Predicting a specific malfunction of a specific mechanical or electrical component based on specific parameters: technical

This decision concerns a European patent application relating to a method for prediction of a malfunction of a unit (e.g., an industrial asset). Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0182/20 (Malfunction prediction/HITACHI ENERGY) of October 24, 2023, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

The invention

The invention concerns predicting future malfunctions of mechanical or electrical components based on the current values of one or more parameters. Essentially, the invention is calculating the probability of a malfunction M based on the current state of parameter(s) according to some mathematical functions.

Figure 1 of EP3183699

Here is how the invention was defined by claim 1 of the sole request:

Is it patentable?

The examining division held that in claim 1 the technical features were notorious, and the non-technical features did not provide a technical effect. No prior art was cited – neither in the search report nor in the decision under appeal. In detail, the division held that calculating the probability of a malfunction in a mechanical or electrical component constituted a non-technical modelling and forecasting process, which was an abstract intellectual activity. The calculated probability was deemed a piece of information, which lacked a technical effect in itself as any effect depend on human decision-making.

In the appeal proceedings, the applicant amended the claims (the above sole request) and could convince the Board to remit the case back to the examining division. In detail:

Firstly, the Board confirmed that claim 1 comprises a number of technical features:

3.4 Beyond the server-based processing, the method in claim 1 comprises a number of technical features. Firstly, the method involves measuring specific parameters (e.g. temperature and lubricant condition in the bearings of a gas turbine), which is inherently technical (G 1/19, points 85, 99). Furthermore, these measurements are used to predict specific malfunctions in particular components (e.g. a bearing defect in a gas turbine or an insulation defect in a transformer). The Board considers that the choice of parameters for predicting the specified malfunctions reflects technical considerations about the functioning of the claimed mechanical or electrical components (i.e. gas turbine, transformer, and diesel engine).

Then, the Board made a detail discussion whether the mathematical calculations are technical or non-technical. The Board found that claim 1 corresponds to the second situation of two main situations identified in G 1/19 in which numerical calculations contribute to the technical character of the invention:

3.6 G 1/19 identifies two main situations in which numerical calculations contribute to the technical character of the invention.

First, when the calculated numerical data provide a technical effect, which is at least implied in the claim. This is the case when their potential use is limited to technical purposes (G 1/19, points 124 and 128).

Second, when the calculated numerical data represent an indirect measurement of the physical state or property of a specific physical entity (G 1/19, point 99; see also T 3226/19 – Opportunity estimation/LANDMARK GRAPHICS, points 2.5 to 2.7). In this case, technicality is independent of the data’s use.

The Board sees the conditional probability obtained by the method of claim 1 as an indirect measurement of the physical state (i.e., a particular failure) of a specific physical entity based on the following observations:

3.9 Firstly, the claimed method involves taking a measurement of a specific physical entity at a first point in time and estimating the state of this physical entity (i.e., its probability of failure) at another point in time. This is similar to the example in G 1/19, point 99, where the measurement of a specific physical entity at a specific location is obtained from measurements of another physical entity and/or measurements at another location.

3.10 Secondly, the estimate of the component’s future state is based on a mathematical framework that credibly reflects reality. The Board considers this to be an essential factor in deciding whether the calculated numerical data can be seen as an indirect measurement. Arbitrary or speculative models and algorithms that are not grounded in reality are not capable of predicting the physical state or property of a real physical entity. Such abstract calculations cannot be regarded as (indirect) measurements.

In claim 1, however, the probability is calculated from the transition matrix T, the conditional probability distribution P(M|a), and the current measurement of the parameter a. The mathematical framework in the claim is rooted in stochastic modelling and simulation, specifically Markov chains, which are recognised for credibly capturing and predicting the transition dynamics of systems based on empirical data.

The fact that the result is a probability does not detract from its ability to provide a technically meaningful estimate of the component’s state. Making accurate predictions in the real world, given all its uncertainties, is rarely possible.

3.11 Lastly, there is a credible causal link between the measured parameters and the predicted malfunctions. For instance, a bearing defect in a gas turbine is likely to generate more heat, degrade lubricant, and cause vibrations in the shaft and/or casing. Therefore, temperature, lubricant condition, and shaft or casing vibrations are suitable parameters for predicting a bearing defect.

3.12 In summary, the Board is satisfied that the calculated probability provides a credible estimate of the future physical state of a specific physical entity and, therefore, can be seen as an indirect measurement.

Finally, the Board concluded that all features in the claim contribute to the technical character of the invention and must be examined for obviousness. The Board remitted the case to the examining division for further prosecution including a search (Article 111(1) EPC).

More information

You can read the whole decision here: decision T 0182/20 (Malfunction prediction/HITACHI ENERGY) of October 24, 2023, of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!