DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 amendments, filed 06/26/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 2-12 and 14-16 has been amended. Regarding Claim 13: canceled and Claims 17-20: added.
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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-12 and 14-20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-12 and 14 fall within category of process and each of claims 15–20 are directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture
Regarding Claims 1-14
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of calculating at least one of a wear-ring clearance effect and an impeller wear effect.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A method for determining mechanical degradation of parts of a centrifugal pump having a fluid inlet, an impeller and a fluid outlet, comprising:
calculating at least one of a wear-ring clearance effect and an impeller wear effect wherein the calculating of the wear-ring clearance effect;
measuring an actual pump flow rate Op and an actual pump power Pwp,
calculating an internal flow rate of a pump QpPwp through projecting the actual pump power Pwp on a theoretical Pump Mechanical power versus Pump Flow rate curve at an iso mechanical power,
calculating a mechanical power PwQp that should be used if the pump worked as specified in the theoretical curve through projecting the actual pump flow rate on the theoretical Pump Mechanical Power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso flow rate,
applying the measured flow rate Op on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain a theoretical Head Hpth,
applying the internal flow rate of the pump QpPwp on the theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain an internal Head HpPwp,
calculating a difference between the theoretical Head and said internal Head Hpth−HpPwp to obtain a loss of Head due to the wear-ring clearance;
and wherein:
the calculating of the impeller wear effect includes:
measuring an actual input pressure pin, an actual output pressure pout and an actual pump power Pwp,
calculating a theoretical flow rate QpPwp corresponding to the measured mechanical power Pwp on a theoretical pump characteristic Pump Power versus Pump Flow rate curve,
projecting such theoretical flow rate QpPwp on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso-pump flow rate ΔQ=0 to obtain a theoretical Pump Head HpPwp,
calculating the actual Pump Head Hp from the actual input pressure pin, and the actual output pressure pout and a pumped fluid density,
calculating a difference betweenthe theoretical pump head and thr actual pump Head HpPwp−Hp to obtain the loss of head due to the impeller wear; and
generating warning signals upon detection of at least one of defined wear-ring clearance or impeller wear for providing data for predictive maintenance
The italicized limitations above represent mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determining mechanical degradation [..]: calculating at least one of a wear-ring clearance effect and an impeller wear effect where: calculating said wear-ring clearance effect is done through, calculating an internal flow rate of the pump QpPwp through projecting said actual pump power Pwp on a theoretical Pump Mechanical power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso mechanical power, calculating the mechanical power PwQp that should be used if the pump worked as specified in the theoretical curve through projecting said actual pump flow rate on said theoretical Pump Mechanical Power versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso flow rate, applying the measured flow rate Op on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain a theoretical Head Hpth, applying the internal flow rate of the pump QpPwp on said theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve to obtain an internal Head HpPwp,calculating a difference between said theoretical Head and said internal Head Hpth−HpPwp to obtain the loss of Head due to the wear-ring clearance; and where: calculating said impeller wear effect is done through: calculating a theoretical flow rate QpPwp corresponding to the measured mechanical power Pwp on a theoretical pump characteristic Pump Power versus Pump Flow rate curve, projecting such theoretical flow rate QpPwp on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso-pump flow rate ΔQ=0 to obtain a theoretical Pump Head HpPwp, calculating the actual Pump Head Hp from the actual input pressure pin, and the actual output pressure pout and a pumped fluid density, calculating a difference between said theoretical pump head and said actual pump Head HpPwp−Hp to obtain the loss of head due to the impeller wear;” are of mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations (are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, additional first element is “measuring an actual pump flow rate Op and actual pump power Pwp; measuring an actual input pressure pin, an actual output pressure pout and an actual pump power Pwp; generating warning signals upon detection of at least one of defined wear-ring clearance or impeller wear for providing data for predictive maintenance” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering and/or post solution activity) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
For example, additional 2nd element is “a centrifugal pump having a fluid inlet, an impeller and a fluid outlet” to be performed, at least in-part, by use of a generic pump system. Therefore, this element individually does not provide a practical application. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, two “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the two “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For example, the limitation of “centrifugal pump”, generic system, which is well understood, routine and convention (see background of current discloser, IDS and the Examiner cited prior arts) and MPEP 2106.05(d))
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-12 and 14
Dependent claims 2-14 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-14 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-8, 10-12 and 14: mathematical concepts (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations of Claims 9: to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field.
Regarding Claim 15-20
Claims 15-20 contains language similar to claims 1-12 and 14 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 15-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Allowable Subject Matter
Three is no prior art rejection over claims 1 and 15, however there is 101 rejection. However, closets prior arts fail to teach the limitations of claims 1 and 15, e.g. “ calculating a difference between the theoretical Head and said internal Head Hpth−HpPwp to obtain a loss of Head due to the wear-ring clearance; and calculating a theoretical flow rate QpPwp corresponding to the measured mechanical power Pwp on a theoretical pump characteristic Pump Power versus Pump Flow rate curve, projecting such theoretical flow rate QpPwp on a theoretical Pump Head versus Pump Flow rate curve at iso-pump flow rate ΔQ=0 to obtain a theoretical Pump Head HpPwp, calculating the actual Pump Head Hp from the actual input pressure pin, and the actual output pressure pout and a pumped fluid density, calculating a difference betweenthe theoretical pump head and the actual pump Head HpPwp−Hp to obtain the loss of head due to the impeller wear”.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see pages 11-12.Applicant Argus that the amended limitation Applicant Argus that “The Claims Are Not Directed to an abstract idea; The Claims Merely Involve a Judicial Exception; The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because current amended limitation also directed to abstract idea of mathematical concepts. In combination, the additional elements recite in current claim invention that would not integrate into a practical application, e.g. “measuring an actual pump flow rate Op and actual pump power Pwp; measuring an actual input pressure pin, an actual output pressure pout and an actual pump power Pwp; generating warning signals upon detection of at least one of defined wear-ring clearance or impeller wear for providing data for predictive maintenance” are field of use and/or data gathering limitation. The only other additional elements appear to be generic computer components and transmitting the results of the analysis. These “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic devices associated with computer with software, where such generic data colleting device with computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., an environment of computer hardware/ software in communication with one another (a network of computing devices), and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting a analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Zhang et al. (Investigation of the Integrated Model of Side Chamber, Wear- Rings Clearance, and Balancing Holes for Centrifugal Pumps, 2019)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights