DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the June 25, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Dependent claim 16 is dependent upon the system of claim 18, however, claim 18 is dependent upon improper dependent claim 20 (claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium not a system). Claim 17 is directed towards, “the system of claim 19” however, claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium limitation and not a system Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claims 16-18 are therefore rejected under 35 USC 112(d).
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:
(A) 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 limitation(s) is/are:
an assessment module configured to: identify a type of the rotating asset and obtain one or more operational parameters corresponding to the rotating asset for a first time period in claim 12.
UDI module configured to: monitor the one or more operational parameters over the first time period to determine at least a first operational parameter value from amongst the one or more operational parameters to be beyond a first operating range to detect an anomaly, wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range; calculate the deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range to compute an anomaly score associated with the anomaly detected; derive one or more degradation indicators for the rotating asset in correspondence to the anomaly score and the one or more operational parameters; wherein each degradation indicator from the one or more degradation indicators is indicative of an aspect of an overall health status of the rotating asset; determine a Unified Degradation Indicator (UDI) from one or more degradation indicators, wherein the UDI corresponds to a current measure of the overall health status of the rotating asset in claim 12.
Dependent claims 13-18 further describe the UDI module in similar language that is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
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, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of Step 1, claims 1-20 are directed towards one of the categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of Step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1, 12, and 19 are directed towards (as represented by claim 1), “A method to determine an overall health status of a rotating asset operating in a facility, the method comprising: identifying a type of the rotating asset and obtaining one or more operational parameters corresponding to the rotating asset for a first time period; monitoring the one or more operational parameters over the first time period to determine at least a first operational parameter value from amongst the one or more operational parameters to be beyond a first operating range to detect an anomaly, wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range; calculating the deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range to compute an anomaly score associated with the anomaly detected; deriving one or more degradation indicators for the rotating asset in correspondence to the anomaly score and the one or more operational parameters, wherein each degradation indicator from the one or more degradation indicators is indicative of an aspect of an overall health status of the rotating asset; determining a Unified Degradation Indicator (UDI) from the one or more degradation indicators, wherein the UDI corresponds to a current measure of the overall health status of the rotating asset; generating an overall health report in correspondence to the UDI for the rotating asset; and initiating one or more maintenance actions associated with the rotating asset in correspondence to the overall health report of the rotating asset”. The claims are describing a collection of information regarding operational parameters, high-level analyzing the parameters to provide degradation and measure the health of the asset/machine, and providing the results (health report). These claims are directed towards aspects that a person with aid of pen and paper would be able to perform mentally. Further, the claim in terms of initiating maintenance actions would be able to be performed further by the person with pen and paper. As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of the independent claims are, “A system to determine an overall health status of a rotating asset operating in a facility, the system comprising: an assessment module configured to, a UDI module configured to (claim 12), A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for determining an overall health status of a rotating asset, the instructions being executable by a processor to (claim 19), wherein the one or more operational parameters are obtained from one or more sensing elements coupled to the rotating asset”. The computer system elements (system, non-transitory, module, and processor aspects) are described in the originally filed specification figure 3 and paragraphs [39-41, 44-49, and 108-112]. The computer elements are merely described as tools to implement the abstract idea. The sensing elements are described in the originally filed specification [34 and 49]. The sensing elements are directed towards generic technology to collect information. The sensors are described as tools to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2016.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of the independent claims are, “A system to determine an overall health status of a rotating asset operating in a facility, the system comprising: an assessment module configured to, a UDI module configured to (claim 12), A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for determining an overall health status of a rotating asset, the instructions being executable by a processor to (claim 19), wherein the one or more operational parameters are obtained from one or more sensing elements coupled to the rotating asset”. The computer system elements (system, non-transitory, module, and processor aspects) are described in the originally filed specification figure 3 and paragraphs [39-41, 44-49, and 108-112]. The computer elements are merely described as tools to implement the abstract idea. The sensing elements are described in the originally filed specification [34 and 49]. The sensing elements are directed towards generic technology to collect information. The sensors are described as tools to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2016.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 are further describing the abstract idea and not directed towards further additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “further comprises assigning a priority to the one or more degradation indicators in correspondence to an application in which the rotating asset is being utilized”, “wherein the one or more operational parameters include vibration, acceleration, and temperature”, “wherein the one or more degradation indicators are associated with a degradation value which corresponds to an extent of degradation of the corresponding one or more degradation indicators”, “wherein the UDI is determined dynamically in correspondence to a current operational parameter value amongst the one or more operational parameters and wherein a value of the UDI is in a range of 0 to 1”, “wherein the one or more degradation indicators include rolling cumulative anomaly count, a rate of change in cumulative anomaly count, rolling mean of anomaly score, rolling standard deviation of anomaly score, rolling kurtosis for vibration axes, and rolling number of starts”, “further comprises determining a remaining useful life of the rotating asset in correspondence to at least one of the UDI, an average life span of the rotating asset, a current age of the rotating asset, an impact factor, and a vibration class of the rotating asset”, “comprises identifying the vibration class of the rotating asset in correspondence to a pre-defined vibration threshold range for the rotating asset”, “wherein the remaining useful life of the rotating asset is determined on identifying the vibration class of the rotating asset”, “further comprises determining the impact factor in correspondence to at least one of an aggregated value of the UDI, a rate of change in the UDI, and the vibration class of the rotating asset, wherein the aggregated UDI and the rate of change in the UDI is computed for a second period of time”, and “further comprises identifying the second period of time in correspondence to the vibration class of the rotating asset”. The claims are further describing the identified mental process in terms of the collection, high-level analyzing, and display/providing the information. This is based on the collection of information regarding the degradation, vibration elements, and other factors; the high level analyzing that provides statistical analysis elements (mean, average, count, kurtosis) and other factors that are provided in analyzing the degradation, and providing the determined degradation. The claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 rejection for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K et a [2023/0260332], hereafter K, in view of Czerniak et al [2016/0349744], hereafter Czerniak.
Regarding claim 1, K discloses a method to determine an overall health status of a rotating asset operating in a facility, the method comprising: identifying a type of the rotating asset and obtaining one or more operational parameters corresponding to the rotating asset for a first time period, wherein the one or more operational parameters are obtained from one or more sensing elements coupled to the rotating asset (Fig 2 and paragraphs [46]; K discloses sensors providing sensed data for a rotating asset/machine.);
monitoring the one or more operational parameters over the first time period to determine at least a first operational parameter value from amongst the one or more operational parameters to be beyond a first operating range to detect an anomaly, wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range; calculating the deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range to compute an anomaly score associated with the anomaly detected (Fig 6 and paragraphs [61-68]; K discloses modeling a predictive failure of the rotating asset based on the sensed parameters that are determined over a time series and calculating a failure point and other operation elements to indicate a deviation of the resultant data.);
deriving one or more degradation indicators for the rotating asset in correspondence to the anomaly score and the one or more operational parameters, wherein each degradation indicator from the one or more degradation indicators is indicative of an aspect of an overall health status of the rotating asset; generating an overall health report in correspondence to the UDI for the rotating asset (Paragraphs [70-77 and 88-90]; K discloses a modeling system that calculates the degradation/health of the asset based on the sensed parameters. The overall health report is through the current condition that is provided within the interface that also provides warnings and notifications of the type of device failure detected.);
K discloses a rotating asset determination system that provides degradation health analysis and notifications, however, does not specifically describe aspects of a UDI or initiating maintenance actions;
Czerniak teaches determining a Unified Degradation Indicator (UDI) from the one or more degradation indicators, wherein the UDI corresponds to a current measure of the overall health status of the rotating asset; initiating one or more maintenance actions associated with the rotating asset in correspondence to the overall health report of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [76-79]; Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset determination system that specifically provides an indicator (as interpreted within the originally filed specification [25-27 and 35]) and severity determination. Based on the severity indication, Czerniak teaches providing maintenance actions including emergency shutdown, maintenance/inspection scheduling, or no action based on normal operations.).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI or maintenance actions based on the determination.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 1;
Czerniak teaches further comprises assigning a priority to the one or more degradation indicators in correspondence to an application in which the rotating asset is being utilized (Paragraphs [76-79]; Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset determination system that specifically provides an indicator and severity determination (interpreted as priority). Based on the severity, Czerniak teaches emergency shutdown, maintenance/inspection scheduling, or no action based on normal operations.).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI or maintenance actions based on the determination.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 1,
K further discloses wherein the one or more operational parameters include vibration, acceleration, and temperature (Paragraphs [41-42 and 48]; K discloses parameters including temperature, vibration, and sensors that include accelerometers (interpreted as acceleration).).
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 1,
Czerniak further teaches wherein the one or more degradation indicators are associated with a degradation value which corresponds to an extent of degradation of the corresponding one or more degradation indicators (Paragraphs [76-79]; Czerniak teaches determining a severity (interpreted as priority) to determine the appropriate maintenance action (emergency shutdown, critical warning, or inspection schedule).).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI or maintenance actions based on the determination.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 1,
K further discloses wherein the UDI is determined dynamically in correspondence to a current operational parameter value amongst the one or more operational parameters and wherein a value of the UDI is in a range of 0 to 1 (Fig 12B, 13B, and paragraphs [76-78]; K discloses degradation modeling between 0 and 1 for the distribution mean values. This would be within the UDI classification of Czerniak that provides threshold analysis and K provides the specific modeling range.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 1,
K further discloses wherein the one or more degradation indicators include rolling cumulative anomaly count, a rate of change in cumulative anomaly count, rolling mean of anomaly score, rolling standard deviation of anomaly score, rolling kurtosis for vibration axes, and rolling number of starts (Paragraphs [64-69]; K further discloses standard deviation, kurtosis, and other statistical/modeling elements for the asset. Further, within the combination, Czerniak teaches real-time data collection and K provides current data collection to compare and predict according to a baseline (interpreted as rolling).).
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 1;
Czerniak teaches further comprises determining a remaining useful life of the rotating asset in correspondence to at least one of the UDI, an average life span of the rotating asset, a current age of the rotating asset, an impact factor, and a vibration class of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [32-42 and 61-62]; Czerniak teaches providing and determining useful life for the rotating asset based on vibration, lifespan, and other factors based on damage and other measured results (cracks, frequency, start-stop).).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 7;
Czerniak teaches comprises identifying the vibration class of the rotating asset in correspondence to a pre-defined vibration threshold range for the rotating asset (Paragraphs [64-70]; Czerniak teaches vibrational frequency threshold determinations.).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 7,
Czerniak further teaches wherein the remaining useful life of the rotating asset is determined on identifying the vibration class of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [64-70]; Czerniak teaches vibrational frequency threshold determinations (interpreted as vibration class according to originally filed specification [68]).).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 7;
Czerniak teaches further comprises determining the impact factor in correspondence to at least one of an aggregated value of the UDI, a rate of change in the UDI, and the vibration class of the rotating asset, wherein the aggregated UDI and the rate of change in the UDI is computed for a second period of time (Paragraphs [64-70]; Czerniak teaches vibrational frequency threshold determinations (interpreted as vibration class according to originally filed specification [68]).).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method as claimed in claim 8
K discloses further comprises identifying the second period of time in correspondence to the vibration class of the rotating asset (Fig 14 and paragraphs [62-69]; K discloses timing aspects with respect to vibration parameters. Within the combination, Czerniak teaches [76-78] teaches timing elements for the vibration parameters.).
Regarding claim 12, K discloses a system to determine an overall health status of a rotating asset operating in a facility, the system comprising: an assessment module configured to: identify a type of the rotating asset and obtain one or more operational parameters corresponding to the rotating asset for a first time period, wherein the one or more operational parameters are obtained from one or more sensing elements coupled to the rotating asset (Fig 2 and paragraphs [46]; K discloses sensors providing sensed data for a rotating asset/machine.); and
a UDI module configured to: monitor the one or more operational parameters over the first time period to determine at least a first operational parameter value from amongst the one or more operational parameters to be beyond a first operating range to detect an anomaly, wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range; calculate the deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range to compute an anomaly score associated with the anomaly detected (Fig 6 and paragraphs [61-68]; K discloses modeling a predictive failure of the rotating asset based on the sensed parameters that are determined over a time series and calculating a failure point and other operation elements to indicate a deviation of the resultant data.);
derive one or more degradation indicators for the rotating asset in correspondence to the anomaly score and the one or more operational parameters; wherein each degradation indicator from the one or more degradation indicators is indicative of an aspect of an overall health status of the rotating asset; generate an overall health report in correspondence to the UDI for the rotating asset (Paragraphs [70-77 and 88-90]; K discloses a modeling system that calculates the degradation/health of the asset based on the sensed parameters. The overall health report is through the current condition that is provided within the interface that also provides warnings and notifications of the type of device failure detected.);
K discloses a rotating asset determination system that provides degradation health analysis and notifications, however, does not specifically describe aspects of a UDI or initiating maintenance actions;
Czerniak teaches determine a Unified Degradation Indicator (UDI) from one or more degradation indicators, wherein the UDI corresponds to a current measure of the overall health status of the rotating asset; and initiate one or more maintenance actions associated with the rotating asset in correspondence to the overall health report of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [76-79]; Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset determination system that specifically provides an indicator (as interpreted within the originally filed specification [25-27 and 35]) and severity determination. Based on the severity indication, Czerniak teaches providing maintenance actions including emergency shutdown, maintenance/inspection scheduling, or no action based on normal operations.).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI or maintenance actions based on the determination.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system as claimed in claim 11,
Czerniak teaches wherein the UDI module is further configured to assign a priority to the one or more degradation indicators in correspondence to an application in which the rotating asset is being utilized (Paragraphs [76-79]; Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset determination system that specifically provides an indicator and severity determination (interpreted as priority). Based on the severity, Czerniak teaches emergency shutdown, maintenance/inspection scheduling, or no action based on normal operations.).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI or maintenance actions based on the determination.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 14, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system as claimed in claim 11,
K further discloses wherein the one or more degradation indicators are associated with a degradation value which corresponds to an extent of degradation of the corresponding one or more degradation indicators; and wherein the one or more degradation indicators include rolling cumulative anomaly count, a rate of change in cumulative anomaly count, rolling mean of anomaly score, rolling standard deviation of anomaly score, rolling kurtosis for vibration axes, and rolling number of starts (Paragraphs [64-69]; K further discloses standard deviation, kurtosis, and other statistical/modeling elements for the asset. Further, within the combination, Czerniak teaches real-time data collection and K provides current data collection to compare and predict according to a baseline (interpreted as rolling).).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system as claimed in claim 11,
Czerniak teaches wherein the UDI module is further configured to determine a remaining useful life of the rotating asset in correspondence to at least one of the UDI, an average life span of the rotating asset, a current age of the rotating asset, an impact factor, and a vibration class of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [32-42 and 61-62]; Czerniak teaches providing and determining useful life for the rotating asset based on vibration, lifespan, and other factors based on damage and other measured results (cracks, frequency, start-stop).).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system as claimed in claim 18,
Czerniak teaches wherein the UDI module is further configured to determine the impact factor in correspondence to at least one of an aggregated value of the UDI and a rate of change in the UDI, wherein the aggregated UDI and the rate of change in the UDI is computed for a second period of time (Paragraphs [64-70]; Czerniak teaches vibrational frequency threshold determinations (interpreted as vibration class according to originally filed specification [68]).).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 17, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system as claimed in claim 19,
Czerniak teaches wherein the UDI module is further configured to identify the vibration class of the rotating asset in correspondence to a pre-defined vibration range for the rotating asset (Paragraphs [64-70]; Czerniak teaches vibrational frequency threshold determinations.).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system as claimed in claim 20,
K further discloses and wherein the UDI module is further configured to identify the second period of time in correspondence to the vibration class of the rotating asset (Fig 14 and paragraphs [62-69]; K discloses timing aspects with respect to vibration parameters. Within the combination, Czerniak teaches [76-78] teaches timing elements for the vibration parameters.)
Czerniak teaches wherein the remaining useful life of the rotating asset is determined on identifying the vibration class of the rotating asset; (Paragraphs [64-70]; Czerniak teaches vibrational frequency threshold determinations (interpreted as vibration class according to originally filed specification [68]).).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 19, K discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for determining an overall health status of a rotating asset, the instructions being executable by a processor to: identify a type of the rotating asset and obtain one or more operational parameters corresponding to the rotating asset for a first time period, wherein the one or more operational parameters are obtained from one or more sensing elements coupled to the rotating asset (Fig 2 and paragraphs [46]; K discloses sensors providing sensed data for a rotating asset/machine.);
monitor the one or more operational parameters over the first time period to determine at least a first operational parameter value from amongst the one or more operational parameters to be beyond a first operating range to detect an anomaly, wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range; calculate the deviation of the first operational parameter value from the first operating range to compute an anomaly score associated with the anomaly detected (Fig 6 and paragraphs [61-68]; K discloses modeling a predictive failure of the rotating asset based on the sensed parameters that are determined over a time series and calculating a failure point and other operation elements to indicate a deviation of the resultant data.);
derive one or more degradation indicators for the rotating asset in correspondence to the anomaly score and the one or more operational parameters, wherein each degradation indicator from the one or more degradation indicators is indicative of an aspect of an overall health status of the rotating asset; generate an overall health report in correspondence to the UDI for the rotating asset (Paragraphs [70-77 and 88-90]; K discloses a modeling system that calculates the degradation/health of the asset based on the sensed parameters. The overall health report is through the current condition that is provided within the interface that also provides warnings and notifications of the type of device failure detected.);
K discloses a rotating asset determination system that provides degradation health analysis and notifications, however, does not specifically describe aspects of a UDI or initiating maintenance actions;
Czerniak teaches determine a Unified Degradation Indicator (UDI) from the one or more degradation indicators, wherein the UDI corresponds to a current measure of the overall health status of the rotating asset; and initiate one or more maintenance actions associated with the rotating asset in correspondence to the overall health report of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [76-79]; Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset determination system that specifically provides an indicator (as interpreted within the originally filed specification [25-27 and 35]) and severity determination. Based on the severity indication, Czerniak teaches providing maintenance actions including emergency shutdown, maintenance/inspection scheduling, or no action based on normal operations.).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI or maintenance actions based on the determination.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination and providing maintenance actions based on the severity as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 20, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the non-transitory computer-readable medium as claimed in claim 19,
Czerniak teaches wherein the instructions further cause the processor to determine a remaining useful life of the rotating asset in correspondence to at least one of the UDI, an average life span of the rotating asset, a current age of the rotating asset, an impact factor, and a vibration class of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [32-42 and 61-62]; Czerniak teaches providing and determining useful life for the rotating asset based on vibration, lifespan, and other factors based on damage and other measured results (cracks, frequency, start-stop).).
K discloses a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose UDI elements with vibration class.
Czerniak teaches a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health of K the ability to include a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a similar rotating asset modeling system that specifically provides a degradation indicator through the severity determination based on vibration parameters as taught by Czerniak since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Krishnaswamy et al [2022/0198357] (useful life asset modeling);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629