combination of elements that distinguishes claim 18 from the prior arts and are likewise found patentably distinct from the prior arts.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W BACA whose telephone number is (571)272-2507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/MATTHEW W. BACA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights