DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16-21 are pending for examination. Claim(s) Claim 14 has been canceled. Claim 17-21 has been newly added. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
The Claim Interpretation of claim(s) 14 is withdrawn as the claim(s) has been cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim(s) 6, 8, and 14 are withdrawn as the claim(s) have either been amended and/or cancelled.
The 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection of claim(s) 14 is withdrawn as the claim(s) has been cancelled.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 with respect to the 35 US.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant respectfully submits that MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) provides a two step process under Step 2A Prong Two to assess whether the claimed invention integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two and thus patent eligible:
[...]
Under the first step, the Specification will now be discussed herein, in terms of disclosing a technical improvement. The Specification teaches that the disclosed method is provided to solve a particular technical problem in the area of servicing (e.g. repair or replacement) of components of continuous flow engines. Specifically, the Specification teaches that a current problem in the area of continuous flow engines is having to adapt to "current demands" such as "renewable energy sources" which increase strain and wear on components of the continuous flow engine, thus elevating the importance of properly servicing/maintaining continuous flow engines (See: Specification at paragraph [0003]). Such continuous flow engines have increased strain due to having to handle fluctuations in power generation and distribution networks due to inhomogeneous power generation resulting from renewable energy sources (See: Specification at paragraph [0020]). The Specification then discloses that the inventive method herein surprisingly showed a significant improvement in the servicing (e.g. repair/replacement) of continuous flow engine components (See: Specification at paragraph [0005]). With conventional servicing methods, the Specification details how they involve "prolonged downtime" since replacement components are routinely unavailable, thereby endangering the safety of an electrical grid to which said continuous flow engines are connected (See: Specification at paragraph [0005]). Additionally, currently even experts with decades of experience have difficulty deciding which components of a continuous flow engine to service (See: Specification at paragraph [0005]). Thus, the Specification clearly establishes that a disclosed improvement is provided to address a technical problem in the technical area of servicing (repair/replacement) of components in a continuous flow engine.
Under the second step, the Specification details that the present invention will "optimize the current servicing and solve the upcoming needs of the industry. Providing an output containing additionally to be included components to prevent a prolongation of the downtimes without requiring manual interaction" (See: Specification at paragraph [0005]). The pending claims herein reflects this disclosed improvement by disclosing steps to evaluate whether additional components ("interrelated component") should be included in a next maintenance or overhaul of the continuous flow engine and a step of providing a list that includes said additional components to be included in said next maintenance over overhaul. Thus, the claims clearly reflect the technical improvement expressed in the Specification.
Thus, per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) above, claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Indeed, the Office Action did not assess the pending claims herein, under Step 2A Prong 2, using the above discussed two step process in MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn. Since claims 2 - 14 and 16 are dependent on claim 1 and since these claims were rejected based on the rejection of claim 1, it is respectfully requested that the rejections of claims 2 - 14 and 16 also be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees. The purported improvement of, i.e., “evaluate whether additional components ("interrelated component") should be included in a next maintenance or overhaul of the continuous flow engine and a step of providing a list that includes said additional components to be included in said next maintenance over overhaul” as argued lies within the abstract idea itself. The examiner notes as noted in Step 2A-Prong One analysis shows that the following limitations “acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul, identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components, evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities, wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list, and providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul” to be limitations that fall under the enumerated sub groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" in the form of business relations and/or “Mental Processes” as they encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. With respect to Step 2A-Prong two the additional elements as recited are noted to be i.e., descriptive data regarding a continuous flow engine (i.e., outside the scope of the claim), a product, and/or a device. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: In rejecting claims 1 - 14 and 16, the Office Action argued that these claims "recite 'commercial interactions' or 'legal interactions."' (See: Office Action at p. 10). However, the only reasoning offered by the Office Action in support of this contention is that the claims "include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations." (See: Office Action at p. 10 - 11). However, there is no explanation in the Office Action as to what particular aspects of the claim constitute "agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations". The Office Action cited to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) which provides one example of such "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions": [...]
Indeed, it is not clear what the Office Action is alleging is the "contractual relationship" recited in claim 1, for example. Indeed, claim 1 does not even recite two distinct parties, let alone a contractual relationship between them. Thus, unlike the example above in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the claims herein do not recite a contractual relationship. In fact, as previously argued herein, the claims are directed to a method for an improved servicing (repair/replacement) of components of a continuous flow engine, in order to address a technical problem in the area of continuous flow engines, namely increased strain on continuous flow engine components due to having to handle fluctuations in power generation and distribution networks due to inhomogeneous power generation resulting from renewable energy sources (See: Specification at paragraph [0020]). Thus, the claimed invention herein recites a technical improvement in the area of servicing (repair/replacement) of continuous flow engines, since it addresses a technical problem in the area of continuous flow engines.
Accordingly, this basis of rejection of claims 1 - 14 and 16 should be withdrawn, in light of the above arguments.
Should the Office Action choose to maintain this ground of rejection, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office Action identify the particular legal/commercial transaction recited in the claims, including the distinct parties to said transaction and the precise terms of the contractual relationship between them. The example cited in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) above clearly identifies the parties ("provider of a safe transaction service" and "the requesting party") and the terms of the contractual relationship between them (e.g., providing a transaction performance guaranty).
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the “commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of business relations. In this instance the business relation noted in the independent claims is to evaluate whether additional components ("interrelated component") should be included in a next maintenance or overhaul of the continuous flow engine and a step of providing a list that includes said additional components to be included in said next maintenance over overhaul. This language is reflected in the claim limitations as argued. The MPEP states “...include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations.” The examiner notes this defines an “agreement” to an entity in the form of a list that includes said additional components to be included in said next maintenance over overhaul. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Mental Process In rejecting claims 1-14 and 16, the Office Action argued that these claims are "mental processes" that "encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper" (See: Office Action at p. 12).
However, for example, dependent claim 16 recites servicing the continuous flow engine by servicing the component to be serviced and the at least one interrelated component. The Specification clearly defines "servicing" to mean performing a replacement, a repair or a check of a state of a component of a continuous flow engine (See: Specification at paragraph [0006]). It is not clear how repairing, replacing or checking the status of a continuous flow engine "encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper". The Office Action does not address this language of dependent claim 16 (See: Office Action at p. 14- 15). Thus, at minimum, this ground of rejection should be withdrawn, with respect to dependent claim 16.
With respect to claims 1 - 13, as previously argued above, per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) above, per Step 2A Prong 2, claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Indeed, the Office Action did not assess the pending claims herein, under Step 2A Prong 2, using the above discussed two step process in MPEP 2106.04(d). Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A Prong 2. Thus, the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn. Since claims 2 - 13 and 16 are dependent on claim 1 and since these claims were rejected based on the rejection of claim 1, it is respectfully requested that the rejections of claims 2 - 13 and 16 also be withdrawn. In light of claims 1 - 13 and 16 being eligible under Step 2A Prong 2, they necessarily cannot be ineligible as being directed to "mental processes", as alleged in the Office Action.
Without conceding the argument, even if claims 1 - 13 were not found to be
eligible under the above steps of MPEP 2106.04(d) of Step 2A Prong 2, this ground of rejection is still deficient. For example, claim 1 recites a step of "acquiring a component maintenance list..." and "providing a list of the at least one interrelated component...". Such steps cannot be performed in the human mind, since they do not constitute "observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions" (See: Office Action at p. 11).
The Specification teaches that the step of acquiring the component maintenance list 4 is retrieved by a processing unit 5 (See: Specification at paragraph [0040])(Also See: Specification at FIG. 1) and that the list 11 is provided by the processing unit 5 (See: Specification at paragraph [0044])(Also See: Specification at FIG. 1).
Accordingly, this basis of rejection of claims 1 - 13 and 16 should be withdrawn, in light of the above arguments.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Claim 16 as argued above, applicant states servicing includes “...checking the status of a continuous flow engine.” The examiner notes that the human mind with pen and paper is capable of “...checking the status of a continuous flow engine.” Thus, claim 16 is a “Mental Processes” as it encompasses steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
With respect to Claim 1-13, similar rationale is noted for the response to argument for Step 2A-Prong Two.
Therefore, the examiner finds these argumenta not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 with respect to the 35 US.C. 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1 requires a step of "acquiring a component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul." Robinson does not disclose a maintenance/overhaul plan list. Instead, Robinson discloses a user-selected "checkout basket/parts list" for ordering parts. It is respectfully submitted that the Office Action improperly conflates a purchasing cart with a maintenance list for a scheduled overhaul. This is particularly true in light of later limitations in claim 1 that rely on the maintenance list to assess incremental disassembly/assembly effort.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes Robinson does disclose "acquiring a component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul,” see [0073] and [0075] and [0078]. More specifically, Robin states in [0073] The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and further states in [0078] Parts-ordering environment 100 may next identify any related parts associated with the user's selected parts (steps 1305). This may include determining whether any related kits associated with the user's selected parts are available (step 1306). Thus, as construed parts ordered are based on the identification, of one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. The examiner notes that this reads on "acquiring a component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul.” Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1 also requires a step of "identifying at least one interrelated component ... identifying physically or functionally interrelated components." Robinson identifies "related parts" that are structurally associated for sales/ordering purposes. Thus, the rejection is improper under MPEP 2111 for employing an interpretation for "interrelated" (related for sales/ordering purpose) that is not consistent with the use of "interrelated" in the Specification (interrelated in terms of maintenance of the continuous flow engine).
Even if this is treated as "interrelated," Robinson's relatedness is used to recommend parts, not to drive the claimed maintenance-benefit optimization. To the extent the Office Action maps Robinson's "structural association" onto the "physically or functionally interrelated" language, that alone still does not satisfy the later limitations of evaluating the benefit of including said interrelated component in such a maintenance or overhaul, as well as the wherein clauses reciting said evaluation process.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes Robin states in [0047]-[0051] - As used herein, "repair" may refer to any maintenance action performed on a product that involves the replacement, recondition, or repair of two or more parts of the product. For example, reconditioning of a vehicle water pump may include the replacement, recondition, or repair of an impeller, a gear, a ball bearing, and a gasket, among other parts and [0078] - Parts-ordering environment 100 may next identify any related parts associated with the user's selected parts (steps 1305). The examiner notes two or more parts of a product reads on interrelated parts of the product and gives an example of a water pump. A similar concept to this is depicted in FIG. 10 related to a cooler with its “interrelated” parts. The examiner notes that this reads on “interrelated”. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1 also requires a step of "evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul ... wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode ... probability of replacement, probability of failure, probability of nonreparability or a combination." Robinson does not teach evaluating a benefit using any failure mode probabilities (replacement/failure/nonreparability). Instead, Robinson's "repair level" discussion is a rule-based categorization about what parts are typically replaced given how far a product is disassembled; it is not a probabilistic failure-mode analysis and is not framed as a benefit evaluation for adding service tasks to a pre- planned maintenance event.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Robinson states in [0050] - Repair level field 810 may include characters or other identifiers specifying repair levels associated with particular part names. In one embodiment, repair level field 810 may include, associated with each part name in standard part name field 806, a level of "1," "2," or "3." Level "1" may indicate "reusable parts." As used herein, "reusable pars" may include parts that are normally visually inspected and replaced only if they are damaged (e.g., a compressor housing, a turbine housing, or the like). In one embodiment, level "1" parts may be so designated according to reuse and salvage guidelines or other standards known in the art. Level "2" may indicate parts that, if removed, should always be replaced (i.e., 100% replacement parts). In one embodiment, level "2" parts may be those that are likely to be damaged if removed. For example, level "2" may correspond to pins, plates, rings, seals, O-rings, and/or other fastening, sealing, and/or absorbing parts subject to physical stress or wear that, if removed, should be replaced. Level "1" and level "2" parts, together, may include all of the parts required to recondition, repair or restore an entire group or assembly of parts, such as parts within a particular group name, as mentioned above. In contrast, level "3" may correspond to parts that are needed to replace (as opposed to recondition, repair, or restore) a group. For example, parts required to replace the entire hydraulics group or cab electronics group may be specified as level "3" parts). The examiner these levels read on the claimed concepts. For example, level “3” represents a part that has a probably of non-repairability as it needs to be replaced. Further level “2” represents a part that is likely to be damaged if removed thus represents a probably of failure. Further level “1’ represents parts that are visually inspected/replaced if damage thus represents a probably of replacement. The examiner has construed the levels as evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul ... wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode ... probability of replacement, probability of failure, probability of nonreparability or a combination. Further the examiner notes the claim only requires one to be met. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1 also requires a step of "evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure ... includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account required disassembly and assembly ... based on the component maintenance list." Applicant respectfully submits that this step is not disclosed in Robinson. Instead, Robinson may filter recommended parts based on repair level/parentage, but it does not evaluate "reduced incremental effort" that results from doing extra work while the engine is already disassembled for the pre-specified maintenance list. Claim 1 is directed to leveraging overlapping teardown/assembly operations to reduce marginal effort (and potentially downtime), as previously discussed herein. However, Robinson is directed to recommending related parts to order for completing a repair.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Robinson states in [0046] - Repair parts information 210 may include information for identifying a repair that the customer intends to or should perform, based on a particular part "in hand." In other words, repair parts information 210 may implement repair logic, expert knowledge, or the like, which identifies, based on one or more selected parts being replaced by the customer, the repair that the customer is probably performing (or should perform) and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts). The examiner notes Robinson discussed filtering in [0086] and as construed for example if a level 3 part is recommended it removes level 1 or level 2 parts as level 3 required full replacement instead of other level 1or level 2 parts. This reads on "evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure ... includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account required disassembly and assembly ... based on the component maintenance list." Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Claim 1 also requires a step of "providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul." Robinson provides a list of parts to buy/consider. However, Robinson does not provide a list of additional components "beneficially" to be serviced in the next overhaul based on the claimed probabilistic failure-mode and effort-reduction analysis.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees. The examiner notes FIG. 12 depicts related parts. Again, this is affirmed in Robinson as previously cited [0073] - In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved. The examiner notes this reads on “beneficial.” Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: In light of the above arguments, Applicant respectfully submits that the matter claimed differs significantly from the disclosure of Robinson at least for the above referenced reasons. Accordingly, claim 1 is not anticipated by Robinson. This is particularly true, in view of the failure-mode probability evaluation and the reduced-effort from assembly structure based on maintenance-list features being not taught or indicated in Robinson.
The Office Action includes a generalization attempting to map Robinson's parts sales tool to the recited "maintenance list," "benefit," or "failure mode," (See: Office Action at p. 17). However, Applicant respectfully submits that Robinson's lists/filters are not maintenance scheduling/prognosis and not probabilistic failure-mode/effort optimization.
Accordingly, in view of the above arguments, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn. Claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 12 - 13 and 16 are dependent claims, which depend from claim 1. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that these rejections should be withdrawn, in light of the above arguments with respect to claim 1 and their dependency on claim 1.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth above. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 with respect to the 35 US.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: In view of the above arguments, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection of claim 1 should be withdrawn. Claims 2 - 3, 5, 8 and 10 - 11 are dependent claims, which depend from claim 1.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that these rejections should be withdrawn, in light of the above arguments with respect to claim 1 and their dependency on claim 1. Applicant herein provides additional arguments as to why claim 1 is nonobvious over Robinson in view of Michael. Applicant respectfully submits that, at a high level, Robinson is a commerce/ordering-oriented "related parts identification and sales tool." It starts from a user selection of a product and one or more parts, identifies "related parts" structurally associated, and generates/presents a parts list for ordering. Robinson's optional "repair level" and "parentage" features are filters to avoid recommending inappropriate parts given a presumed disassembly depth or group context. Robinson does not address optimizing a planned overhaul work scope, does not evaluate "benefit" for adding service tasks, and does not use failure mode probabilities or incremental disassembly/assembly effort reduction relative to a pre-existing maintenance list.
By contrast, claim 1 is directed to servicing a continuous flow engine based on a pre-existing component maintenance list for a next maintenance/overhaul, and then (i) identifying additional physically/functionally interrelated components from a component database, (ii) evaluating a benefit of adding those components to the upcoming maintenance event using failure-mode probabilities (replacement/failure/nonreparability) and using the physical assembly structure to reflect reduced incremental effort due to shared disassembly/assembly operations already required by the existing maintenance list, and (iii) outputting a list of interrelated components "beneficially" additionally serviced during that next maintenance/overhaul. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is nonobvious over the proposed combination of Robinson and Michael, for several reasons.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth above for Robinson. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: First, even assuming Michael teaches determining probabilities of failure and/or performing simulations typical of prognostic systems, the combination of Robinson and Michael still does not teach the key limitation of using a pre-existing maintenance/overhaul component list as a baseline work scope and then computing the reduced incremental disassembly/assembly effort of adding interrelated components to that specific event. Robinson's "repair level" logic is not an incremental-effort calculation; it is a categorical filter based on presumed disassembly depth for a repair the user is already undertaking, in a parts ordering context. Michael, to the extent it predicts failures or schedules maintenance, typically does not teach leveraging the already-planned teardown steps for a specific maintenance list to compute marginal effort savings for opportunistic servicing of interrelated components. Indeed, the Office Action did not identify where either Robinson or Michael discloses (or suggests) that specific "baseline maintenance list incremental effort reduction" concept. Absent that, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination is missing an express claim element, and the rejection instead relies on impermissible hindsight.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth above for Robinson. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., baseline maintenance list incremental effort reduction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
Applicant Argues: Second, Applciant emphasizes herein that claim 1 requires an evaluation benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in the next maintenance/overhaul, where the evaluation explicitly takes into account (a) a failure mode with probabilities of replacement/failure/nonreparability and (b) a physical assembly structure yielding a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort considering required disassembly and assembly based on the component maintenance list. Robinson does not evaluate "benefit"; it recommends related parts for ordering. Michael may evaluate risk or remaining useful life, but that is not the same as a multi-factor benefit evaluation for deciding whether to add additional service actions to an already planned overhaul in view of both failure-mode probabilities and marginal disassembly/assembly effort. Even if the rationale of the Office Action is that it would have been "obvious to use Michael's failure probabilities in Robinson's related-parts tool," that still does not arrive at the claimed benefit evaluation and output for planned maintenance servicing, because Robinson's output is a sales/ordering list, not a list of additional components to be serviced during the next maintenance/overhaul due to reduced incremental effort.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth above for Robinson. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Third, Applicant affirms herein that the proposed motivation to combine Robinson and Michael does not track the problem solved by the claimed invention. Robinson solves the problem of a user forgetting to order related parts; Michael (as typical for prognostics art) solves predicting failures and scheduling maintenance. The claimed invention solves a different and more specific technical/operational problem: optimizing overhaul scope by opportunistically adding interrelated components when doing so has a positive benefit given both risk (failure mode probabilities) and cost (incremental disassembly/assembly effort reduction based on an existing maintenance list and assembly structure). Applicant respectfully submits that a generic statement that "predictive maintenance data could be used to recommend parts" is not enough; the combination must still yield the claimed workflow (maintenance list baseline, interrelated component identification, benefit evaluation with both probabilistic failure mode and assembly/disassembly marginal effort reduction, and output of additional components to service). Thus, as required by MPEP 2142, the Office Action must offer "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness". Indeed, without the teaching of the present application there is no reason to re-purpose Robinson's sales tool into a maintenance-scope optimization engine.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. In this case, Micheal motivation as noted include accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis. One would use such motivation to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson as noted in the rejection below. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Fourth, Applicant respectfully points out that Robinson's structural association logic (PSIDs, parts manuals, parentage) is aimed at identifying compatible/related parts for ordering and filtering to ensure the parts apply to the selected product/group. Applicant respectfully submits that is not equivalent to identifying "physically or functionally interrelated components" in a servicing context and then analyzing them for inclusion in the next maintenance event based on benefit. Even if "structurally associated" is loosely treated as "physically interrelated," the missing portion remains the specific benefit evaluation that incorporates the failure-mode probabilities and the reduced incremental effort based on assembly structure and the existing maintenance list. In other words, Robinson at most provides a candidate-set identification mechanism; the claim's novelty lies in what is done with that candidate set.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner disagrees for the reasons set forth above for Robinson. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Fifth, Applicant respectfully points out that in case it is asserted that Michael supplies the "probabilities" and Robinson supplies the "assembly structure," it should be noted that claim 1 does not merely require that those data exist somewhere; it requires that the system uses them in a particular manner, namely to evaluate the benefit of adding interrelated components to a planned maintenance list while accounting for reduced disassembly/assembly effort because the engine is already being disassembled for items on that list. Unless the combination teaches that specific evaluation and output, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection is fatally deficient.
Examiner’s Response: As noted in Claim 1, Robinson teaches the concepts of the probabilities. The further dependent can include Micheal’s specific teachings for the combination of how said probabilities are defined. Motivation was provided for such a combination and therefore it is the combination of Robinson in view of Micheal that teach such features. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 13; the claim calls for a device; however, the body of the claim does not positively recite any hardware embodiment. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed device contains “a program product.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “a program product” is an implementation of software. Because the claimed device contains only software components, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter (i.e., software-pre-se). The mere recitation of the machine/device in the preamble with an absence of a hardware element in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be further amended to positively recites at least one hardware element within the body of the claim to make the claim statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Further, for the purpose of compact prosecution the examiner will further evaluate the claim as it was statutory with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., abstract idea without significantly more).
Step 1: claim(s) 1-14, 16, and 21 are directed to a process, manufacture, and/or machine. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A method of servicing a continuous flow engine,
acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul,
identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components,
evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities,
wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list, and
providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21includes acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul, identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components, evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities, wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list, and providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul, thus, claim 1, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" in the form of business relations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21, i.e., descriptive data regarding a continuous flow engine (i.e., outside the scope of the claim), a product, and/or a device; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21, includes acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul, identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components, evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities, wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list, and providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21, recite i.e., descriptive data regarding a continuous flow engine (i.e., outside the scope of the claim), a product, and/or a device. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21, i.e., descriptive data regarding a continuous flow engine (i.e., outside the scope of the claim), a product, and/or a device; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 12-13 and 21is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-11 and 16-21, claim(s) 2-11 and 16-21 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., claim 14 – measurement device collect/forward to a database). Further, with respect to claim 19, claim 19 recites insignificant extra solution activity as it recites insignificant application of the continuous flow engine. This is supported by Applicant’s Specification as well-understood, routine, and convention as continuous flow engines are used in the field of power generation, see Applicant’s Specification, page 1, line 28-30.. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson et al. (US 2009/0248545 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Robinson discloses a method of servicing a continuous flow engine, wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on a fluid stream running through said continuous flow engine or compresses a fluid stream running through the continuous flow engine, wherein the continuous flow engine contains a plurality of components (FIG. 13 and [0016] – engine and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0075] – engine oil cooler), the method comprising:
acquiring a component maintenance list, wherein the component maintenance list specifies components to be serviced during a next maintenance or overhaul ([0073] and [0075] - As such, the user may select the appropriate product using select product window 1002; the appropriate groups (i.e., the engine oil group and the engine oil cooler group) from select group window 1004; and the spring valve and the gasket from select individual parts feature 1022 as discussed above in connection with FIG. 10. The user may then select add to parts list button 1026, and [0078]),
identifying at least one interrelated component of the continuous flow engine comprising retrieving data from a component database and identifying physically or functionally interrelated components ([0047]-[0051] - As used herein, "repair" may refer to any maintenance action performed on a product that involves the replacement, recondition, or repair of two or more parts of the product. For example, reconditioning of a vehicle water pump may include the replacement, recondition, or repair of an impeller, a gear, a ball bearing, and a gasket, among other parts and [0078] - Parts-ordering environment 100 may next identify any related parts associated with the user's selected parts (steps 1305),
evaluating a benefit of including the at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul, wherein the evaluation takes into account a failure mode, wherein the failure mode takes into account a probability of replacement, a probability of failure, a probability of non-reparability or a combination of said probabilities ([0046] and [0050] - Repair level field 810 may include characters or other identifiers specifying repair levels associated with particular part names. In one embodiment, repair level field 810 may include, associated with each part name in standard part name field 806, a level of "1," "2," or "3." Level "1" may indicate "reusable parts." As used herein, "reusable pars" may include parts that are normally visually inspected and replaced only if they are damaged (e.g., a compressor housing, a turbine housing, or the like). In one embodiment, level "1" parts may be so designated according to reuse and salvage guidelines or other standards known in the art. Level "2" may indicate parts that, if removed, should always be replaced (i.e., 100% replacement parts). In one embodiment, level "2" parts may be those that are likely to be damaged if removed. For example, level "2" may correspond to pins, plates, rings, seals, O-rings, and/or other fastening, sealing, and/or absorbing parts subject to physical stress or wear that, if removed, should be replaced. Level "1" and level "2" parts, together, may include all of the parts required to recondition, repair or restore an entire group or assembly of parts, such as parts within a particular group name, as mentioned above. In contrast, level "3" may correspond to parts that are needed to replace (as opposed to recondition, repair, or restore) a group. For example, parts required to replace the entire hydraulics group or cab electronics group may be specified as level "3" parts),
wherein the evaluation takes into account a physical assembly structure of the continuous flow engines and includes a reduced amount of effort based on additional effort taking into account a required disassembly and assembly of the continuous flow engine based on the component maintenance list ([0046] - Repair parts information 210 may include information for identifying a repair that the customer intends to or should perform, based on a particular part "in hand." In other words, repair parts information 210 may implement repair logic, expert knowledge, or the like, which identifies, based on one or more selected parts being replaced by the customer, the repair that the customer is probably performing (or should perform) and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts), and
providing a list of the at least one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul (FIG. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 4;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses wherein at least one interrelated component are components being adapted to contact the fluid stream during utilization of the continuous flow engine (FIG. 12 – For example - After Cooler and Line, Oil Filter, Valve).
Regarding Claim 6;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further wherein reduced amount of effort additionally includes adapting the additional effort based on an interrelated component already being identified to be additional serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul ([0046] and [0073] and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts).
Regarding Claim 7;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses wherein identifying at least one interrelated component comprises retrieving component data form a component database preferably a remote database (FIG. 1 and [0031]).
Regarding Claim 9;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses adapting a list of the one interrelated component beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul based on data acquired during said next maintenance or overhaul to include an additional component or leave out a component included in the list of the at least one interrelated component (beneficially being additionally serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul ([0046] and [0073] and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts).
Regarding Claim(s) 12; claim(s) 12 is/are directed to a/an program product associated with the method claimed in claim(s) 1. Claim(s) 12 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim(s) 13; claim(s) 13 is/are directed to a/an device associated with the program product claimed in claim(s) 1. Claim(s) 13 is/are similar in scope to claim(s) 1, and is/are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding Claim 16;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses wherein servicing the continuous flow engine by servicing the component to be serviced and the at least one interrelated component ([0046] - Repair parts information 210 may include information for identifying a repair that the customer intends to or should perform, based on a particular part "in hand." In other words, repair parts information 210 may implement repair logic, expert knowledge, or the like, which identifies, based on one or more selected parts being replaced by the customer, the repair that the customer is probably performing (or should perform) and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5, 8, 10-11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2009/0248545 A1) in view of Micheal (US 2022/0147952 A1)
Regarding Claim 2;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the probability of replacement is determined utilizing historic data and simulated data.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein the probability of replacement is determined utilizing historic data and simulated data ([0087] - After one or more of the data consolidation functions 309, 310, 311, 312 have been applied to the data, the part replacement events are grouped in the part grouping process 313 to form a complete asset history 314 of parts within an asset, which is then aggregated via the data aggregator 315 to the entire portfolio of assets. While the age of each asset in a portfolio may be determined via the measurement readings 306, the age of each part that can be replaced in an asset needs to be deduced based on the dates of historical replacements, which will only be accurate if the part positions have been accurately determined by the part position detection function 309 and [0090] - In some embodiments, a fitter, such as the Weibull fitter 317, may be applied to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts of a defined part type, obtained from the age calculation function 316. FIGS. 14a and 14b show examples of fitting a Weibull probability distribution function or a Weibull cumulative distribution function to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts, respectively and [0093] - In some embodiments, the calibrated Weibull function 317 may be used to generate a Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) simulation 319, which effectively provides whole system availability and downtime simulations at asset or fleet levels. By adding cost elements to the RAM simulation 319 and Weibull function 317, a through life cycle cost simulation 318 may forecast future costs based on existing maintenance processes and propose alternative outcomes via what if analyses. The outputs from the RAM simulation and analysis 319 and the through life cycle cost simulation 318 can be used to generate future part replacement strategies (forward-looking plans) 321 using an equipment modification and replacement forecasting process 320 and [0099]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the “probabilities” of Robinson to include wherein the probability of replacement is determined utilizing historic data and simulated data.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 3;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses the at least one interrelated component ([0047]-[0051] and [0078]).
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation takes into account the failure probability of failure, wherein the failure probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of the wear out of the at least one ... component.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein the evaluation takes into account the failure probability of failure ([0099] - ...failure...) wherein the failure probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of the wear out of the at least one ... component ([0099] - In some embodiments, the wear out failures 505 may also be used to simulate future maintenance and operating costs with the through life cycle cost simulation 318, which also impacts the optimal replacement strategy process 324. The optimised replacement strategy process 324, in conjunction with the identification of random failure parts 507, determines the optimal inventory requirements and generates insights and recommendations for the user.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the “evaluation” and interrelated component of Robinson to include wherein the evaluation takes into account the failure probability of failure, wherein the failure probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of the wear out of the at least one interrelated component.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 5;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses ... servicing of continuous flow engines... (FIG. 13 and [0016] – engine and [0073] and [0075]).
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: utilizing a priority factor, wherein the priority factor is automatically provided based on a historic database containing data of components serviced in past ... and/or received from an interface adapted to be utilized by an operator, wherein the priority factor increases the benefit of including the an evaluated spare part in the list.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches further comprising: utilizing a priority factor ([0106] - higher priority), wherein the priority factor is automatically provided based on a historic database containing data of components serviced in past ... and/or received from an interface adapted to be utilized by an operator, wherein the priority factor increases the benefit of including the an evaluated spare part in the list ([0106] - For example, the system 300 may first identify all parts with a change recommendation for the maintenance strategy. Then, among these identified parts, the system may further identify critical or functionally significant parts and associate them with higher priority for display in the top rows of the table. Often, an asset may have thousands of parts, and using information such as part criticality score 1205, information from the Weibull fitter 317, and functionally significant parts 310 can significantly improve ease of use of the graphical user interface. The user can filter, search and sort the list of parts that have recommendations for changing maintenance strategies and [0119]-[0121] - In some embodiments, the predictive maintenance management system 300 determines, from the asset history 314, a set of replaced parts. The set of replaced parts is compared with at least one of a task list of parts, an inventory of parts, or a part replacement schedule to determine part utilization in the portfolio of assets. A task list rationalization process 325 adjusts a part ordering schedule and the task list based on the determined part utilisation to avoid over or under ordering parts. FIG. 23 shows an example of a task list analysis screen 2300 included in the graphical user interface 1500. In some embodiments, the task list analysis screen 2300 sorts the part utilisation 2330 to collate and prioritise display of parts 2320 that may, or may not be, included on the task list, for example, using a series of filters 2310. In some embodiments, the user may select the action 2340 to modify the quantity of parts on the task list).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include further comprising: utilizing a priority factor, wherein the priority factor is automatically provided based on a historic database containing data of components serviced in past ... and/or received from an interface adapted to be utilized by an operator, wherein the priority factor increases the benefit of including the an evaluated spare part in the list.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 8;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson discloses ... at least one interrelated component in such maintenance or overhaul contains ... of the continuous flow engine... including the at least one interrelated component in the list of components to be serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul. ([0047]-[0051] and [0078]).
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein evaluating a benefit of including the at least one ... component ... comprises a downtime simulation, wherein the downtime simulation comprises simulating a potential reduction of downtime ... based on potentially including the at least one ... component...
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein evaluating a benefit of including the at least one ... component ... comprises a downtime simulation, wherein the downtime simulation comprises simulating a potential reduction of downtime ... based on potentially including the at least one ... component... ([0103] - The optimisation of the replacement times in the strategy optimisation process 324 may be based on an awareness of the cost of maintenance and downtime 703. In some embodiments, the cost of maintenance and down time 703 may be determined from the site's operation properties 701 and cost metrics 501, as well as the maintenance downtime metrics 702, which are derived from the asset history 314 and [0109]-[0110]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include wherein evaluating a benefit of including the at least one ... component ... comprises a downtime simulation, wherein the downtime simulation comprises simulating a potential reduction of downtime ... based on potentially including the at least one ... component....
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 10;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined utilizing at least one historic failure database, wherein the historic failure database contains data regarding a historic wear out of a plurality of similar or identical components.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined utilizing at least one historic failure database, wherein the historic failure database contains data regarding a historic wear out of a plurality of similar or identical components ([0090]-[0091] - In some embodiments, a fitter, such as the Weibull fitter 317, may be applied to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts of a defined part type, obtained from the age calculation function 316. FIGS. 14a and 14b show examples of fitting a Weibull probability distribution function or a Weibull cumulative distribution function to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts, respectively. The calibrated Weibull function from the fitter 317 is then used to determine the failure pattern of the part using a failure pattern analysis module 322. It is obvious to one skilled in the art that order probabilistic or statistical functions may be used to generate a fit to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts. Failure metrics may be calculated using a metrics calculator 323, based on the failure pattern of the part. It should be noted that other functions instead of a Weibull function may be used generate the distribution 317 of age at replacement of a part type. In some embodiments of the invention, the Weibull fitting may produce one or more of three parameters, shape, scale and location, that may be used to construct probability and cumulative density functions associated with failure patterns. In some cases, where multiple failure patterns for the same part are identified, IronMan® may construct multiple sets of parameters, each with their own failure pattern. The shape parameter enables the identification of three fundamental failure patterns; premature failure, random failure, and wear out failure. In some embodiments, the system provides recommendations for maintenance interventions associated with the failure patterns. For example, in the case of premature failure, any previously determined replacement or maintenance strategy is stopped, a root cause analysis (RCA) may be performed, and on-condition maintenance may be considered if it is practical to contain the unexpected premature failures until the cause has been eliminated. In the case of random failure, an on-condition maintenance process is applied if it is practical and cost effective. In the case of wear out failure, both scheduled replacement and on condition maintenance are applicable, although scheduled replacement may be more advantageous when the shape parameter strongly indicates wear out failure pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined utilizing at least one historic failure database, wherein the historic failure database contains data regarding a historic wear out of a plurality of similar or identical components
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 11;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of a wear out of the at least one interrelated component.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of a wear out of the at least one interrelated component. ([0090]-[0091] - In some embodiments, a fitter, such as the Weibull fitter 317, may be applied to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts of a defined part type, obtained from the age calculation function 316. FIGS. 14a and 14b show examples of fitting a Weibull probability distribution function or a Weibull cumulative distribution function to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts, respectively. The calibrated Weibull function from the fitter 317 is then used to determine the failure pattern of the part using a failure pattern analysis module 322. It is obvious to one skilled in the art that order probabilistic or statistical functions may be used to generate a fit to the distribution of age at replacement of all parts. Failure metrics may be calculated using a metrics calculator 323, based on the failure pattern of the part. It should be noted that other functions instead of a Weibull function may be used generate the distribution 317 of age at replacement of a part type. In some embodiments of the invention, the Weibull fitting may produce one or more of three parameters, shape, scale and location, that may be used to construct probability and cumulative density functions associated with failure patterns. In some cases, where multiple failure patterns for the same part are identified, IronMan® may construct multiple sets of parameters, each with their own failure pattern. The shape parameter enables the identification of three fundamental failure patterns; premature failure, random failure, and wear out failure. In some embodiments, the system provides recommendations for maintenance interventions associated with the failure patterns. For example, in the case of premature failure, any previously determined replacement or maintenance strategy is stopped, a root cause analysis (RCA) may be performed, and on-condition maintenance may be considered if it is practical to contain the unexpected premature failures until the cause has been eliminated. In the case of random failure, an on-condition maintenance process is applied if it is practical and cost effective. In the case of wear out failure, both scheduled replacement and on condition maintenance are applicable, although scheduled replacement may be more advantageous when the shape parameter strongly indicates wear out failure pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include wherein the evaluation takes into account the probability of failure, wherein the probability of failure is at least partially determined using simulations of a wear out of the at least one interrelated component.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Regarding Claim 14;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose a measurement device adapted to be utilized during maintenance or overhaul of a continuous flow engine based on a component maintenance list being adapted according to a method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement device is adapted to collect data regarding components being serviced during the maintenance or overhaul, wherein the measurement device is adapted to forward the collected data to a database to further adapt a list of components to be serviced during the maintenance or overhaul.
However, in an analogous art, Micheal teaches a measurement device adapted to be utilized during maintenance or overhaul of a continuous flow engine based on a component maintenance list being adapted according to a method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement device is adapted to collect data regarding components being serviced during the maintenance or overhaul (FIG. 4 and [0095] - In step 415, measurement data 306 is extracted from the maintenance record data 302. The extracted data is then analysed using data consolidation functions. The analysis and data consolidation step 430 performs the data consolidation process 308 using various data consolidation functions 309, 310, 311, 312, and groups parts using the part grouping process 313 to generate asset history 314), wherein the measurement device is adapted to forward the collected data to a database to further adapt a list of components to be serviced during the maintenance or overhaul (FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 and FIG. 4 and [0095] - In step 415, measurement data 306 is extracted from the maintenance record data 302. The extracted data is then analysed using data consolidation functions. The analysis and data consolidation step 430 performs the data consolidation process 308 using various data consolidation functions 309, 310, 311, 312, and groups parts using the part grouping process 313 to generate asset history 314).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Micheal to the method of Robinson to include a measurement device adapted to be utilized during maintenance or overhaul of a continuous flow engine based on a component maintenance list being adapted according to a method according to claim 1, wherein the measurement device is adapted to collect data regarding components being serviced during the maintenance or overhaul, wherein the measurement device is adapted to forward the collected data to a database to further adapt a list of components to be serviced during the maintenance or overhaul
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Micheal to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows accurate determination of the age of parts across a portfolio of assets based on extracting and consolidating maintenance records using natural language processing, asset ontologies, and automated statistical analysis (Micheal, [0002]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2009/0248545 A1) in view of Chida et al. (US 2014/0229448 A1).
Regarding Claim 17;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses comprising: forwarding ... data to the component database to further adapt the list of components including the at least one interrelated component to be serviced during the next maintenance or overhaul ([0043] - It is to be appreciated that the information discussed above, i.e., parts manuals information 200, a part name synonym database 202, product structure information 204, kits information 206, replacement parts information 208, repair parts information 210, and part parentage information 212, may be created based on expert knowledge of the supported products (e.g., designated experts on the parts and/or products). This information may be periodically updated manually by an authorized user of parts-ordering system 108 or parts-information system 122, by downloading information from the internet, and/or from other sources).
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose collecting data regarding components being serviced during a maintenance or overhaul and forwarding the data.
However, Chida teaches collecting data regarding components being serviced during a maintenance or overhaul and forwarding the data (Abstract and [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chida to the method of Robinson to include collecting data regarding components being serviced during a maintenance or overhaul and forwarding the data.
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Chida to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows to increase the reliability of the apparatus and the operation ratio of the apparatus without causing improper stop of the apparatus by properly determining the component life (Chida, [0005]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2009/0248545 A1) in view of Bowan (US 2014/0208751 A1)
Regarding Claim 19;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses wherein the servicing the component and the at least one interrelated component comprises one or repairing or replacing the component and the at least one interrelated component (FIG. 10-12 and [0046]-[0047] and [0073]).
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose generating, with the continuous flow engine, the power based on the fluid stream running through said continuous flow engine.
However, Bowan teaches generating, with the continuous flow engine, the power based on the fluid stream running through said continuous flow engine ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bowan to the continuous flow engine of Robinson to include generating, with the continuous flow engine, the power based on the fluid stream running through said continuous flow engine
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bowan to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows to generate energy in large scales (Bowan, [0004]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2009/0248545 A1) in view of Bowan (US 2014/0208751 A1) and Goldfine et al. (US 2011/0054806 A1).
Regarding Claim 20;
Robinson discloses the method to Claim 1.
Robinson further discloses wherein the plurality of components of the continuous flow engine comprise one or more first components and one or more second components (FIG. 13 and [0016] – engine and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0075] – engine oil cooler), wherein the method further comprises:
retrieving, with a processing unit, first data from the component maintenance list that lists the one or more first components to be included in the next maintenance or overhaul of the continuous flow engine ([0073] and [0075] - As such, the user may select the appropriate product using select product window 1002; the appropriate groups (i.e., the engine oil group and the engine oil cooler group) from select group window 1004; and the spring valve and the gasket from select individual parts feature 1022 as discussed above in connection with FIG. 10. The user may then select add to parts list button 1026, and [0078]);
retrieving, with the processing unit, second data from the component database comprising data regarding the continuous flow engine, the one or more first components and the one or more second components ([0047]-[0051] - As used herein, "repair" may refer to any maintenance action performed on a product that involves the replacement, recondition, or repair of two or more parts of the product. For example, reconditioning of a vehicle water pump may include the replacement, recondition, or repair of an impeller, a gear, a ball bearing, and a gasket, among other parts and [0078] - Parts-ordering environment 100 may next identify any related parts associated with the user's selected parts (steps 1305);
identifying, with the processing unit, that the one or more second components are physically or functionally interrelated to the one or more first components based on the second data; ([0047]-[0051] - As used herein, "repair" may refer to any maintenance action performed on a product that involves the replacement, recondition, or repair of two or more parts of the product. For example, reconditioning of a vehicle water pump may include the replacement, recondition, or repair of an impeller, a gear, a ball bearing, and a gasket, among other parts and [0078] - Parts-ordering environment 100 may next identify any related parts associated with the user's selected parts (steps 1305),
evaluating, with the processing unit, the benefit of including the one or more second components in the next maintenance or overhaul based on a level of effort required to replace the one or more second components between scheduled maintenances or overhauls ([0046] - Repair parts information 210 may include information for identifying a repair that the customer intends to or should perform, based on a particular part "in hand." In other words, repair parts information 210 may implement repair logic, expert knowledge, or the like, which identifies, based on one or more selected parts being replaced by the customer, the repair that the customer is probably performing (or should perform) and [0050] - Repair level field 810 may include characters or other identifiers specifying repair levels associated with particular part names. In one embodiment, repair level field 810 may include, associated with each part name in standard part name field 806, a level of "1," "2," or "3." Level "1" may indicate "reusable parts." As used herein, "reusable pars" may include parts that are normally visually inspected and replaced only if they are damaged (e.g., a compressor housing, a turbine housing, or the like). In one embodiment, level "1" parts may be so designated according to reuse and salvage guidelines or other standards known in the art. Level "2" may indicate parts that, if removed, should always be replaced (i.e., 100% replacement parts). In one embodiment, level "2" parts may be those that are likely to be damaged if removed. For example, level "2" may correspond to pins, plates, rings, seals, O-rings, and/or other fastening, sealing, and/or absorbing parts subject to physical stress or wear that, if removed, should be replaced. Level "1" and level "2" parts, together, may include all of the parts required to recondition, repair or restore an entire group or assembly of parts, such as parts within a particular group name, as mentioned above. In contrast, level "3" may correspond to parts that are needed to replace (as opposed to recondition, repair, or restore) a group. For example, parts required to replace the entire hydraulics group or cab electronics group may be specified as level "3" parts [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts),
providing, with the processing unit, the list of the one or more second components to be included in the next maintenance or overhaul of the continuous flow engine, based on the evaluating step (FIG. 10-12 and [0046]-[0047] and [0073]).; and
wherein the servicing the component and the at least one interrelated component comprises one of repairing or replacing the component and the at least one interrelated component (FIG. 10-12 and [0046]-[0047] and [0073])..
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose
...wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on the fluid stream running across the one or more first components and the one or more second components of the continuous flow engine....
...the failure mode, wherein the failure mode is based on a risk of failure of the one or more second components between scheduled maintenances or overhauls...
However, Bowan teaches ...wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on the fluid stream running across [components] of the continuous flow engine... ([0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bowan to the continuous flow engine comprising the one or more first components and the one or more second components of Robinson to include wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on the fluid stream running across [components] of the continuous flow engine
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bowan to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows to generate energy in large scales (Bowan, [0004]).
Further in an analogous art, Goldfine teaches ...the failure mode, wherein the failure mode is based on a risk of failure of the one or more ... components between scheduled maintenances or overhauls... (Abstract - The future condition or time is described by a probability distribution which may be used to assess the risk of component failure. The assessed risk may be used to determine whether the part should continue in service, be replaced or repaired) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goldfine to the continuous flow engine comprising the one or more second components of Robinson in view of Bowan to include ...the failure mode, wherein the failure mode is based on a risk of failure of the one or more ... components between scheduled maintenances or overhauls...
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Goldfine to Robinson in view of Bowan to do so as it provides / allows to predicting a risk of failure before a future time ([0011]).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al. (US 2009/0248545 A1) in view of Gruber et al. (US 2014/0116362 A1) and Goldfine et al. (US 2011/0054806 A1).
Regarding Claim 21;
Robinson further discloses a method of servicing a continuous flow engine, wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on... said continuous flow engine... containing one or more first components and one or more second components of the continuous flow engine, (FIG. 13 and [0016] – engine and [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0075] – engine oil cooler), wherein the method further comprises:
retrieving, with a processing unit, first data from the component maintenance list that lists the one or more first components to be included in the next maintenance or overhaul of the continuous flow engine ([0073] and [0075] - As such, the user may select the appropriate product using select product window 1002; the appropriate groups (i.e., the engine oil group and the engine oil cooler group) from select group window 1004; and the spring valve and the gasket from select individual parts feature 1022 as discussed above in connection with FIG. 10. The user may then select add to parts list button 1026, and [0078]);
retrieving, with the processing unit, second data from the component database comprising data regarding the continuous flow engine, the one or more first components and the one or more second components ([0047]-[0051] - As used herein, "repair" may refer to any maintenance action performed on a product that involves the replacement, recondition, or repair of two or more parts of the product. For example, reconditioning of a vehicle water pump may include the replacement, recondition, or repair of an impeller, a gear, a ball bearing, and a gasket, among other parts and [0078] - Parts-ordering environment 100 may next identify any related parts associated with the user's selected parts (steps 1305);
identifying, with the processing unit, that the one or more second components are physically or functionally interrelated to the one or more first components based on the second data; ([0047]-[0051] - As used herein, "repair" may refer to any maintenance action performed on a product that involves the replacement, recondition, or repair of two or more parts of the product. For example, reconditioning of a vehicle water pump may include the replacement, recondition, or repair of an impeller, a gear, a ball bearing, and a gasket, among other parts and [0078] - Parts-ordering environment 100 may next identify any related parts associated with the user's selected parts (steps 1305),
evaluating, with the processing unit, the benefit of including the one or more second components in the next maintenance or overhaul based on a level of effort required to replace the one or more second components between scheduled maintenances or overhauls ([0046] - Repair parts information 210 may include information for identifying a repair that the customer intends to or should perform, based on a particular part "in hand." In other words, repair parts information 210 may implement repair logic, expert knowledge, or the like, which identifies, based on one or more selected parts being replaced by the customer, the repair that the customer is probably performing (or should perform) and [0050] - Repair level field 810 may include characters or other identifiers specifying repair levels associated with particular part names. In one embodiment, repair level field 810 may include, associated with each part name in standard part name field 806, a level of "1," "2," or "3." Level "1" may indicate "reusable parts." As used herein, "reusable pars" may include parts that are normally visually inspected and replaced only if they are damaged (e.g., a compressor housing, a turbine housing, or the like). In one embodiment, level "1" parts may be so designated according to reuse and salvage guidelines or other standards known in the art. Level "2" may indicate parts that, if removed, should always be replaced (i.e., 100% replacement parts). In one embodiment, level "2" parts may be those that are likely to be damaged if removed. For example, level "2" may correspond to pins, plates, rings, seals, O-rings, and/or other fastening, sealing, and/or absorbing parts subject to physical stress or wear that, if removed, should be replaced. Level "1" and level "2" parts, together, may include all of the parts required to recondition, repair or restore an entire group or assembly of parts, such as parts within a particular group name, as mentioned above. In contrast, level "3" may correspond to parts that are needed to replace (as opposed to recondition, repair, or restore) a group. For example, parts required to replace the entire hydraulics group or cab electronics group may be specified as level "3" parts [0073] - The disclosed methods and systems may provide a related parts sales tool for products. In particular, the disclosed methods and systems may be used to identify, based on one or more parts selected by a user (i.e., to service, replace, and/or recondition the one or more parts), other related kits, replacement parts, and/or repair parts that should to be brought to the user's attention to ensure that a complete repair can be made. In this manner, both product sales and customer satisfaction may be improved and [0086] - It is to be appreciated that the repair level filtering of step 1326 may result in the removal of related parts that are inappropriate given the repair associated with the user's selected parts (i.e., the parts the user has selected and has "in hand" for replacement). For example, if the user has disassembled the product to the extent required to replace a level 3 part (i.e., a relatively minor repair), parts-ordering environment 100 may remove related parts associated with more extensive repairs (i.e., level "1" and level "2" parts). Thus, the repair level filtering of step 1326 may utilize knowledge of the individual products to determine, based on the user's selected parts (i.e., the part or parts the user has "in hand" and wishes to replace), the extent to which the product must have been disassembled to reach the selected parts. In this manner, related repair parts that are inappropriate given the circumstances may be removed, leaving only those related parts that are needed to complete a repair commensurate with the extent to which the product has been disassembled to reach the user's selected parts),
providing, with the processing unit, the list of the one or more second components to be included in the next maintenance or overhaul of the continuous flow engine, based on the evaluating step (FIG. 10-12 and [0046]-[0047] and [0073]).; and
wherein the servicing the component and the at least one interrelated component comprises one of repairing or replacing the component and the at least one interrelated component (FIG. 10-12 and [0046]-[0047] and [0073])..
Robinson fails to explicitly disclose
...wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on a hot gas path running through said continuous flow engine, wherein the hot gas path contains one or more first components and one or more second components of the continuous flow engine....
...the failure mode, wherein the failure mode is based on a risk of failure of the one or more second components between scheduled maintenances or overhauls...
However, Gruber teaches ...wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on a hot gas path running through said continuous flow engine, wherein the hot gas path contains ... components of the continuous flow engine.... ([0001]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Gruber to the continuous flow engine comprising the one or more first components and the one or more second components of Robinson to include ...wherein the continuous flow engine is utilized to generate power based on a hot gas path running through said continuous flow engine, wherein the hot gas path contains ... components of the continuous flow engine....
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Gruber to Robinson to do so as it provides / allows stationary power generating plant is treated to increase flammability (Gold (Gruber, [0007]).
Further in an analogous art, Goldfine teaches ...the failure mode, wherein the failure mode is based on a risk of failure of the one or more ... components between scheduled maintenances or overhauls... (Abstract - The future condition or time is described by a probability distribution which may be used to assess the risk of component failure. The assessed risk may be used to determine whether the part should continue in service, be replaced or repaired) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Goldfine to the continuous flow engine comprising the one or more second components of Robinson in view of Gruber to include ...the failure mode, wherein the failure mode is based on a risk of failure of the one or more ... components between scheduled maintenances or overhauls...
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Goldfine to Robinson in view of Gruber to do so as it provides / allows to predicting a risk of failure before a future time ([0011]).
Reasons For No Prior Art Rejection
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the evidence obtained and made of record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art of record as cited within this Office Action, nor those cited, in the additional references cited , alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious “wherein the collected data regarding components serviced during the maintenance or overhaul comprises collected data based on an evaluation of a crack in the components during the maintenance or overhaul including a length of the crack, a shape of the crack and a direction of the crack.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights