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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/06/2026 in RCE has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 1 January 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, & 31 remain pending. No amendments from the claims previously filed 24 July 2025 have been made.
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 7 line 4 to page 8 line 29, filed 01/06/2026, 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 7 of 12 lines 8-10):
“The Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are “directed to” a judicial exception and those that are not, recognizing that claims which improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field are patent eligible.”
& (page 7 of 12 lines 14-17):
“The Office Action’s analysis improperly conflates the use of mathematical operations with being directed to mathematical concepts as an abstract idea. However, the claims are not directed to abstract mathematical concepts but rather to a specific technological improvement in machinery monitoring that solves concrete technical problems.”
& (page 7 lines 18-21):
“The Office Action’s analysis incorrectly treats any use of mathematical operations as automatically falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. However, mathematical concepts may be part of a practical application if they are applied to achieve a specific technological result.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1):
“If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I):
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept.”
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C):
“Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.”
&
“examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A):
“There is no dispute that a computer is a tangible system (in § 101 terms, a "machine"), or that many computer-implemented claims are formally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the § 101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility "depend simply on the draftsman’s art,””
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 exceptions itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
Analysis:
The independent claim recites at least:
“distinguishing a first physical phenomenon”
“deriving and pass filtering a first rate of change data stream”,
“deriving and pass filtering a second rate of change data stream”,
“analyzing with the processor the derived first rate of change data stream and the second rate of change data stream”.
Such limitations are within judicial exception abstract idea grouping of ‘mathematical concepts’ or ‘mental processes’ and are broadly recited (the broadness of the limitation(s) would monopolize the judicial exception(s) over the particular technological environment or field of use).
Therefore, “the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two”. The only additional element is “a processor”; “processor” implies no more than “indicating a field of use or technological environment” & “computer system configured to implement the relevant concept”. The limitation directed towards “receiving the sensory measurement time waveform…” is no more than extra solution activity (pre-solution) of data gathering and outputting. Additionally, if a processor were sufficient to integrate the judicial exception then any judicial exception could be claimed by adding ‘[judicial exception] to be performed by a processor’, thereby reducing patent eligibility to "depend simply on the draftsman’s art,”.
Therefore, the claim requires further analysis at step 2B. The claim(s) do not recite additional elements and limitations beyond those addressed in step 2A.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim does not recite any additional element(s) or limitation(s) which would incorporate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application, and the claim(s) are directed towards judicial exceptions; “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 lines 1-16, filed 01/06/2026, 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 of 12 lines 1-4):
“The Office Action’s analysis incorrectly focuses on the presence of generic computer components to conclude the claims are abstract. However, the claims are not directed to these computer components themselves, but rather to a specific improvement in sensor technology and machinery monitoring.”
& (page 9 of 12 lines 8-10):
“The claimed method provides “point vicinity specific” analysis that “may be fully automated” where “[e]quipment information is not required. Human input is not required.”
The Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A): “Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.”
Analysis:
at step 2A Prong Two of the 101 analysis the generic computer element of a processor was considered as to whether it could integrate any judicial exception(s) into a practice application. Without any elements and limitations which incorporates the judicial exception into a practical application the 35 USC 101 analysis determines that “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the 35 USC 101 analysis concludes “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Regarding “Response to Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 lines 17 to page 10 line 25, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 10 of 12 lines 15-18):
“Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action’s rejection improperly reads Garvey’s general teachings of selective decimation and cepstral analysis as anticipating the specific claimed method. However, Garvey fails to teach each and every element of the claimed method. ”
& (page 10 of 12 lines 19-20):
“Applicant submits that Garvey does not teach deriving rate of change data streams as recited by claim 1.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111: “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.””
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Fig. 2 step 214 para 0290: “further processing one or more of MAX, MED, MIN, AVE, SDV, PvC, OPC, and PSF may include waveform analysis, spectral analysis, cepstral analysis … Cepstral analysis is effectively an inverse FFT of the power spectrum and provides information about rate of change of the different spectrum bands
Garvey teaches at least ‘two rate of change data streams based on amplitude differences over different sampling quantities and comparing them to distinguish between fast and slow phenomena.”
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claimed subject matter at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by the reference of US 20140324367 A1 (Garvey, cited in IDS filed 25 May 2022 )
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 line 26 to page 11 line 5, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 10 of 12 lines 26-27):
“Applicant submits that Garvey does not teach creating two rate of change data streams using different quantities of samples as recited by claim 1.”
& (page 11 of 12 lines 1-2):
“Additionally, Applicant submits that Garvey does not teach pass filtering rate of change data streams derived from peak-to-peak measurements.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111: “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.””
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Fig. 2 step 214 para 0290: “further processing one or more of MAX, MED, MIN, AVE, SDV, PvC, OPC, and PSF may include waveform analysis, spectral analysis, cepstral analysis … Cepstral analysis is effectively an inverse FFT of the power spectrum and provides information about rate of change of the different spectrum bands
Garvey teaches at least ‘two rate of change data streams based on amplitude differences over different sampling quantities and comparing them to distinguish between fast and slow phenomena.” Additionally “different spectrum bands” indicates pass filtering rate of change data streams.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claimed subject matter at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by the reference of US 20140324367 A1 (Garvey, cited in IDS filed 25 May 2022 )
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 11 line 6 to page 12 line 13, filed 01/06/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1, 3-13, 15-21, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 11 of 12 lines 7-10):
“The office action’s citation to paragraph [0290] regarding cepstral analysis is inapposite because cepstral analysis operates on frequency-domain power spectrum data after FFT transformation, not on time-domain peak-to-peak measurements over different interval durations as claimed.”
The Examiner respectfully responds that:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111: “During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.””
Analysis:
Before the FFT transformation the data is in a time domain representation so the data that goes into the analysis of Garvey is initially in the “time-domain peak-to-peak measurements over different time intervals”.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claimed subject matter at least under the broadest reasonable interpretation is taught by the reference of US 20140324367 A1 (Garvey, cited in IDS filed 25 May 2022 )
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;”
“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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11-13, 15-16, 18, 20, & 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20140324367 A1 (Garvey) (cited in IDS filed 25 May 2022).
Regarding claim 1, Garvey teaches a method of distinguishing a first physical phenomenon (Fig. 2 “Collect machine vibration”, physical phenomenon/(vibration)) captured in a sensory measurement time waveform (Fig. 2 “Collect machine vibration data over multiple sampling intervals” 202, sensory waveform/(vibration data)) from a second physical phenomenon captured in the sensory measurement time waveform (para 0018: “distinguish causal data from Gaussian data and to assign a likely condition selected from the following list of conditions … an impact, a sensor fault, a circuit fault, a machine operation, a noise, a steady condition, a random event, a systematic event, and a change in environment parameters”, “distinguish from a second phenomenon/”(assign a condition [such as impact … change in environment])), the method comprising: receiving the sensory measurement time waveform (Fig. 2 “Collect machine vibration”, waveform/(vibration)) on a processor (Fig. 1 Processor 100) from a sensor in sensory contact (Fig. 1 Sensor 82 & Sensor 84, “FIG. 19 depicts one example of a sensor array where sensors 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 are positioned on a surface, such as around the outside diameter of a conical or cylindrical mill or a process pipe.”, sensory contact/(positioned on a surface)) with an object undergoing a first physical phenomenon and a second physical phenomenoor an average of the two or three absolute smallest values in the sampling interval dataset.”, lowest amplitude/(“minimum value (MIN)”)) and a highest amplitude of the sensory measurement time waveform during a first quantity of sensory measurement time waveform samples ((Fig. 2 step 206, para 0275: “A peak-hold type of measurement, such as a maximum value (MAX), is determined that represents one absolute largest peak amplitude value or average of two or three of the absolute largest peak values in the sampling interval dataset (step 206 in FIG. 2)”, highest amplitude/(maximum value))); 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 (para 0280: “A difference between the AVE value and the MAX value in a sampling interval can indicate a form of Crest Factor for oversampled data within an oversampled dataset.”, difference between AVE and MAX (respectively) are based on a difference in lowest amplitude and a highest amplitude); 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 (Fig. 2 step 214, para 0290: “Further processing of one or more of MAX, MED, MIN, AVE, SDV, PvC, OPC, and PSF may include waveform analysis, spectral analysis, cepstral analysis … Cepstral analysis is effectively an inverse FFT of the power spectrum and provides information about rate of change in the different spectrum bands.”).
Regarding claim 3, Garvey teaches the method of claim 2,
Garvey further teaches 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 (para 0374: “One example of a physical event is friction … , stick-slip, … , shearing, tearing, ripping, collision, rapid oxidation, cracking, spalling, cutting, scuffing, opening or closing of electrical connections, exploding, and detonating.”).
Regarding claim 4, Garvey teaches the method of claim 1,
Garvey further teaches 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 (para 0019: “programmed logic operates on digitized accelerometer data to process oversampled digital datasets to simultaneously derive a waveform of mid-range values from a set comprising a median, a mean, an RMS, and a mode, and to derive a waveform of maximum range values from a set comprising a maximum, a minimum, a peak-to-peak maximum to minimum, and a rectified maximum.”, threshold logic/(“maximum range values”)).
Regarding claim 5, Garvey teaches the method of claim 4,
Garvey further teaches wherein the first physical phenomenon and the second physical phenomena 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 (Fig. 5 “vibration data display”, para 0374: “One example of a physical event is friction … , stick-slip, … , shearing, tearing, ripping, collision, rapid oxidation, cracking, spalling, cutting, scuffing, opening or closing of electrical connections, exploding, and detonating.”).
Regarding claim 6, Garvey teaches the method of claim 5,
Garvey further teaches wherein the applied expert logic characterizes the machine friction event as an event selected from 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 (para 0315: “examples of physical conditions include such things as (1) a spall condition resulting from roller bearing component fatigue, (2) a broken tooth condition resulting from fatigue failure of a gear, (3) a sliding friction condition resulting from inadequate lubrication, (4) a smooth running condition resulting from proper lubrication”, system can determine from vibration data whether the machine is properly lubricated or not).
Regarding claim 7, Garvey teaches the method of claim 5,
Garvey further teaches 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 (para 0020: “programmed logic operating on digitized accelerometer data to process oversampled digital datasets to simultaneously derive a waveform of statistical mid-range values from a set comprising a median, a variance, a skewness, a kurtosis and other statistical values.”); 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 (Fig. 17, para 0340: “The images of FIG. 17 represent images taken at different positions along the sampling interval. One of the intriguing results of this study was how much the character of the decimated waveform and spectrum changes as the sample location within the interval varies.”).
Regarding claim 8, Garvey teaches the method of claim 1,
Garvey further teaches 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 (para 0188: “(d) for one or more of the oversampled digital datasets, generating a scalar value or an attribute representative of the machine vibration data within the dataset based at least in part on a group of selective decimation values comprising a median value, a maximum value, a minimum value, a standard deviation value, and a peak shape factor value”, waveform/(vibration data)); 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 (para 0188: “(e) based at least in part on the scalar value or attribute determined in step (d), deriving a characteristic of the machine or a characteristic of the method used to collect the machine vibration data.”, both systems evaluate the vibration data to determine a physical condition of a machine).
Regarding claim 11, Garvey teaches the method of claim 1,
Garvey further teaches further comprising segmenting the first rate of change data stream (para 0301: “In preferred embodiments, autocorrelation analysis involves (1) dividing the waveform (signal) into segments, (2) performing a given peak algorithm on each segment, and (3) comparing the uniformity of the results between segments.”) based on rate changes among sequenced values of the first rate of change data stream (para 0301: “If the signal is more or less constant but not actually periodic, then the segments would still be similar”, “based on rate changes”/(whether a signal is constant)).
Regarding claim 12, Garvey teaches the method of claim 11,
Garvey further teaches 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 (para 0290: “Cepstral analysis is effectively an inverse FFT of the power spectrum and provides information about rate of change in the different spectrum bands. One or more of these analysis techniques may be used in an A-B-A-B comparison or an A-B-C comparison. For example such analysis may be performed on an "A dataset" and on a "B dataset" and on a "C dataset.", rates of change within segments of data streams are used in the determination of events).
Regarding claim 13, Garvey teaches the method of claim 11,
Garvey further teaches further comprising generating compressed data plot information corresponding to the segmented first rate of change data stream (para 0338: “Consequences of adaptively lengthening sampling intervals with fixed frequency sampling rates include greater statistical confidence and greater compression of raw data. A shorter sample interval with a fixed sampling rate decreases a statistical population of sample measurements contributing to a selective decimation step. Consequences of adaptively shortening sampling intervals with fixed frequency sampling rates include lesser statistical confidence within a sampling interval and greater bandwidth of measurement information.”, system is generating compressed data/(greater compression) by taking into account change data within segments/intervals).
Regarding claim 15, Garvey teaches a method of distinguishing a friction event captured in a sensory measurement time waveform, the method comprising: receiving the sensory measurement time waveform (Fig. 2 “Collect machine vibration”, waveform/(vibration)) on a processor (Fig. 1 Processor 100) from a sensor in sensory contact (Fig. 1 Sensor 82 & Sensor 84, “FIG. 19 depicts one example of a sensor array where sensors 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 are positioned on a surface, such as around the outside diameter of a conical or cylindrical mill or a process pipe.”, sensory contact/(positioned on a surface)) with an object of interest undergoing the friction event (Fig. 18 “Broadband friction or noise”); deriving a pass filtered first rate of change data stream from the sensory measurement time waveform on the processor (Fig. 1HPF or LPF 102, para 0262: “In FIG. 1, … The FPGA channel 98a includes a pass filter module 102 that may comprise a high-pass filter, a low-pass filter, or a band-pass filter”), wherein each sequential value of the first rate of change data stream is based on a rate of change of the sensory measurement time waveform during a first quantity of sample intervals(para 0290: “Cepstral analysis is effectively an inverse FFT of the power spectrum and provides information about rate of change in the different spectrum bands. One or more of these analysis techniques may be used in an A-B-A-B comparison or an A-B-C comparison. For example such analysis may be performed on an "A dataset" and on a "B dataset" and on a "C dataset.", datastream/(“dataset”) based on rate of change/(“rate of change”)); deriving a pass filtered second rate of change data stream from the sensory measurement time waveform with the processor (Fig. 1 “HPF or LPF” 102, para 0262: “The FPGA channel 98a includes a pass filter module 102 that may comprise a high-pass filter, a low-pass filter, or a band-pass filter”), wherein each sequential value of the second rate of change data stream is based on a rate of change of the time sensory measurement time waveform during a second interval that is longer than the first interval (para 0038: “a sampling interval may be adjusted to effectively increase or reduce the number of samples within one sampling interval. A longer sampling interval with a fixed sampling rate increases a statistical population of sample measurements”, second quantity is larger/(“increases a statistical population”)); analyzing with the processor the derived first rate of change data stream and the derived second rate of change data stream to determine characteristics of the friction event based on the rate of change of the sensory measurement time waveform over the first interval and the second interval (Fig. 18 “Broadband friction or noise”, system determines friction events based on the data stream and changes in the data stream data).
Regarding claim 16, Garvey teaches the method of claim 11,
Garvey further teaches 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 (para 0290: “Cepstral analysis is effectively an inverse FFT of the power spectrum and provides information about rate of change in the different spectrum bands. One or more of these analysis techniques may be used in an A-B-A-B comparison or an A-B-C comparison. For example such analysis may be performed on an "A dataset" and on a "B dataset" and on a "C dataset.", rates of change within segments of data streams are used in the determination of events).
Regarding claim 18, Garvey teaches a method of analyzing a sensory measurement time waveform, the method comprising: receiving the sensory measurement time waveform derived from a sensor in sensory contact (Fig. 1 Sensor 82 & Sensor 84, “FIG. 19 depicts one example of a sensor array where sensors 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 are positioned on a surface, such as around the outside diameter of a conical or cylindrical mill or a process pipe.”, sensory contact/(positioned on a surface)) with an object of interest (Fig. 18 “Broadband friction or noise”), the sensory measurement time waveform data including a sensing of one or more of a first event phenomenon, a second event phenomenon, and a third event phenomenon (para 0364: “a range in orders of magnitude for sensory input frequencies identified from slow (1 cycle per 10 minutes) to fast (60,000 cycles per minute)”, “comparatively fast”/(60,000 cycles per minute)), wherein the first event phenomenon is faster than the second event phenomenon, and wherein the second event phenomenon is faster than the third event phenomenon; translating the sensory measurement time waveform into a first wavelength pass filtered rate of change data stream wherein the pass filter is one or more of a short wavelength filter, a medium wavelength filter, and a long wavelength filter (para 0174: “for each of a plurality of second oversampled datasets, determining one or more second scalar values selected from the group consisting of a maximum value, a minimum value, a mean value, a median value, a standard deviation value, a maximum-to-minimum range value, a kurtosis value, a skewness value, and a wavelength value; [0185] (k) based on the one or more second scalar values, determining one or more second characteristic values that provide an indication of the event type”, wavelengths are considered in determining event types); and analyzing one or more of the first wavelength pass filtered rate of change and the second wavelength pass filtered rate of change data stream by one or more of the first wavelength pass filtered rate of change data stream by one or more of selective segmentation, selective decimation, threshold, segment association, event scoring, event classification, and deductive logic (para 0259: “One approach to improving trend analysis is to use selective decimation information to visualize or analyze a selective decimation characteristic during a time waveform. The resulting information may be interpreted using either programmed logic or human logic or both to seek and identify a pattern”).
Regarding claim 20, Garvey teaches the method of claim 18,
Garvey further teaches wherein the rate of change data is based on a difference in a lowest amplitude and a highest amplitude of the sensory measurement time waveform data during a first interval of sensory measurement time waveform samples (para 0373: “This shows the magnitude of the extreme values, "highest values" or MAX and, in the case of plus-and-minus measurements, some of "lowest values" or MIN, is easily distinguished from all other measured values and from statistical parameters for the datasets. It is also apparent that the SDEV, Mean-Median, Mean-Mode, (MAX-MIN)/(Mean-MIN) and MAX-MIN are all potential indicators of this sort of causal event that produces an impact or another causal event that produces a high peak value within a dataset.” & para 0290: “Further processing of one or more of MAX, MED, MIN, AVE, SDV, PvC, OPC, and PSF may include waveform analysis, spectral analysis, cepstral analysis, and other transformation analyses as described hereinafter. Cepstral analysis is effectively an inverse FFT of the power spectrum and provides information about rate of change in the different spectrum bands”).
Regarding claim 31, Garvey teaches the method of claim 1,
Garvey further teaches 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 (para 0076: “A peak-hold measure of oversampled data is typically received on very high frequency sampling rate data, e.g., >>20 kHz. Much of the time these high frequency measurements reflect characteristics of stress wave information such as compression or shear wave information resulting from roller bearing defect impacts under roller-to-race loading”, system can filter and collect data on high frequency effects such as compression or shear wave information).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 9-10, 17, 19, & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140324367 A1 (Garvey) (cited in IDS filed 25 May 2022).
Regarding claim 9, Garvey teaches the monitoring device of claim 1 as described above.
Garvey further teaches:
“wherein a first interval has a duration …” (Table 4 column “Interval Duration (Sec)” and specifically “.000039” i.e. 39μs)
Garvey does not explicitly disclose that said duration is “ … no greater than 10 μs”.
However, the claim limitation “interval has a duration no greater than 10μs” is simply claiming a range, and it has been held by the court that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art pursuant to MPEP 2144.05, (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Therefore, said ranges has no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 10, Garvey teaches the monitoring device of claim 2 as described above.
Garvey further teaches:
wherein a first interval has a duration (Table 4 column “Interval Duration (Sec)” and specifically “.000039” i.e. 39μs) …, and wherein a second interval has a duration of no greater than 500 μs (para 0173: “during a second period within the extended period of time, collecting the dynamic measurement data using a second sampling interval … a second number of samples in each oversampled dataset collected during the second period, wherein the second number of samples is greater than the first number of samples.” & Table 4 column “Interval Duration (Sec)” and specifically “.000039” i.e. 39μs)
Garvey does not explicitly disclose that said duration is “ … no greater than 10 μs”.
However, the claim limitation “interval has a duration no greater than 10μs” is simply claiming a range, and it has been held by the court that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art pursuant to MPEP 2144.05, (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Therefore, said ranges has no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 17, Garvey teaches the monitoring device of claim 11 as described above.
Garvey further teaches:
wherein a first interval has a duration (Table 4 column “Interval Duration (Sec)” and specifically “.000039” i.e. 39μs) …, and wherein a second interval has a duration of no greater than 500 μs (para 0173: “during a second period within the extended period of time, collecting the dynamic measurement data using a second sampling interval … a second number of samples in each oversampled dataset collected during the second period, wherein the second number of samples is greater than the first number of samples.” & Table 4 column “Interval Duration (Sec)” and specifically “.000039” i.e. 39μs and other values of 391 μs and 781 μs)
Garvey does not explicitly disclose that said duration is “ … of no greater than 10 μs”.
However, the claim limitation “interval has a duration of no greater than 10 μs” is simply claiming a range, and it has been held by the court that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art pursuant to MPEP 2144.05, (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Therefore, said ranges has no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 19, Garvey teaches the method of claim 18,
Garvey further teaches:
wherein the sensory measurement time waveform data comprises a vibration waveform sampled at a rate of 102,400 samples per second (Table 4 “Sampling Rate (Samples/Sec) … 200,000”), and wherein the first event phenomenon has a duration of no greater than 0.04 ms (Fig. 4 “Interval Duration (Sec) … .000039”).
Garvey does not explicitly disclose that said “sampled at a rate of 102,400” or that “fast phenomenon has a duration of no greater than 0.04 ms”.
However, the claim limitation “sampled at a rate of 102,400” and “fast phenomenon has a duration of approximately 0.04 ms” are simply claiming a range(s), and it has been held by the court that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art pursuant to MPEP 2144.05, (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Therefore, said ranges has no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 21, Garvey teaches the method of claim 20,
Garvey further teaches:
wherein the short wavelength filter is less than 0.01 ms, wherein the medium wavelength filter is less than 0.05 ms, and wherein the long wavelength filter is less than 0.5 ms.
Garvey does not explicitly disclose “short wavelength filter is less than 0.01 ms” or “medium wavelength filter is less than 0.05 ms” or “long wavelength filter is less than 0.5 ms”.
However, the claim limitation(s) “less than 0.01 ms” and “less than 0.05 ms” and “less than 0.5 ms” are simply claiming a range(s), and it has been held by the court that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art pursuant to MPEP 2144.05, (see In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233). Therefore, said ranges has no patentable weight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7860663 B2 "Abnormality Diagnosing Apparatus And Abnormality Diagnosing Method" (Miyasaka) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2-35: "Filter Portion".
US 5852793 A "Method And Apparatus For Predictive Diagnosis Of Moving Machine Parts" (Board) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4 & Fig. 6.
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