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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities. In each claim, the first instance of the acronym “AE” should be spelled out with the acronym following in parenthesis, thusly:
“…an acoustic emission (AE)
“…a step of acquiring an acoustic emission (AE)
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (claim 12 should begin with “A non-transitory storage medium that stores a rubbing determination program for a rotary machine…”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsushita (JP 54147882 – cited on Applicant’s IDS, copy/translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Matsushita discloses (Figs. 1-4) a rubbing determination device for a rotary machine (see par. [0001]), which includes a fixed part and a rotary part (as shown in Figs. 1 and 4), the device comprising:
an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquisition unit (implicit, whatever system/computer receives the data from the sensors 9: [0002], middle p. 3) for acquiring an AE signal detected by an AE sensor provided in the rotary machine ([0002], middle-bottom p. 3);
a gap amount acquisition unit 13 (gap sensor: [0002], middle p. 3) for acquiring a gap amount between the fixed part 13 and the rotary part 12 (as shown in Fig. 4; [0002], middle-bottom p. 3; generates pulses based on the gap between sensor 13 and protrusion 12);
a rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit (implicit, whatever system/computer processes the data from the sensors 9 with the timing pulses: [0002], top p. 4) for generating a rubbing determination evaluation index based on the AE signal and the gap amount (i.e. a histogram of the noise from sensors 9, which indicates rubbing, with the timing pulses: top p. 4); and
a rubbing determination unit (implicit, whatever system/computer processes the data) for determining rubbing in the rotary machine (see the bottom of p. 1 and the bottom of p. 2) based on the rubbing determination evaluation index (top p. 4).
The apparatus of Matsushita, as applied above in the rejection of claim 1, would perform the method and meet the limitations of claims 11 and 12 (and further discloses a storage medium that stores a rubbing determination program for a rotary machine – see p. 1 and top p. 4).
Regarding claim 2, Matsushita discloses (Figs. 1-4) the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit calculates, as the rubbing determination evaluation index, a combination index of the AE signal and the gap amount (i.e. a histogram of the noise from sensors 9, which indicates rubbing, with the timing pulses: top p. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Matsushita discloses (Figs. 1-4) the gap amount is an actually measured value detected by a gap sensor 13 provided in the rotary machine (as shown in Fig. 4; [0002], middle-bottom p. 3; generates pulses based on the gap between sensor 13 and protrusion 12).
Regarding claim 9, Matsushita discloses (Figs. 1-4) the AE signal is acquired by the AE sensor 9 provided in a bearing portion that rotatably supports the rotary part with respect to a stationary part (i.e. the sensors are provided on the left and right ends of the rotating shaft: middle p. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (U.S. Patent 4,377,947) in view of Kaneka (JPH 094413 – cited on Applicant’s IDS, copy/translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 12, Matsushita discloses (Figs. 1-4) a rubbing determination device for a rotary machine (col. 3, lines 11-12), which includes a fixed part and a rotary part (as shown in Figs. 1 and 4), the device comprising:
an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquisition unit 10/11 (col. 3, lines 53-58; col. 4, lines 30-34) for acquiring an AE signal detected by an AE sensor 3 and 4 (col. 3, lines 13-18) provided in the rotary machine (as shown in Figs. 1 and 4);
a rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit (col. 4, lines 30-39) for generating a rubbing determination evaluation index based on the AE signal (col. 4, lines 30-39); and
a rubbing determination unit (col. 4, lines 30-39) for determining rubbing in the rotary machine (col. 4, lines 30-39) based on the rubbing determination evaluation index (col. 4, lines 30-39).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10, Matsushita does not disclose a gap amount acquisition unit for acquiring a gap amount between the fixed part and the rotary part; and generating a rubbing determination evaluation index based on the AE signal and the gap amount; wherein the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit calculates, as the rubbing determination evaluation index, a combination index of the AE signal and the gap amount; and the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit generates the rubbing determination evaluation index by correcting the gap amount based on the combination index; and the gap amount is an estimated value calculated based on operation data of the rotary machine; and the rotary machine is a steam turbine.
Kaneka discloses a gap amount acquisition unit for acquiring a gap amount (clearance: [0016]) between the fixed part and the rotary part (as shown in Fig. 4); and generating a rubbing determination evaluation index (analysis results: [0016]-[0017]) based on the AE signal and the gap amount [0016]-[0017]; wherein the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit calculates, as the rubbing determination evaluation index [0016]-[0017], a combination index of the AE signal and the gap amount [0016]-[0017]; and the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit generates the rubbing determination evaluation index [0016]-[0017] by correcting the gap amount based on the combination index [0017]; and the gap amount is an estimated value calculated based on operation data of the rotary machine [0016]-[0017]; and the rotary machine is a steam turbine [0001].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsushita’s device/method to include a gap amount acquisition unit for acquiring a gap amount between the fixed part and the rotary part; and generating a rubbing determination evaluation index based on the AE signal and the gap amount; wherein the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit calculates, as the rubbing determination evaluation index, a combination index of the AE signal and the gap amount; and the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit generates the rubbing determination evaluation index by correcting the gap amount based on the combination index; and the gap amount is an estimated value calculated based on operation data of the rotary machine; and the rotary machine is a steam turbine, as taught by Kaneka.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP2143(I)(D).
The apparatus of Matsushita in view of Kaneka, as applied above in the rejection of claim 1, would perform the method and meet the limitations of claims 11 and 12 (and further discloses a storage medium that stores a rubbing determination program for a rotary machine – see p. 1 and top p. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Matsushita discloses (Figs. 1-4) the AE signal is acquired by the AE sensor 3 and 4 provided in a bearing portion that rotatably supports the rotary part with respect to a stationary part (as shown in Figs. 1 and 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (U.S. Patent 4,377,947) in view of Kaneka (JPH 094413), and further in view of Andawaris et al. (U.S. Pub. 2009/0003991).
Regarding claim 5, Matsushita is applied as above, but does not disclose the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit corrects the gap amount to become zero when the combination index reaches a preset threshold value.
Andawaris discloses the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit corrects the gap amount to become zero when the combination index reaches a preset threshold value [0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsushita’s device so that the rubbing determination evaluation index generation unit corrects the gap amount to become zero when the combination index reaches a preset threshold value, as taught by Andawaris.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP2143(I)(D).
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsushita (JP 54147882) in view of Kaneka (JPH 094413).
Regarding claim 6, Matsushita is applied as above, but does not disclose the gap amount is an estimated value calculated based on operation data of the rotary machine.
Kaneka discloses the gap amount is an estimated value calculated based on operation data of the rotary machine [0016].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsushita’s device so that the gap amount is an estimated value calculated based on operation data of the rotary machine, as taught by Kaneka.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP2143(I)(D).
Regarding claim 10, Matsushita is applied as above, but does not disclose the rotary machine is a steam turbine.
Kaneka the rotary machine is a steam turbine [0001].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsushita’s device so that the rotary machine is a steam turbine, as taught by Kaneka.
Such a modification would be the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results – see MPEP2143(I)(D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record does not show or suggest:
“…a rubbing determination evaluation index calculation unit for calculating, as the combination index, rubbing occurrence probabilities corresponding to the first rubbing occurrence index calculated by the first rubbing occurrence index calculation unit and the second rubbing occurrence index calculated by the second rubbing occurrence index calculation unit by using a map that defines the rubbing occurrence probabilities for the first rubbing occurrence index and the second rubbing occurrence index.”
(as in claim 3)
And
“…the gap amount is an estimated value calculated by inputting operation data of the rotary machine into a machine learning model, and
“the machine learning model is modified by feeding back the rubbing determination evaluation index.”
(as in claim 7)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lueck (DE 102019116954 – copy/translation attached) discloses using a machine learning algorithm to evaluate and adjust a gap to reduce rubbing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights