DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to the “bypass” application (not a § 371 national stage application) filed on April 22, 2025. As noted in MPEP § 1895, a U.S. national application filed under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a) (claiming benefit to a PCT application designating the U.S.) as a continuation without formally entering the national stage under § 371 is known as a bypass continuation. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent claims.
Claims 1-20 are originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 19/185,268) and each of its parent applications were filed after March 16, 2013; and, therefore, this application is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
The instant application (U.S. App. No. 19/185,268) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0252407 of HAYASE et al. (hereinafter “Hayase”).
Priority/Benefit Claims
A U.S. benefit claim has been made in this application to international (PCT) application No. PCT/JP2023/035616 filed on September 29, 2023 (“Parent International Application”).
A foreign priority has been claimed in this application to Japanese Application 2023-025851 filed on February 22, 2023. Examiner notes that April 22, 2025 is exactly 30 months from February 22, 2023.
Continuation
This application is a continuation application of international (PCT) application No. PCT/JP2023/035616 filed on September 29, 2023 (“Parent International Application”). See MPEP §§ 1895 and 201.07. In accordance with MPEP § 609.02 A. 2 and MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), the Examiner has reviewed and considered the prior art cited in the Parent Application. Also in accordance with MPEP § 2001.06(b) (last paragraph), all documents cited or considered ‘of record’ in the Parent Application are now considered cited or ‘of record’ in this application. In addition, Applicant(s) is reminded that a listing of the information cited or ‘of record’ in the Parent Application need not be resubmitted in this application unless Applicant(s) desires the information to be printed on a patent issuing from this application. See MPEP § 609.02 A. 2. Finally, Applicant(s) is reminded that the prosecution history of the Parent Application is relevant in this application. See e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1815, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that statements made in prosecution of one patent are relevant to the scope of all sibling patents).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-18 are objected for improper grammar/form in view of failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. To overcome these objections, Examiner suggests Applicant amend each of Claims 2-18, as follows: “[[A]] The computer implemented system of claim”. In a more detailed explanation, each of Claims 2-18 recites “A…system according to claim… ” (bolding added by Examiner); however, Examiner understands that the phrase “according to” as encompassing, for the purposes of this case only, a definition of “in a manner conforming with” or “in relation to”. Since Claims 2-18 appear to be drawn to a system (i.e., any maintenance management system) that merely “conforms to” elements recited in Claim 1, none of Claims 2-18 appear to require each and every system limitation recited in Claim 1. Consequently, Claims 2-18 each fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends and each fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Therefore, each of Claims 2-18 is an improper dependent claim and, therefore, is objected to. Appropriate corrections are required. For example, Examiner suggests Applicant amend each of Claims 2-18, as follows: “[[A]] The computer implemented systemof claim”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of Applicant’s specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, a claim limitation that meets the following three-prong test will be interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation recites the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Although not recited in Applicant’s original set of claims, it may be worth being mindful that use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Like in this patent application, absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc).
Claim limitations in this application that recite the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (e.g., “…unit”, and “…unit”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a data acquisition unit” and “an abnormality determination unit” as recited in Claim 20. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA , they are being interpreted to cover corresponding structure described (if available) in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Independent Claim 20 is indefinite under § 112(b) because each of the "unit" elements that comprise the claimed subject matter is a claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA because the unit elements in Claim 20 recite function but fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function in accordance with MPEP § 2181. More specifically, each of recited "unit" elements recited in Claim 20 is being used as a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; each of the generic placeholders (i.e., “a data acquisition unit” and “an abnormality determination unit” as recited in independent Claim 20) is modified by functional language (i.e., “to acquire” and “to determine”, respectively) and each of the generic placeholders (i.e., “a data acquisition unit” and “an abnormality determination unit”) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. See MPEP § 2181 and Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc). “Claiming a processor to perform a specialized function without disclosing the internal structure of the processor in the form of an algorithm, results in claims that exhibit the ‘overbreadth inherent in open-ended functional claims’” as the Federal Circuit stated in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 85 USPQ2d 1654, (Fed. Cir. 2008). Examiner has rebutted the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked since each of the generic placeholders (i.e., “a data acquisition unit” and “an abnormality determination unit”) recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function as required under MPEP § 2181. Consequently, Claim 20 invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is indefinite and rejected under § 112(b) of the AIA . See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The inquiry under [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2, does not turn on whether a patentee has ‘incorporated by reference’ material into the specification relating to structure, but instead asks first ‘whether structure is described in the specification, and, if so, whether one skilled in the art would identify the structure from that description.’ ”). Appropriate corrections/clarifications are required to Claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-20 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s pending claims recite calculating/determining whether or not a state/condition (an abnormality state/condition) exists based on acquired data (e.g., mathematical data/inputs) — {for example,
“there is an abnormality… when the calculated index falls outside a predetermined index range” per Hayase at ¶ [0013];
“there is an abnormality… when the number of indices out of the index range among the plurality of indices is equal to or greater than a predetermined reference number” per Hayase at ¶ [0014];
“there is an abnormality… when the number of indices out of the index range among the plurality of indices is greater than or equal to the reference number within a predetermined period of time” per Hayase at ¶ [0042];
“there is an abnormality… when a total value of a plurality of abnormality degrees calculated for each index exceeds a predetermined reference total value” per Hayase at ¶ [0015];
“calculates a sum of a plurality of abnormality degrees calculated for each index. When the calculated sum exceeds a predetermined reference sum… there is an abnormality” per Hayase at ¶ [0047]; and
“there is an abnormality… when a calculated sum of abnormality degrees exceeds a predetermined reference sum” per Hayase at ¶ [0053]; etc.}
— as more particularly recited in the pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): each of Applicant’s recited processes/operations of “to acquire” data; (only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a thermal power plant comprising a pulverizer and a boiler, wherein the pulverizer pulverizes solid fuel and supplies the pulverized solid fuel to the boiler, and a device comprising at least one configured processor; and (only Claims 1 and 19) at least one configured processor. However, calculating/determining whether or not a state/condition (an abnormality state/condition) exists based on acquired data (e.g., mathematical data/inputs), as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a mathematical concept and/or a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) provides examples of mathematical concepts, such as “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) provides examples of “mental processes”, such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the pending claims as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, Applicant’s pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, the pending claims as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of determining/calculating whether or not a state/condition (an abnormality state/condition) exists based on acquired data (e.g., mathematical data/inputs). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm”). Although the pending claims require determining whether or not a state/condition (an abnormality state/condition) exists based on acquired data (e.g., mathematical data/inputs), as discussed above, this technique encompasses a mathematical concept in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods or “performing” a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a pulverizer that pulverizes solids that can be used as fuel for a power plant, such as generally illustrated in Figure 1-2 of Applicant’s drawings, a thermal power plant comprising a pulverizer and a boiler, wherein the pulverizer pulverizes solid fuel and supplies the pulverized solid fuel to the boiler, etc.}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operation/process of acquiring, as further explained below. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept). For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s Claims 1-20 do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Claim 1 are performed by the generically recited “device comprises at least one processor configured” while limitations recited in Claim 19 are performed by the generically recited “at least one processor”, these limitations, taken individually and in combination, are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a pulverizer that pulverizes solids that can be used as fuel for a power plant, such as generally illustrated in Figure 1-2 of Applicant’s drawings, a thermal power plant comprising a pulverizer and a boiler, wherein the pulverizer pulverizes solid fuel and supplies the pulverized solid fuel to the boiler, etc.}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each recited operation/process of “to acquire…data”, as further explained below. Furthermore, Examiner notes that Claim 20 is drawn to a so-called “device”; however, the device does not appear to recite, require, or indicate implementation by a structural element since none of “unit” limitations recited in Applicant’s Claim 20 appear to be required to be structural elements. Even if a structural element was implied in Claim 20, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a pulverizer that pulverizes solids that can be used as fuel for a power plant, such as generally illustrated in Figure 1-2 of Applicant’s drawings}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Claim 20’s recited operations/processes of “to acquire…data”, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: each of Applicant’s recited processes/operations of “to acquire” data; (only Claim 1 and corresponding dependent claims) a thermal power plant comprising a pulverizer and a boiler, wherein the pulverizer pulverizes solid fuel and supplies the pulverized solid fuel to the boiler, and a device comprising at least one configured processor; and (only Claims 1 and 19) at least one configured processor. However, each of these non-abstract components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of to acquire and to determine — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of any computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide conventional computer implementations known to the industry (e.g., petrochemical and oil-refining industries in Parker v. Flook was insufficient under 101). Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in Claims 1-20 taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer functions/activity. The steps/processes of to acquire and to determine, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s Claims 1-20, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the steps of “to acquire” encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the steps of “to acquire” encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); and each of the steps of determining encompasses a simple calculation/mathematical function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., Bilski, Freddie Mac, and In re Abele}. Examiner notes it may be worth being mindful of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. In addition, Examiner notes that a thermal power plant comprising a pulverizer and a boiler, wherein the pulverizer pulverizes solid fuel and supplies the pulverized solid fuel to the boiler appear as a combination of elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field, particularly in view of Applicant’s specification’s description of these additional elements such as, for example, specification paragraph [0003] of Hayase (i.e., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0252407 of “Hayase”). Examiner notes that employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s Claims 1-20 do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph(s) of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form(s) the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-13, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under America Invents Act (AIA ) 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Publication No. WO 2023/068329 A1 of Sotaro YAMAGUCHI et al. (hereinafter “Yamaguchi”) with an accompanying English translation obtained from “WIPO Translate” on 4/28/2026, which is provided in this Office communication appended to the copy of Yamaguchi provided herewith.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a maintenance management system comprising:
a thermal power plant comprising a pulverizer and a boiler, wherein the pulverizer pulverizes solid fuel and supplies the pulverized solid fuel to the boiler (e.g., “power plant 1 including the solid fuel pulverization device 100 and the boiler 200 shown in Fig. 1” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0014]; “The solid fuel pulverization device 100… includes a mill…10” and “mill 10… pulverizing solid fuel such as coal…to be supplied to the boiler 200 into fine powder fuel” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0015]–[0016]; Yamaguchi at ¶ [0002]; and Figure 1 of Yamaguchi); and
an abnormality determination device configured to determine whether or not there is an abnormality in the pulverizer wherein the abnormality determination device comprises at least one processor configured to (e.g., “…solid fuel pulverizing device 100… includes a mill (pulverization unit) 10… a coal feeder (fuel supply unit) 25, a blower unit (conveyance gas supply unit) 30, a state detection unit 40, and a control unit 50” or “control unit (detection unit) 50” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0015] and [0044]; “abnormality detection system includes … control unit (detection unit) 50 that detects abnormality (damage or the like)…on the basis of…information detected” and “the control unit 50” determines that an abnormality is sensed/detected —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]; abnormality detection system “accumulating data according to each operation condition” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0077]; the control unit 50 determines that an abnormal condition exists —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0081]; “abnormality detection system comprising: a detection unit… that detects information generated… and a detection unit (50) that detects an abnormality … on the basis of the information detected by the detection unit” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0140]; and Figure 1 of Yamaguchi):
acquire operation data indicating an operation state of the pulverizer (e.g., “…pulverization device 100…includes… a state detection unit 40, and a control unit 50” or “control unit (detection unit) 50” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0015] and [0044]; “abnormality detection system includes … the control unit (detecting unit) 50 that detects abnormality (damage or the like)… based on… information detected” and an abnormality is detected —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]; “the abnormality sensing system may…permanent monitoring” or perform continuous measurements and abnormality sensing system configured to “accumulating data according to each operation condition” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0076] and [0077]; “abnormality detection system comprising: a detection unit… that detects information generated… and… information detected by the detection unit” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0140]; and “data measured or detected by the state detection unit 40 of the mill 10 is transmitted to the control unit 50…. for example, [the state detecting unit 40]… measures… the differential pressure of the mill 10” and “…database [stores] … present operation data of the mill 10…. The operation state is … the supply amount of the solid fuel (coal supply amount)…and the differential pressure between the gas flowing into the mill 10 and the gas discharged from the mill 10” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034] and [0121]); and
determine whether or not there is an abnormality in the pulverizer based on the acquired operation data (e.g., “abnormality detection system… detects an abnormality (damage or the like)…based on…information sensed” and “when it is determined… abnormal, the abnormality detection information may be displayed on the display device 96 of the plant control device 94” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]; abnormality detection system “accumulating data according to each operation condition” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0077]; the control unit 50 determines that an abnormal condition exists —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0081]; “abnormality detection system comprising: … a detection unit (50) that detects an abnormality … on the basis of the information detected” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0140]; “abnormality detection determination…performed by capturing a change tendency by an MT method (Maharanobis Taguchi System)” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0079]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, wherein the operation data includes a flow rate of supplied air supplied into the pulverizer to deliver powder of the solid fuel pulverized in the pulverizer out of the pulverizer by an airflow (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034]–[0035], [0076]–[0077], [0121] and [0140]; and Figure 1 of Yamaguchi).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 6, wherein the pulverizer comprises an air supply pipe and an air flow rate sensor provided in the air supply pipe (e.g., Figure 1 of Yamaguchi; and Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034]–[0035], [0076]–[0077], [0121] and [0140]), and wherein the air flow rate sensor detects the flow rate of the supplied air (e.g., Figure 1 of Yamaguchi; and Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034]–[0035], [0076]–[0077], [0121] and [0140]).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 6, wherein the operation data includes an opening level of a flow damper configured to control the flow rate of the supplied air (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034]–[0035], [0076]–[0077], [0121] and [0140]; and Figure 1 of Yamaguchi).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 8, wherein the pulverizer comprises a pulverization ECU (Electronic Control Unit) (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0014]–[0016], [0034], [0044], [0076]–[0077], [0080]–[0081], [0084], [0121] and [0140]; and Figure 1 of Yamaguchi), and wherein a control value used by the pulverization ECU when the pulverization ECU controls the flow damper is utilized as the opening level of a flow damper (e.g., Figure 1 of Yamaguchi; and Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034]–[0035], [0076]–[0077], [0121] and [0140]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 6, wherein the operation data includes a pressure difference between pressure of the supplied air and pressure of delivered air delivered from the pulverizer to deliver the powder by an airflow (e.g., “present operation data of the mill 10…. operation state … the differential pressure between the gas flowing into the mill 10 and the gas discharged from the mill 10” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0121]; and Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034] and [0121]).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 10, wherein the pulverizer comprises a first air pressure sensor provided in an air supply pipe and a second air pressure sensor provided in a powder delivery pipe (e.g., Figure 1 of Yamaguchi; and Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034]–[0035], [0076]–[0077], [0121] and [0140]), and wherein the first air pressure sensor detects the pressure of the supplied air and the second air pressure sensor detects the pressure of the delivered air (e.g., Figure 1 of Yamaguchi; and Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034]–[0035], [0076]–[0077], [0121] and [0140]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, wherein the operation data includes a supply amount of the solid fuel supplied to the pulverizer (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0035] and [0121]).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 12, wherein the pulverizer comprises a storage bunker and a coal chute (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶ [0015]; and Figure 1 of Yamaguchi), and wherein a weight of the solid fuel delivered from the storage bunker to the coal chute per unit time is utilized as the supply amount of the solid fuel (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0035] and [0121]).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality determination device further comprises a monitor that visually presents information to an operator of the thermal power plant (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0053], [0080]–[0081] and [0085]; and Figures 1, 5 and 21 of Yamaguchi).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality determination device further comprises a lamp that visually presents information to an operator of the thermal power plant (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0053], [0080]–[0081] and [0085]; and Figures 1, 5 and 21 of Yamaguchi).
Regarding Claim 19, Yamaguchi discloses an abnormality determination device configured to determine whether or not there is an abnormality in a pulverizer that pulverizes solid fuel and supplies the pulverized solid fuel to a boiler of a thermal power plant, the abnormality determination device comprising at least one processor configured (e.g., “power plant 1 including the solid fuel pulverization device 100 and the boiler 200 shown in Fig. 1” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0014]; “The solid fuel pulverization device 100…includes a mill…10” and “mill 10… pulverizing solid fuel such as coal…to be supplied to the boiler 200 into fine powder fuel” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0015]–[0016]; Yamaguchi at ¶ [0002]; and Figure 1 of Yamaguchi) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Yamaguchi discloses an abnormality determination device configured to determine whether or not there is an abnormality in a pulverizer that pulverizes solid fuel and supplies the pulverized solid fuel to a boiler of a thermal power plant, the abnormality determination device comprising data acquisition and abnormality determination units (e.g., “power plant 1 including the solid fuel pulverization device 100 and the boiler 200 shown in Fig. 1” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0014]; “The solid fuel pulverization device 100…includes a mill…10” and “mill 10… pulverizing solid fuel such as coal…to be supplied to the boiler 200 into fine powder fuel” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0015]–[0016]; Yamaguchi at ¶ [0002]; and Figure 1 of Yamaguchi) to perform respective processes/steps as recited in Claim 1, and, therefore, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over International Publication No. WO 2023/068329 A1 (“Yamaguchi”) in view of International Publication No. WO/2021/045002 A1 of Kiminori SATOU et al. (hereinafter “Satou”). Examiner notes that Satou was listed in Applicant’s IDS filed on 4/28/2025.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality determination device comprises a server that supports maintenance of the thermal power plant (e.g., Figure 21 of Yamaguchi; and Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0081], [0084] and [0134]), but Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the abnormality determination device is configured using cloud computing. However, Satou teaches a “maintenance management system A” including a “thermal power plant 1” and an “abnormality detection device 2” (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0016]); the “thermal power plant 1” transmitting “operation data” of the thermal power plant 1 to the “abnormality detection device 2” via the “communication network N” (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0017]); “The abnormality detection device 2 is an information processing device that collects operation data of the power generation facility 4 from the thermal power plant 1 via the communication network N and detects an abnormal condition of the power generation facility 4 from the collected operation data in an early stage. For example, the abnormality detection device 2 is a server that supports the maintenance of the power generation facility 4 and may be configured by using cloud computing (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0018]); as well as wherein the abnormality determination device is configured using cloud computing (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the abnormality determination device is configured using cloud computing, as taught by Satou, into the method/system disclosed by Yamaguchi, which is directed toward detecting an irregularity or an abnormality (damage or the like) based on physically sensed/detected information (e.g., “abnormality detection system… detects an abnormality (damage or the like)…[based on] …information detected” and “when it is determined… abnormal, the abnormality detection information may be displayed on the display device 96 of the plant control device 94” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor further configured to calculate an index and the at least one processor determines that there is an abnormality in the pulverizer based on operational data acquired (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0034], [0077] and [0121]), but Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose the index indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, and wherein, when the calculated index is out of a predetermined index range, the processor determines that there is the abnormality. However, Satou teaches a “maintenance management system A” including a “thermal power plant 1” and an “abnormality detection device 2” (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0016]); the “thermal power plant 1” transmitting “operation data” of the thermal power plant 1 to the “abnormality detection device 2” via the “communication network N” (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0017]); “The abnormality detection device 2 is an information processing device that collects operation data of the power generation facility 4 from the thermal power plant 1 via the communication network N and detects an abnormal condition of the power generation facility 4 from the collected operation data in an early stage. For example, the abnormality detection device 2 is a server that supports the maintenance of the power generation facility 4 and may be configured by using cloud computing (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0018]); as well as calculating an index indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, and wherein, when the calculated index is out of a predetermined index range, the processor determines that there is the abnormality (e.g., Satou at ¶¶ [0046]–[0048] and [0054]; and Figures 3-5 of Satou). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the index indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, and wherein, when the calculated index is out of a predetermined index range, the processor determines that there is the abnormality, as taught by Satou, into the method/system disclosed by Yamaguchi, which is directed toward detecting an irregularity or an abnormality (damage or the like) based on physically sensed/detected information (e.g., “abnormality detection system… detects an abnormality (damage or the like)…[based on] …information detected” and “when it is determined… abnormal, the abnormality detection information may be displayed on the display device 96 of the plant control device 94” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]; abnormality detection system “accumulating data according to each operation condition” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0077]; the control unit 50 determines that an abnormal condition exists —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0081]; “abnormality detection system comprising:… a detection unit (50) that detects an abnormality … on the basis of the information detected” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0140]; “abnormality detection determination…performed by capturing a change tendency by an MT method (Maharanobis Taguchi System)” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0079]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, but Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor further configured to calculate a plurality of indices each indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, wherein the plurality of calculated indices are different from each other in terms of a combination of two pieces of the operation data used to calculate each index, and wherein the at least one processor further configured to: determine whether or not an index is out of an index range predetermined for each index for each of the plurality of indices, and determine that there is the abnormality when a number of indices out of the index range among the plurality of indices is greater than or equal to a predetermined reference number. However, Satou teaches a “maintenance management system A” including a “thermal power plant 1” and an “abnormality detection device 2” (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0016]); the “thermal power plant 1” transmitting “operation data” of the thermal power plant 1 to the “abnormality detection device 2” via the “communication network N” (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0017]); “The abnormality detection device 2 is an information processing device that collects operation data of the power generation facility 4 from the thermal power plant 1 via the communication network N and detects an abnormal condition of the power generation facility 4 from the collected operation data in an early stage. For example, the abnormality detection device 2 is a server that supports the maintenance of the power generation facility 4 and may be configured by using cloud computing (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0018]); as well as wherein at least one processor is configured to calculate a plurality of indices each indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, wherein the plurality of calculated indices are different from each other in terms of a combination of two pieces of the operation data used to calculate each index, and wherein the at least one processor further configured to: determine whether or not an index is out of an index range predetermined for each index for each of the plurality of indices, and determine that there is the abnormality when a number of indices out of the index range among the plurality of indices is greater than or equal to a predetermined reference number (e.g., Satou at ¶¶ [0046]–[0048], [0054] and [0064]; and Figures 3-5 of Satou). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the at least one processor further configured to calculate a plurality of indices each indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, wherein the plurality of calculated indices are different from each other in terms of a combination of two pieces of the operation data used to calculate each index, and wherein the at least one processor further configured to: determine whether or not an index is out of an index range predetermined for each index for each of the plurality of indices, and determine that there is the abnormality when a number of indices out of the index range among the plurality of indices is greater than or equal to a predetermined reference number, as taught by Satou, into the method/system disclosed by Yamaguchi, which is directed toward detecting an irregularity or an abnormality (damage or the like) based on physically sensed/detected information (e.g., “abnormality detection system… detects an abnormality (damage or the like)…[based on] …information detected” and “when it is determined… abnormal, the abnormality detection information may be displayed on the display device 96 of the plant control device 94” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]; abnormality detection system “accumulating data according to each operation condition” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0077]; the control unit 50 determines that an abnormal condition exists —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0081]; “abnormality detection system comprising: … a detection unit (50) that detects an abnormality … on the basis of the information detected” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0140]; “abnormality detection determination…performed by capturing a change tendency by an MT method (Maharanobis Taguchi System)” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0079]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, but Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor further configured to calculate a plurality of indices each indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, wherein the plurality of calculated indices are different from each other in terms of a combination of two pieces of the operation data used to calculate each index, and wherein the at least one processor further configured to: calculate an abnormality degree based on a shift amount between an index reference value predetermined for each index and an index for each of the plurality of indices, and determine that there is the abnormality when a sum of a plurality of abnormality degrees each calculated for each index exceeds a predetermined reference sum. However, Satou teaches a “maintenance management system A” including a “thermal power plant 1” and an “abnormality detection device 2” (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0016]); the “thermal power plant 1” transmitting “operation data” of the thermal power plant 1 to the “abnormality detection device 2” via the “communication network N” (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0017]); “The abnormality detection device 2 is an information processing device that collects operation data of the power generation facility 4 from the thermal power plant 1 via the communication network N and detects an abnormal condition of the power generation facility 4 from the collected operation data in an early stage. For example, the abnormality detection device 2 is a server that supports the maintenance of the power generation facility 4 and may be configured by using cloud computing (e.g., Satou at ¶ [0018]); as well as wherein at least one processor is configured to calculate a plurality of indices each indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, wherein the plurality of calculated indices are different from each other in terms of a combination of two pieces of the operation data used to calculate each index, and wherein the at least one processor further configured to: calculate an abnormality degree based on a shift amount between an index reference value predetermined for each index and an index for each of the plurality of indices, and determine that there is the abnormality when a sum of a plurality of abnormality degrees each calculated for each index exceeds a predetermined reference sum (e.g., Figures 3-5 of Satou; and Satou at ¶¶ [0046]–[0048], [0054] and [0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the at least one processor further configured to calculate a plurality of indices each indicating a correlation between two mutually different pieces of the operation data acquired, wherein the plurality of calculated indices are different from each other in terms of a combination of two pieces of the operation data used to calculate each index, and wherein the at least one processor further configured to: calculate an abnormality degree based on a shift amount between an index reference value predetermined for each index and an index for each of the plurality of indices, and determine that there is the abnormality when a sum of a plurality of abnormality degrees each calculated for each index exceeds a predetermined reference sum, as taught by Satou, into the method/system disclosed by Yamaguchi, which is directed toward detecting an irregularity or an abnormality (damage or the like) based on physically sensed/detected information (e.g., “abnormality detection system… detects an abnormality (damage or the like)…[based on] …information detected” and “when it is determined… abnormal, the abnormality detection information may be displayed on the display device 96 of the plant control device 94” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]; abnormality detection system “accumulating data according to each operation condition” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0077]; the control unit 50 determines that an abnormal condition exists —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0081]; “abnormality detection system comprising:… a detection unit (50) that detects an abnormality … on the basis of the information detected” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0140]; “abnormality detection determination…performed by capturing a change tendency by an MT method (Maharanobis Taguchi System)” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0079]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over International Publication No. WO 2023/068329 A1 (“Yamaguchi”) in view of International Publication No. WO 2019/163192 A1 of MATSUMOTO et al. (hereinafter “Matsumoto”).
Regarding Claim 14, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, wherein an operation includes a current value of power being supplied to an electric motor configured to drive a movable portion installed in the pulverizer to pulverize the solid fuel (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0018], [0035] and [0121]), but Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the operation data includes the current value of power supplied to the electric motor. However, Matsumoto teaches a pulverization/crushing system 1 including a crusher/pulverizer 2 and a diagnosis device/apparatus 3 (e.g., Figure 1 of Matsumoto; and Matsumoto at ¶ [0024]); the crusher/pulverizer 2 includes a rotating/rotary table 6 (e.g., Figure 1 of Matsumoto; and Matsumoto at ¶ [0024]) that is driven by a drive portion 10. The drive unit 10 is supplied with power from the power supply device 16. The drive unit 10 includes an electric motor and is connected to the central portion of the rotating/rotary table 6 via a rotational shaft 11. Solid fuel (a solid material/substance to be pulverized) is supplied to the center of the table 6 via a fuel loading portion 14 (e.g., Figure 1 of Matsumoto; and Matsumoto at ¶ [0026]) wherein operation data includes a current value of power supplied to an electric motor configured to drive a movable portion installed in the pulverizer to pulverize the solid fuel (e.g., Figures 1 and 6 of Matsumoto; Matsumoto at ¶¶ [0035]–[0036] and [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the operation data includes the current value of power supplied to the electric motor, as taught by Matsumoto, into the method/system disclosed by Yamaguchi, which is directed toward sensing physical parameters of one or more components of power plant to detect an irregularity or an abnormality (damage or the like) in the power plant (e.g., “abnormality detection system… detects an abnormality (damage or the like)…[based on] …information detected” and “when it is determined… abnormal, the abnormality detection information may be displayed on the display device 96 of the plant control device 94” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]; abnormality detection system “accumulating data according to each operation condition” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0077]; the control unit 50 determines that an abnormal condition exists —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0081]; “abnormality detection system comprising… a detection unit (50) that detects an abnormality … on the basis of the information detected” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0140]; “abnormality detection determination…performed by capturing a change tendency by an MT method (Maharanobis Taguchi System)” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0079]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Matsumoto as applied to Claim 14 above, but Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose wherein the pulverizer comprises a current sensor, and wherein the current sensor detects the current value of the power supplied to an electric motor. However, Matsumoto teaches a pulverization/crushing system 1 including a crusher/pulverizer 2 and a diagnosis device/apparatus 3 (e.g., Figure 1 of Matsumoto; and Matsumoto at ¶ [0024]); the crusher/pulverizer 2 includes a rotating/rotary table 6 (e.g., Figure 1 of Matsumoto; and Matsumoto at ¶ [0024]) that is driven by a drive portion 10. The drive unit 10 is supplied with power from the power supply device 16. The drive unit 10 includes an electric motor and is connected to the central portion of the rotating/rotary table 6 via a rotational shaft 11. Solid fuel (a solid material/substance to be pulverized) is supplied to the center of the table 6 via a fuel loading portion 14 (e.g., Figure 1 of Matsumoto; and Matsumoto at ¶ [0026]) wherein the pulverizer comprises a current sensor that detects the current value of the power supplied to an electric motor (e.g., Figures 1 and 6 of Matsumoto; and Matsumoto at ¶¶ [0035]–[0036] and [0049]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the pulverizer comprises a current sensor, and wherein the current sensor detects the current value of the power supplied to an electric motor, as taught by Matsumoto, into the method/system taught by Yamaguchi in view of Matsumoto, which is directed toward sensing physical parameters of one or more components of power plant to detect an irregularity or an abnormality (damage or the like) in the power plant (e.g., “abnormality detection system… detects an abnormality (damage or the like)…[based on] …information detected” and “when it is determined… abnormal, the abnormality detection information may be displayed on the display device 96 of the plant control device 94” —Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0044] and [0080]; abnormality detection system “accumulating data according to each operation condition” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0077]; the control unit 50 determines that an abnormal condition exists —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0081]; “abnormality detection system comprising:… a detection unit (50) that detects an abnormality … on the basis of the information detected” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0140]; “abnormality detection determination…performed by capturing a change tendency by an MT method (Maharanobis Taguchi System)” —Yamaguchi at ¶ [0079]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over International Publication No. WO 2023/068329 A1 (“Yamaguchi”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0218942 of Shigeto MURATA (hereinafter “Murata”).
Regarding Claim 18, Yamaguchi discloses the maintenance management system according to claim 1, wherein the abnormality determination device further comprises an
output device that presents information to an operator of the thermal power plant (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0053], [0080]–[0081] and [0085]; and Figures 1, 5 and 21 of Yamaguchi), but Yamaguchi fails to explicitly disclose the output device including a speaker that auditorily presents the information. However, Murata teaches an output device including a speaker that auditorily presents information to an operator such as an audible warning to the operator about a detected result in power generation system (e.g., Murata at ¶¶ [0029] and [0056]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the output device including a speaker that auditorily presents the information, as taught by Murata, into the method/system disclosed by Yamaguchi, which is directed toward notifying a person about an anomaly when an anomaly is detected (e.g., Yamaguchi at ¶¶ [0053], [0080]–[0081] and [0085];; and Figures 1, 5 and 21 of Yamaguchi), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
CPC Classification Notes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F23K 2201/10 . Pulverizing
F23K 2201/1003 . . Processes to make pulverulent fuels
F23K 2201/1006 . . Mills adapted for use with furnaces
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B02C 15/00 Disintegrating by milling members in the form of rollers or balls co-operating with rings or discs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B02C 13/00 Disintegrating by mills having rotary beater elements
B02C 13/26 . Details
B02C 13/31 . . Safety devices or measures
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B02C 23/00 Auxiliary methods or auxiliary devices or accessories specially adapted for crushing or disintegrating not provided for in preceding groups or not specially adapted to apparatus covered by a single preceding group
B02C 23/04 . Safety devices (in general F16P {; for rotary mills B02C 13/31})
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B02C 25/00 Control arrangements specially adapted for crushing or disintegrating
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0236728 of Deodhar et al. (hereinafter “Deodhar”).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0239366 of Kentaro YABUKI (hereinafter “Yabuki”) which lists “NEC CORPORATION” as an Applicant, and “for each of metrics, number or a ratio of correlations on which correlation destruction is detected out of correlation functions between the metric and each of the other metrics is calculated as an abnormality degree. Then, a fault cause is judged on the basis of the abnormality degree” —Yabuki at [0006].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0326337 of Tsutsumi et al. (hereinafter “Tsutsumi”) listing “MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES” as an assignee and “a control device of a coal pulverizer which enables estimation of a coal output with a precision suited for a purpose. In a control device of a coal pulverizer which pulverizes coal by the coal pulverizer and estimates coal output by which the pulverized coal is output to a boiler, the control device includes a main operation circuit which calculates a command signal associated with a coal feed rate on the basis of detection data from a boiler or a power generator connected to the boiler, and an additional control unit which calculates the deviation between a standard coal output pattern preset in the coal pulverizer, and a current coal output pattern, and adds a calculation result by the additional control unit to the main operation circuit as a correction signal” —Abstract of Tsutsumi.
Examiner notes that Philippines Publication Number 1/2020/551307 (PH 1/2020/551307) of MATSUMOTO et al., which published on August 16, 2021, corresponds to International Publication No. WO 2019/163192 A1 cited above in this non-final Office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights