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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/23/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, & 31 remain pending. Claims 1, 15, & 18 have been amended. Claims 2,14, & 22-30 have been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 line 15 to page 13 line 9, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 20, & 31 under 35 U.S.C. §102 or 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of clai has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 line 5 to page 9 line 25, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 8 of 13 lines 9-11):
“Applicant submits that the independent claims as amended integrate any recited judicial exception into a practical application under step 2A Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo framework.”
& (page 8 of 13 lines 18-20):
“This bandwidth reduction is not merely “extra-solution activity” but rather an integral part of the claimed methods that provides a concrete technological benefit in machinery monitoring systems where efficient data transmission is critical.”
& (page 8 line 27 to page 9 line 3):
“The claimed method achieves this by using only basic arithmetic operations (amplitude differences) on raw time-domain waveform data, rather than computation-intensive time-domain filtering and/or FFT-based methods … This is a concrete technological improvement, not an abstract idea.”
&(page 9 lines 6-10):
“Here, the receiving, deriving, pass filtering, analyzing, and transmitting steps work together to achieve a practical result-enabling efficient bandwidth transmission of machinery event data from a sensor device to a remote device. The claimed steps are not merely abstract data manipulation but rather specific methods that transform raw oversampled waveform data into compressed, transmittable event information.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03(I): “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations; Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave;”
See MPEP 2106.05(I): “An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “This consideration is similar to factors used in past Office guidance (for example, the now superseded Bilski and Mayo analyses) that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following:… (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”
Analysis:
Step 2A Prong Two asks “Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. There are no additional elements which integrate the judicial exception. The “bandwidth reduction”, “basic arithmetic operations (amplitude differences)”, “deriving, pass filtering, analyzing” are directed towards judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the elements of the “sensor device” & the “remote device” and limitations directed towards “receiving”, & “transmitting” are no more than extra solution activity necessarily required by the judicial exception(s) (if no data is collected then the judicial exception doesn’t have data to act upon, and if the results of the judicial exception are not sent to a remote device then the purpose of the judicial exception cannot be implemented).
Conclusion:
The claims recite judicial exceptions but do not implement them into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 line 26 to page 10 line 14, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that (page 9 line 28 to page 10 line 4):
“the Federal Circuit held that “an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements” even when each element individually was known in the art. Similarly here, the specific combination of receiving sensor data, deriving sequential rate of change values from consecutive time-domain intervals based on peak-to-peak amplitude differences, analyzing those streams to distinguish physical phenomena, and transmitting compressed data provides a non-conventional arrangement that amounts to significantly more.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “receiving sensor data” is not significantly more than insignificant extra solution activity (pre solution) of data gathering, the “deriving” and “analyzing” is within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts, and “transmitting” is insignificant extra solution activity (post solution) of using the results. A combination of judicial exceptions with necessary (in particular necessarily implied by those judicial exceptions) extra-solution activity is not significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, & 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”:
Claims 1, 15, & 18 in lines 12-14, lines 8-10, & lines 11-1 recites the limitation "wherein the [first wavelength pass filtered] [first] rate of change data stream comprises a series of sequential values, each sequential value derived from consecutive intervals of the sensory measurement time waveform". It is not clear how “sequential value” are derived from consecutive intervals of the “sensory measurement” at least because “sequential value” apparently implies calculated from previous values which doesn’t require a sensor input while “sensory measurement” would require that the value come from a sensor and not from “consecutive intervals”.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’:
Claims 3-13, & 16-17 in line 1 recites the limitation "the method of claim 1[4][5][11][31]".
Claims 19-21 in line 1 recites the limitation "the method of claim 18[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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, & 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
“distinguishing a first physical phenomenon captured in a sensory measurement time waveform from a second physical phenomenon captured in the sensory measurement time waveform”
“deriving and pass filtering a first rate of change data stream from the sensory measurement time waveform with a processor, wherein each value of the pass filtered first rate of change data stream is based on a difference in a lowest amplitude and a highest amplitude of the sensory measurement time waveform during a first quantity of sensory measurement time waveform samples;”
“deriving and pass filtering a second rate of change data stream from the sensory measurement time waveform with the processor, wherein each value of the pass filtered second rate of change data stream is based on a difference in a lowest amplitude and a highest amplitude of the sensory measurement time waveform during a second quantity of sensory measurement time waveform samples, and wherein the second quantity is larger than the first quantity of sensory measurement time waveform samples, wherein the first rate of change data stream comprises a series of sequential values, each sequential value derived from consecutive intervals of the sensory measurement time waveform;”
“analyzing with the processor the derived first rate of change data stream and the second rate of change data stream to distinguish the first physical phenomenon from the second physical phenomenon captured in the sensory measurement time waveform.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
“distinguishing” “measurement time waveform”,
“deriving and pass filtering” a “data stream”,
“analyzing with the processor” the “derived first rate of change data stream” to “distinguish”
Are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim additionally recites elements/limitations of:
“the method comprising: receiving the sensory measurement time waveform on a processor from a sensor in sensory contact with an object undergoing a first physical phenomenon and a second physical phenomeno
Explanation:
Issue:
The claim recites additional elements/limitations which do not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”
and
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Analysis:
For the judicial exception(s) such as “deriving and pass filtering a first rate of change data stream …” it is necessary to gather data.
For “a processor from a sensor in sensory contact” indicates no more than that there is a generic processor and sensor to gather and perform the judicial exception(s) on data.
“transmitting compressed data … to a remote device.” Is not significantly more than necessary extra solution activity (post-solution). Since to use the inventive concept (judicial exception) it is necessary to get the data.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The elements listed in step 2A prong two amount to no more than necessary extra solution activity or indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“further comprising comparing the first rate of change data stream and the second rate of change data stream with the processor to further determine one or more of friction, shear, rubbing, stiction, and sliding characteristics of the first physical phenomenon.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “comparing” “rate of change data” “with the processor” “to determine”
Are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“further comprising applying expert logic to the first rate of change data stream, the expert logic selected from group consisting of waveform segmentation logic, threshold logic, event type logic, deductive logic, knowledge based logic, metadata logic, application logic, observation logic, and action logic.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “applying expert logic” to “rate of change data stream” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the first physical phenomenon and the second physical phenomenon are a machine friction event and vibration of a machine, and wherein the applied expert logic distinguishes a friction characteristic of the machine friction event.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “expert logic distinguishes” a “characteristic” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the applied expert logic characterizes the machine friction event as an event selected from the group consisting of negligible metal-to-metal contact, lubrication film breach, rolling contact, sliding contact, mixed mode lubrication regime, boundary lubrication regime, impact, rubbing, severe sliding, and adhesion.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “expert logic distinguishes” and “characterizes” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 7:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 5 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 7 additionally recites:
“further comprising: applying expert logic in a first step at a first location, the first step comprising a data compression step performed at the first location; and applying expert logic in a second step at a second location, the second step comprising a determination of one or more of findings, observations, recommendations, and knowledge based logic performed at the second location.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “applying expert logic” and “determination of one or more findings …” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“further comprising: deriving a decimated stream from the sensory measurement time waveform with the processor, the processor deriving the decimated stream by decimating the time sensory measurement time waveform; and analyzing the decimated stream with the processor to further determine a characteristic from a list of the first physical phenomenon and the second physical phenomenon.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “deriving … with the processor” and “analyzing … with the processor”, “to determine a characteristic” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein a first interval has a duration no greater than 10ps.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “interval … no greater than …” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein a first interval has a duration of no greater than 10ps, and wherein a second interval has a duration of no greater than 500ps”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “interval … no greater than …” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
“further comprising segmenting the first rate of change data stream based on rate changes among sequenced values of the first rate of change data stream.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “segmenting … rate of change data stream” & “based on rate changes … values” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
“further comprising classifying each segment of the first rate of change data stream as one of an event and nonevent based on a value of the first rate of change data stream within each segment.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “classifying … rate of change data stream” & “based on a value of the first rate of change data stream” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 13 additionally recites:
“further comprising generating compressed data plot information corresponding to the segmented first rate of change data stream.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “generating compressed data plot information” & “first rate of change data stream” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 16:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 16 additionally recites:
“further comprising selectively segmenting at least one of the first rate of change data stream and the second rate of change data stream based on one or more of abrupt increases and abrupt decreases in change rates in at least one of the first and second rate of change data streams.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “selectively segmenting” & “first rate of changed data stream” & “based on … increases and … decreases in change rates” & “in rate of change data streams” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 17:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 17 additionally recites:
“wherein a first interval has a duration no greater than 10 ps, and wherein a second interval has a duration of no greater than 500 ps.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “duration no greater than … ps” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 31:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
“Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?”
Yes;
The claim is directed towards a method which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One;
“Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?”
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 31 additionally recites:
“wherein pass filtering the first rate of change data stream and the second rate of change data stream comprises a high frequency filter effect from a duration of peak-to-peak measurement intervals.”
Explanation:
Issue:
The claims recite “mathematical concepts” or “mental process”
Rule:
see MPEP 2106.04(A)(2)(I): The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”) or “Mental Processes”.
see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C): “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”).
Analysis:
The element(s)/limitation(s) of “filtering the first rate of change data stream” & “comprises … filter effect” are computations or mental processes applied to data.
And are within the “mathematical concepts” or “mental processes” groupings.
Conclusion:
The claim recites abstract ideas from the Abstract Idea Grouping of Mathematical Concepts or mental processes.
Revised Step 2A Prong Two:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Step 2B:
“Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?”
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements/limitations beyond those listed in Step 2A Prong One (judicial exceptions).
Conclusion:
Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Regarding claims 15, & 18-21, these claims are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1, 3-13, 16-17, & 31.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3972227 A "Method Of Ultrasonic Measurements" (Tomilov) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
US 20190063503 A1 "Method and Apparatus for Monitoring a Sliding Bearing" (Nowoisky) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 20010047691 A1 "Hybrid Transient-parametric Method And System To Distinguish And Analyze Sources Of Acoustic Emission For Nondestructive Inspection And Structural Health Monitoring" (Dzenis) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 10416126 B2 "Machine Fault Prediction Based On Analysis Of Periodic Information In A Signal" (Bowers) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1A & Fig. 2.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights