DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 § 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, and wherein the first time period comprises a rolling time window dynamically adjusted based on at least one of the type of the rotating asset and a sensitivity of the rotating asset; 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, and wherein the first operating range is determined based on the identified type of the rotating asset and an operational environment of the facility in which the rotating asset is commissioned; 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, by assigning weights to each of the one or more degradation indicators based on a relative impact of each degradation indicator on the health of the rotating asset, 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 performed on 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). This further includes the claim language regarding a rolling time window based on the asset and providing an operating range and environment where the asset is commissioned. These elements are describing the observations and judgements, but also aspects that a person would be able to perform with pen and paper to determine maintenance information for a rotating asset to provide maintenance actions. 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 in real-time during operation of the rotating asset 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. Examiner notes that “real-time” merely describes the speed in which information is collected, but does not provide a specific technical improvement as the sensor and data gathering is implementing the abstract deal using generic technology. 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 in real-time during operation of the rotating asset 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. Examiner notes that “real-time” merely describes the speed in which information is collected, but does not provide a specific technical improvement as the sensor and data gathering is implementing the abstract deal using generic technology. 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, and wherein the one or more degradation indicators comprise at least one of 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, or rolling number of starts”, “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 (rolling 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, further in view of Silva et al [2014/0095133], hereafter Silva.
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 during operation of the rotating asset 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, and wherein the first operating range is determined based on the identified type of the rotating asset and an operational environment of the facility in which the rotating asset is commissioned; 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. K further provides baseline data for the asset for the model validation and predictive analysis (interpreted as operating range) [76-79].);
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 in real-time during operation of the rotating asset from one or more sensing elements coupled to the rotating asset (Paragraphs [12 and 64-66]; Czerniak teaches real-time information collection for the model.),
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.
The combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the rotating asset maintenance information, however, the combination does not specifically teach rolling time window and weights for the modeling;
Silva teaches wherein the first time period comprises a rolling time window dynamically adjusted based on at least one of the type of the rotating asset and a sensitivity of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [57-61]; Silva discloses adjusting rolling time windows for the reporting based on a selection, asset, and specific data elements. The combination provides selection of the asset analysis and Silva provides the specific rolling time window adjusted based on factors.).
determining a Unified Degradation Indicator (UDI) from the one or more degradation indicators by assigning weights to each of the one or more degradation indicators based on a relative impact of each degradation indicator on the health of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [50-51]; Silva teaches a similar maintenance asset analysis system that specifically provides weights based on fleet component failure and estimated unreliability. The combination provides analysis for the component failure and predictive elements and Silva provides the specific weights based on indicated failure within a fleet analysis for component failure.).
The combination teaches a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose weights or rolling time windows.
Silva teaches a similar maintenance asset modeling system that specifically provides a modeling system that provides weights and rolling time windows.
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 the combination the ability to include a similar maintenance asset modeling system that specifically provides a modeling system that provides weights and rolling time windows as taught by Silva 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).).
Within the combination, Silva teaches wherein the one or more degradation indicators comprise at least one of 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, or rolling number of starts (Paragraphs [58-61]; Silva discloses a rolling anomaly average of the event data and other rolling data elements for the asset.).
The combination teaches a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose rolling analysis elements.
Silva teaches a similar maintenance asset modeling system that specifically provides a modeling system that provides rolling average and other fault data for the asset.
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 the combination the ability to include a similar maintenance asset modeling system that specifically provides a modeling system that provides rolling average and other fault data for the asset as taught by Silva 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 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: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors 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
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, and wherein the first operating range is determined based on the identified type of the rotating asset and an operational environment of the facility in which the rotating asset is commissioned; 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 in real-time during operation of the rotating asset from one or more sensing elements coupled to the rotating asset (Paragraphs [12 and 64-66]; Czerniak teaches real-time information collection for the model.),
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 performed on 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.
The combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the rotating asset maintenance information, however, the combination does not specifically teach rolling time window and weights for the modeling;
Silva teaches wherein the first time period comprises a rolling time window dynamically adjusted based on at least one of the type of the rotating asset and a sensitivity of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [57-61]; Silva discloses adjusting rolling time windows for the reporting based on a selection, asset, and specific data elements. The combination provides selection of the asset analysis and Silva provides the specific rolling time window adjusted based on factors.).
determining a Unified Degradation Indicator (UDI) from the one or more degradation indicators by assigning weights to each of the one or more degradation indicators based on a relative impact of each degradation indicator on the health of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [50-51]; Silva teaches a similar maintenance asset analysis system that specifically provides weights based on fleet component failure and estimated unreliability. The combination provides analysis for the component failure and predictive elements and Silva provides the specific weights based on indicated failure within a fleet analysis for component failure.).
The combination teaches a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose weights or rolling time windows.
Silva teaches a similar maintenance asset modeling system that specifically provides a modeling system that provides weights and rolling time windows.
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 the combination the ability to include a similar maintenance asset modeling system that specifically provides a modeling system that provides weights and rolling time windows as taught by Silva 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 12,
Czerniak teaches wherein the one or more processors are 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 12,
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 12,
Czerniak teaches wherein the one or more processors are 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 15,
Czerniak teaches wherein the one or more processors are 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 15,
Czerniak teaches wherein one or more processors are 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 16,
K further discloses and wherein one or more processors are 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 operating in a facility, 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, and wherein the first operating range is determined based on the identified type of the rotating asset and an operational environment of the facility in which the rotating asset is commissioned; 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 in real-time during operation of the rotating asset from one or more sensing elements coupled to the rotating asset (Paragraphs [12 and 64-66]; Czerniak teaches real-time information collection for the model.),
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.
The combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the rotating asset maintenance information, however, the combination does not specifically teach rolling time window and weights for the modeling;
Silva teaches wherein the first time period comprises a rolling time window dynamically adjusted based on at least one of the type of the rotating asset and a sensitivity of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [57-61]; Silva discloses adjusting rolling time windows for the reporting based on a selection, asset, and specific data elements. The combination provides selection of the asset analysis and Silva provides the specific rolling time window adjusted based on factors.).
determining a Unified Degradation Indicator (UDI) from the one or more degradation indicators by assigning weights to each of the one or more degradation indicators based on a relative impact of each degradation indicator on the health of the rotating asset (Paragraphs [50-51]; Silva teaches a similar maintenance asset analysis system that specifically provides weights based on fleet component failure and estimated unreliability. The combination provides analysis for the component failure and predictive elements and Silva provides the specific weights based on indicated failure within a fleet analysis for component failure.).
The combination teaches a rotating asset modeling system for notifications based on asset health, however, K does not specifically disclose weights or rolling time windows.
Silva teaches a similar maintenance asset modeling system that specifically provides a modeling system that provides weights and rolling time windows.
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 the combination the ability to include a similar maintenance asset modeling system that specifically provides a modeling system that provides weights and rolling time windows as taught by Silva 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.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed May 18, 2026 on pages 8-9 regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations render the rejection moot. Examiner agrees. The amended claim language has provided proper claim dependency. Examiner further notes that the 35 USC 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn.
In response to the arguments filed May 18, 2026 on pages 9-11 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations are directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments allege that the amended claim limitations and claimed invention provides a technical improvement that are beyond an abstract idea and are transformative into a practical application. Examiner first notes that the arguments specifically argue and discuss limitations that are not present in the claims as currently written. The arguments provide elements machine learning techniques that are not within the claim limitations. Further, the limitations regarding real-time being outside the scope of the human mind is still within the consideration. The real-time is describing the speed in which information is provided within the collection and analysis of the mental process through the use of generic technology (sensors). Further, a person could observe and analyze information in real-time, but also mental process provides consideration of collection and analysis within a technical environment using computers as tools to implement which is what the real-time is providing. In terms of the claim limitations the claimed invention is collection, high level analyzing, and displaying the results in terms of asset maintenance that falls within the mental process grouping. The additional elements, as considered above, are generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The claims are directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Lacking any further arguments, claims 1, 12, and 19 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-20 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
In response to the arguments filed May 18, 2026 on pages 12-14 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, specifically that the amended claim limitations are not taught by the cited prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Based on a further search and consideration, the prior art has been updated based on the considered amended limitations. Newly cited prior art Silva provides elements in terms of the rolling time window and weights for the modeling system. The combination provides the analysis for a predictive maintenance system for the asset and Silva provides the specific elements as amended in terms of modeling elements including weights and rolling time windows. As such, claims 1-20 are maintaining the 35 USC 103 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights