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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of a further analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a method of determining a temperature to which a component within a turbomachine was exposed, said method comprising: operating the turbomachine including the component for an elapsed period of time; determining a thickness of an oxide layer that has formed on a coupon attached to the component; determining a temperature offset based on the thickness measurement of the oxide layer; determining the temperature to which the component was exposed using the temperature offset; and outputting the temperature to which the component was exposed. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 2 recites a method of receiving a thermal history of an operation of the turbomachine, wherein the thermal history includes a recorded temperature. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 3 recites wherein determining the thickness of the oxide layer further comprises cross-sectioning the coupon after the coupon has been removed from the component. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 4 recites wherein the coupon has a known rate of oxidation to the component. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 5 recites a method of attaching a plurality of coupons to the component. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 6 recites a method of extracting the coupon from the turbomachine after a pre-defined period of operation of the turbomachine has elapsed. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 7 recites a method of determining the temperature offset further includes correlating the thickness of the measured oxide layer to a historical temperature associated with the thickness, wherein the historical temperature is one of a plurality of temperatures maintained in the thermal history that each correlate to a plurality of historical thickness measurements. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 8 recites a method of determining the temperature offset further includes determining a temperature difference between the measured temperature and the historical temperature. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 9 recites a method of determining the temperature offset further includes determining at least one of a moisture content and an operating pressure that the component was exposed to during turbomachine operation. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 10 recites a method of replacing the coupon with another coupon at the same location on the component. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 11 recites a measurement apparatus for use in determining an operating temperature within a turbomachine, said measurement apparatus comprising: at least one coupon coupled to a component within the turbomachine; and a processor configured to: receive a measurement of a thickness of an oxide layer that formed on the coupon after the turbomachine has operated with the component for a pre-determined period of time; determine a temperature offset based on the thickness of the oxide layer; apply the temperature offset to a measured temperature taken within the turbomachine during operation; and determine an actual temperature to which the component was exposed during operation of the turbomachine using the temperature offset. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 12 recites further comprising receiving a thermal history of an operation of the turbomachine, wherein the thermal history includes a plurality of temperature data acquired during turbomachine operation. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 13 recites wherein the at least one coupon has a known rate of oxidation. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 14 recites wherein the at least one coupon is fastened to the component using at least one of welding, an adhesive, and a mechanical fastener. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 15 recites further comprising extracting the coupon from the turbomachine after the turbomachine has operated for a period amount of time with the component within the turbomachine. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 16 recites wherein the processor is further configured to correlate the received measurement of thickness of the oxide layer to a temperature stored within a thermal history of the turbomachine, wherein each temperature stored within the thermal history is associated with the received measurement thickness. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 17 recites wherein the processor is further configured to determine a temperature difference between the measured temperature and the stored temperature. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 18 recites wherein the processor is further configured to receive at least one input associated with at least one of a moisture content and an operating pressure in close proximity to the component during operation of the turbomachine. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to a non-statutory judicial exception (an abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception. The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not place a meaningful limit on the judicial exception and represent nothing more than generic computer implementation and insignificant extra-solution activity.
The instructions are stored on “at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and are executed by “at least one processor.” The computer-readable medium and the processor are recited at a high level of generality. Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(I)(A), the nominal recitation of generic computer hardware (such as a CRM and a processor) to store and execute instructions does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. The hardware merely acts as a passive conduit to execute the mathematical calculations.
The steps of “determining a temperature offset” and “applying the temperature offset” to an historical operating temperature to “determine an actual temperature” represent mathematical calculations and relationships. Calculating an offset (e.g., calculating a difference between two values) and applying that offset (e.g., adding or subtracting the offset to/from a historical temperature) are fundamental mathematical operations.
The steps of “determining a temperature offset” and “applying the temperature offset” to an historical operating temperature to “determine an actual temperature” represent mathematical calculations and relationships. Calculating an offset (e.g., calculating a difference between two values) and applying that offset (e.g., adding or subtracting the offset to/from a historical temperature) are fundamental mathematical operations. These steps also constitute mental processes because they represent evaluations, calculations, and determinations that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. A human mind can receive a thickness measurement, look up or calculate a corresponding temperature offset, and mathematically apply that offset to a known historical temperature to determine an exposure temperature.
The step of “receiving a measurement of a thickness of an oxide layer…” is mere data gathering. Under MPEP 2106.05(g), physical steps that merely gather and input data for use in an abstract calculation do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The physical nature of the coupon from which the measurement is derived does not change the fact that “receiving” this data is generic pre-solution activity.
The step of “outputting the actual temperature…” is generic post-solution activity. Simply outputting, displaying, or transmitting the results of an abstract calculation does not integrate the calculation into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(g))
The claim does not improve the functioning of the computer itself, nor does it improve the physical operation of the turbomachine. The turbomachine is merely a passive environment from which historical data was gathered. The claim does not alter the operation, efficiency, or physical state of the turbomachine. It merely calculates and outputs a diagnostic value after the turbomachine has already operated. (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim 20 recites wherein the at least one processor is further configured to correlate the measured thickness to at least one historical temperature associated with the thickness, wherein each historical temperature correlates to a thickness measurement. (See Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”) Also See MPEP 2016.04(a)(2) I. Mathematical Concepts.
Thus claims 1-20 are grouped as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, and mental processes. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) and (2))
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements such as “the turbomachine, oxide layer, coupon, and processor” do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract ideas because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” (See MPEP 2016.05(f)).
In Summary, the focus of the claims is in analyzing the data to determine the temperature. The remaining limitations are merely directed to generic environment associated with the turbomachine, the oxide layer, coupon and the processor, in which the abstract idea takes place.
When considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements merely instruct the practitioner to take a physical measurement from a conventional coupon, input it into a generic computer, perform an abstract mathematical calculation, and output the result. There is no non-conventional arrangement of elements or specialized hardware configuration recited. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) in the relevant field. They do not add an inventive concept.
As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office Action.
Regarding claims 1, 11 & 19, the reasons for allowance have been previously stated in the office action filed on 05/11/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE L JENKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/J.L.J/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
