DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on October 15, 2025, for the application with serial number 19/033,030.
Claims 1, 26, 32, and 34 are amended.
Claims 23 and 25 are canceled.
Claims 37 and 38 are added.
Claims 1-22, 24, and 26-38 are pending.
Interview
The Examiner acknowledges the interview conducted on August 7, 2025, in which proposed amendments were discussed.
Response to Remarks/Amendments
35 USC §101 Rejections
The Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims as being directed to an ineligible abstract idea, contending that the claims recite an improvement in asset lifecycle optimization technology. See Remarks p. 18. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites: “using the prediction of evolution of damage and failure time of the aging asset to recommend optimal lifecycle decision strategies comprising: [listed maintenance and remedial strategies].” An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP §2106.05(a). The present claims merely recite the idea of using a predict to recommend an optimal strategy that is recited at a high level of generality. No particular manner of achieving the desired outcome of an optimal decision is recited. The use of probabilistic modeling merely amounts to the use of a mathematical relationship that is an abstract idea. The use of diverse data sources does not provide a practical application. The data and information input into the system are part of the abstract ideas of predicting damage and failure time of an aging asset; and using the prediction to recommend lifecycle decision strategies. The maximization of ROI is evidence that the claims recite a business solution to a business problem. No apparent improvement to technology or a technical field is recited in the claims.
The rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility is maintained.
35 USC §112 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the rejections under 35 USC §112 are withdrawn.
35 USC §103 Rejections
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, the prior art rejections of the previously presented claims are withdrawn. Note, however, that new claim 37 is rejected as being obvious over Shetty in view of Stillinger.
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.
The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) provides detailed rules for determining subject matter eligibility for claims in §2106. Those rules provide a basis for the analysis and finding of ineligibility that follows.
Claims 1-22, 24, and 26-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Although claims(s) 1-22, 24, and 26-38 are all directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claims are directed to predicting damage and failure time of an aging asset (as evidenced by the preamble of independent claim 1); and using the prediction to recommend lifecycle decision strategies (as evidenced by exemplary independent claim 1; “using the prediction of evolution of damage and failure time . . . to recommend optimal lifecycle decision strategies”); abstract ideas. Mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity are ineligible abstract ideas, including relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and managing personal behavior and relationships, and interactions between people; respectively. See MPEP §2106.04(a). The limitations of exemplary claim 1 include: “providing . . . a probabilistic, physics-based, causal network, comprising a plurality of random variable nodes . . . ;” “applying the probabilistic physics-based causal network to an aging asset;” “using the network . . . to predict the evolution of damage and failure time of the aging asset;” and “recommend optimal lifecycle decision strategies.” The steps are all steps for applying a network probabilistic nodes comprising mathematical formulas and/or calculations that, when considered alone and in combination, are part of the abstract ideas of predicting damage and failure time of an aging asset; and using the prediction to recommend lifecycle decision strategies. The dependent claims further recite steps for that are part of the abstract idea of predicting damage and failure time of an aging asset; and using the prediction to recommend lifecycle decision strategies. These claim elements, when considered alone and in combination, are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mathematical concept which includes using Bayesian equations to make a prediction regarding a physical process; and using the prediction to determine the best mitigation and remedial strategies.
Under step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, a claim that recites a judicial exception must be evaluated to determine whether the claim provides a practical application of the judicial exception. Additional elements of the independent claims amount to generic computer hardware that does not provide a practical application (a processor is recited in independent claim 1; no hardware is recited in independent claims 37 and 38). See MPEP §2106.04(d)[I]. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, nor do they recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. See MPEP §2106.05(a). Independent claim 1 recites the use of a learning system that is understood to be “machine learning;” but the abstract idea of predicting damage and failure time of an aging asset is generally linked to a machine learning environment for implementation. Therefore, the recitation of machine learning amounts to a technological environment that does not provide a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(h). The claims require no more than a generic computer (a processor is recited in independent claim 1; no hardware is recited in independent claims 37 and 38) to implement the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Because the claims only recite use of a generic computer, they do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine. See MPEP §2106.05(b). For these reasons, the claims do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, nor do they amount to significantly more than an abstract idea under step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims recite ineligible subject matter under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210064456 A1 to Shetty (hereinafter ‘SHETTY’) in view of US 20150269490 A1 to Stillinger et al. (hereinafter ‘STILLINGER’).
Claim 37 (New)
SHETTY discloses a probabilistic, physics-based (see ¶[0106] and [0113]; the visualization of the analytical data comprises a graph indicating corresponding probabilities of failure by the corresponding specific manner or way of failing of the failure mode for the lifetime of the physical instance of the equipment model), causal method for predicting the evolution of damage and failure time of an aging asset (see ¶[0078]-[0081]; random external events are causing mortality or failure based on the β values. In other instances, an aging process causes parts to fail as time goes on) comprising:
implementing a damage (see ¶[0052]; stress cycles) and failure time (see ¶[0046]; time data indicating a time of day that failure occurred) model for an aging asset to predict evolution of damage and failure time of the aging asset (see again ¶[0043]; accurately estimate the probability of failure or remaining useful life of the equipment model).
wherein the aging asset comprises: an aging asset comprising equipment in an industrial facility or plant in energy, fossil fuel, power, and manufacturing industries (see ¶[0030] and [0059]; a production environment and production processes), and
the equipment is selected from a piping system, one or more pipes, one or more piping components, or any combination thereof; a pressure vessel, a tower, a vessel, a drum, a tank, other fixed equipment, or any combination thereof;
a heat exchanger, cooler, heater, boiler, other heat transfer equipment, or any combination thereof;
a compressor, pump, turbine, other rotating equipment, or any combination thereof (see ¶[0046]; a hydraulic pump);
a pressure relief system, pressure relief valve, pressure relief device, or any combination thereof; or any combination thereof,
SHETTY does not specifically disclose, but STILLINGER discloses, wherein implementing a damage and failure time model comprises providing a probabilistic, physics-based, causal network, comprising a plurality of random-variable nodes (see ¶[0005]; a Bayesian network in which random variables are represented as nodes. A probability distribution is associated with each of the nodes in the model).
SHETTY further discloses wherein the nodes represent at least one of: damage initiation time, damage state, damage rate (see ¶[0052]; stress cycles),, damage causal factors, observations (see ¶[0041]; performance observed in supply chains), wherein the observations are gathered using detection or measuring methods by a mechanical device or human, at one or more points in time, human expert knowledge (see ¶[0039]; human resources application can enable analysis), failure state, and failure time (see ¶[0046]; time data indicating a time of day that failure occurred); and
applying the probabilistic physics-based causal network to the aging asset to predict the evolution of damage and failure time of the aging asset (see ¶[0043]; accurately estimate the probability of failure or remaining useful life of the equipment model); and
using the prediction of evolution of damage and failure time of the aging asset to: predict damage rates using modeling and field data (see ¶[0052]; stress cycles),
quantify effectiveness of inspection, maintenance, mitigation, and process activities considered for the aging asset (see ¶[0059]; test substantiation for new designs with minimum cost, maintenance planning and cost effective replacement strategies. See also ¶[0031]; an embodiment of the subsystem 138 connects traditional models, such as computational fluid dynamics, heat transfer, stress, and other physical models through the probabilistic model 222 with models such as manufacturing, material processing, raw material and finished part inspection, cost, and forecasting models. Simulation models that allow engineers to simulate processes such as machining, finish operations, and finish part inspections can also be used to quantify uncertainties in component performance and are also connected to the probabilistic model 222 as described herein),
plan for inspection, maintenance, mitigation, and process activities for the aging asset, and adjusting said inspection, maintenance, mitigation, and process activity plans for the aging asset in real time (see again ¶[0078]-[0081]; random external events are causing mortality or failure based on the β values. In other instances, an aging process causes parts to fail as time goes on); and
analyze data from inspections and streaming sensors to continuously update a current state of knowledge for the aging asset (see ¶[0043]; accurately estimate the probability of failure or remaining useful life of the equipment model).
SHETTY discloses failure mode analysis using parametric equipment models, where a model may indicate a random failure indicated by a probability of failure and remaining useful life. See ¶[0050], [0061], and [0078]. STILLINGER discloses modeling probability of failure using a physics-based functional model that correlates random variables to decision makers, such as probability of failure and failure modes. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the Bayesian network as taught by STILLINGER in the system executing the method of SHETTY with the motivation to use a probability of failure to generate an equipment model to estimate remaining useful life of equipment.
Lack of Prior Art Rejection
A thorough search was conducted, but the search did not return art that anticipates or renders obvious the limitations of dependent claims 1-22, 24, and 26-36, and 38. Those claims would be allowable if the rejections under 35 USC §101 is overcome.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN whose telephone number is (571)270-7947. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270-5396. 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.
/RICHARD N SCHEUNEMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624