DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the applicant’s arguments filed on 7/20/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1 and 7-8 are amended.
5. Claims 2-4, 6 and 9-10 are previously presented.
6. Claim 5 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
7. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recent amendment to the claim 1 that states “rotating the
two toothed wheels with the mechanical power transmission device” cannot be performed in
the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 9)
8. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the recent amendment that states “rotating the
two toothed wheels with the mechanical power transmission device” amounts to mere
instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t
indicate how rotating the two wheels are associated with the body of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
9. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the limitations of claim 1 that states “a step of obtaining a
signal s which is modeled by a product of a high-frequency signal s1 and of a low-frequency
signal s2, generated by the rotating mechanical power transmission device and acquired by
only one sensor, the sensor being positioned in a vicinity of a bearing supporting one of the
axes of the wheels of the toothed wheels of the aircraft gear” cannot be performed in
the human mind or with pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 10)
10. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitation that states “a step of obtaining a signal s which is
modeled by a product of a high-frequency signal s1 and of a low-frequency signal s2,
generated by the rotating mechanical power transmission device and acquired by only one
sensor” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity
of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “the sensor being positioned in a vicinity of a bearing
supporting one of the axes of the wheels of the toothed wheels of the aircraft gear” doesn't
distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that
covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this
limitation falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas.
11. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the limitation of “the analysis step comprises filtering the
signal s2 to identify a respective contribution of each of the toothed wheels to a vibratory
signal” that is implemented by a computer, cannot be performed in the human mind or with
pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 10)
12. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitation of the analysis step comprises filtering the
signal s2 to identify a respective contribution of each of the toothed wheels to a vibratory
signal” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where a band-pass filter is
conducting the filtering of signal s2, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) “Whether the claim invokes
computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a
computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to
receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer
components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or
mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or
provide significantly more.”.
Also, claim 1 includes the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a
high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the
exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not
impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
13. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recent amendment to claim 1 that states “performing
maintenance on of the defective toothed wheel which includes repairing or replacing the
defective toothed wheel, so as to maintain the rotating mechanical machine within an
aeronautical industry safety margin.” cannot be performed in the human mind or with
pencil and paper. (Remarks: page 10)
14. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the recent amendment of claim 1 that states “performing
maintenance on of the defective toothed wheel which includes repairing or replacing the
defective toothed wheel, so as to maintain the rotating mechanical machine within an
aeronautical industry safety margin.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception,
where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the performing is
being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
15. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that with the recent amendment, the claims as a whole link the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. The applicant points to Pg. 1 lines 9-11 and Pg. 12 lines 22-25 of the specification for support as to why the claims as a whole after the recent amendment integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Remarks: pages 11-14)
16. Examiner Response:
The applicant respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that as shown above in sections 8, 10 and 14 of the current office action, that the recent amendments would be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Also, the examiner notes that the previous claim language that has remained the same, is listed as abstract. The examiner notes that the claim language listed as abstract does not integrate into a practical application.
17. Applicants argue:
The applicant points to the Ex Parte Desjadins USPTO Patent Board decision for support as to why the current claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The applicant argues that the specification and the current claims identifies that the claimed invention improves the technical field of vibration-based condition monitoring. The applicant argues that the claimed invention reduces the complexity of the monitoring system and the amount of storage space and computational resources required (since it only needs to store data from a single sensor and the underlying optimization can be solved efficiently), while increasing the reliability and accuracy of the monitoring technique. (Remarks: pages 14-19)
18. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that as stated in the previous office action dated 3/24/26, in Ex Parte Desjadins, it was determined that a limitation of claim 1 along with support within the specification reflects improvement to how machine learning operates. The limitation of claim 1 Desjadins states “adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task.”. The claims of the current application and the specification do not mention machine learning modeling or a machine learning technique. Therefore, the limitations of claim 1 does not recite an improvement to machine learning models.
Also, in MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) it states “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not “provide a sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) (“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This explains why reducing the complexity of the monitoring system and the amount of storage space and computational resources required is not showing an improvement to the field of technology.
Further the examiner notes that even with the recent amendment, the claims as a whole do not recite an improvement to a technology or technical field. The examiner notes that the improvements to estimations are not improvements to a technology or technical field, but rather an improvement to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper as well as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1, 7 and 8
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 7 and 8 are directed towards a method, device and system, which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “the sensor being positioned in a vicinity
of a bearing supporting one of the axes of the wheels of the toothed wheels of the aircraft
gear”. This limitation doesn't distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human
mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this
limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil
and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a step of determining estimates of the signals s1 and s2 by
minimizing a difference between all or part of the signal s and a product of these estimates”. This limitation is calculating the estimates using mathematical functions. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a step of re-sampling a sequence derived from the signal s of a duration equal to an analysis duration”. This limitation is involves using mathematical functions for the “re-sampling”. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “said analysis duration being an integer multiple of a period of the low-frequency signal s2”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “said sequence derived from the signal s being re-sampled with a regular pitch equal to a fraction of the analysis duration”. This limitation involves using mathematical functions, see Pg. 17 lines 1-16 of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “said re-sampling step comprising determining the analysis duration from a number of teeth of each of the two toothed wheels and from a meshing period of the aircraft gear”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a step of obtaining a discrete Fourier transform of the re-sampled sequence, said discrete Fourier transform comprising a plurality of harmonics”. This limitation encompasses performing a mathematical calculation of a discrete Fourier transform. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a step of constructing a matrix M(S) from the discrete Fourier transform obtained”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mathematical concepts. The “constructing” concept within the claim limitation encompasses constructing the matrix based on mathematical functions and relationships. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “the dimensions of the matrix depending on a number of harmonics determined for the signal s1 and on a number of harmonics determined for the signal s2”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “each component of the matrix comprising an amplitude of a harmonic of the discrete Fourier transform obtained”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a step of performing a rank 1 approximation of the matrix M(S) and obtaining discrete Fourier transforms of the estimates of the signals s1 and s2”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mathematical concepts. The performing a rank 1 approximation involves using mathematical functions. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “a step of analyzing the estimates of the signals s1 and s2 to detect the presence of a defect affecting the rotating mechanical power transmission device”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “if a defect is detected at the end of the analysis step, a step of locating said defect on one of the toothed wheels using the identified contributions”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “rotating the two toothed wheels with
the mechanical power transmission device” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how rotating the two wheels are associated with the body of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “a step of obtaining a signal s which is modeled by a product of a high-frequency signal s1 and of a low-frequency signal s2, generated by the rotating mechanical power transmission device and acquired by only one sensor” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “wherein the analysis step comprises filtering the signal s2 to identify a respective contribution of each of the toothed wheels to a vibratory signal” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where a band-pass filter is conducting the filtering of signal s2, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”.
Also, the limitation of “after detecting a defect and determining a location of the defect, a step of notifying the defect and the location of the defect to a maintenance system to initiate maintenance of the defective toothed wheel” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “performing maintenance on of the defective toothed wheel
which includes repairing or replacing the defective toothed wheel, so as to maintain the
rotating mechanical machine within an aeronautical industry safety margin.” amounts to
mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation
doesn’t indicate how the performing is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the
claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a
solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover
any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and
no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial
exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of
recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “rotating the two toothed wheels with
the mechanical power transmission device” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how rotating the two wheels are associated with the body of the claim. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “a step of obtaining a signal s which is modeled by a product of a high-frequency signal s1 and of a low-frequency signal s2, generated by the rotating mechanical power transmission device and acquired by only one sensor” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “wherein the analysis step comprises filtering the signal s2 to identify a respective contribution of each of the toothed wheels to a vibratory signal” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where a band-pass filter is conducting the filtering of signal s2, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”.
Also, the limitation of “after detecting a defect and determining a location of the defect, a step of notifying the defect and the location of the defect to a maintenance system to initiate maintenance of the defective toothed wheel” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “performing maintenance on of the defective toothed wheel
which includes repairing or replacing the defective toothed wheel, so as to maintain the
rotating mechanical machine within an aeronautical industry safety margin.” amounts to
mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation
doesn’t indicate how the performing is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the
claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a
solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover
any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and
no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial
exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of
recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 7
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 7 recites “determine estimates of the signals s1 and s2 by minimizing a difference between all or part of the signal s and a product of these estimates”. This limitation is calculating the estimates using mathematical functions. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “re-sample a sequence derived from the signal s of a duration equal to an analysis duration”. This limitation is involves using mathematical functions for the “re-sampling”. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “said analysis duration being an integer multiple of a period of the low- frequency signal s2”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “said sequence derived from the signal s being re-sampled with a regular pitch equal to a fraction of the analysis duration”. This limitation involves using mathematical functions, see Pg. 17 lines 1-16 of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “said analysis duration being determined from a number of teeth of each of the two toothed wheels and from a meshing period of the aircraft gear”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “obtain a discrete Fourier transform of the re-sampled sequence, said discrete Fourier transform comprising a plurality of harmonics”. This limitation encompasses performing a mathematical calculation of a discrete Fourier transform, see Pg. 18 lines 4-15 of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “construct a matrix M(S) from the discrete Fourier transform obtained”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mathematical concepts. The “constructing” concept within the claim limitation encompasses constructing the matrix based on mathematical functions and relationships. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “the dimensions of the matrix depending on a number of harmonics determined for the signal s1 and on a number of harmonics determined for the signal s2”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “each component of the matrix comprising an amplitude of a harmonic of the discrete Fourier transform obtained”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “and perform a rank 1 approximation of the matrix M(S) and obtain discrete Fourier transforms of the estimates of the signals s1 and s2”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mathematical concepts. The performing a rank 1 approximation involves using mathematical functions. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7 recites “if a defect is detected at the end of the analysis step, a step of locating said defect on one of the toothed wheels using the identified contributions”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “obtain a signal s which is modeled by a product of a high-frequency signal s1 and of a low-frequency signal s2” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “generated by rotating the two toothed wheels by the rotating mechanical power transmission device and acquired by only one sensor positioned in a vicinity of a bearing supporting one of the axes of the wheels of the two toothed wheels of the aircraft gear” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “analyze the estimates of the signals s 1 and s2 to detect the presence of a defect affecting the rotating mechanical power transmission device by filtering the signal s2 to identify a respective contribution of each of the toothed wheels to a vibratory signal amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where a band-pass filter is conducting the filtering of signal s2, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”.
Also, the limitation of “wherein after detecting a defect and determining a location of the defect, the device is configured to notify the defect and the location of the defect maintenance system to initiate maintenance of the defective toothed wheel” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “wherein after receiving the defect notification, maintenance of
the defective toothed wheel is performed which includes repairing or replacing the defective toothed wheel so as to maintain the rotating mechanical machine within an aeronautical industry safety margin” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the performing is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, claim 7 recites the additional element of a “circuitry configured to”, which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “obtain a signal s which is modeled by a product of a high-frequency signal s1 and of a low-frequency signal s2” and “wherein after detecting a defect and determining a location of the defect, the device is configured to notify the defect and the location of the defect maintenance system to initiate maintenance of the defective toothed wheel” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “generated by rotating the two toothed wheels by the rotating mechanical power transmission device and acquired by only one sensor positioned in a vicinity of a bearing supporting one of the axes of the wheels of the two toothed wheels of the aircraft gear” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “analyze the estimates of the signals s 1 and s2 to detect the presence of a defect affecting the rotating mechanical power transmission device by filtering the signal s2 to identify a respective contribution of each of the toothed wheels to a vibratory signal amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where a band-pass filter is conducting the filtering of signal s2, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”.
Also, the limitation of “wherein after receiving the defect notification, maintenance of
the defective toothed wheel is performed which includes repairing or replacing the defective toothed wheel so as to maintain the rotating mechanical machine within an aeronautical industry safety margin” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the performing is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the circuitry amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 8
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 8 recites “the sensor being an accelerometer or a
microphone and positioned in a vicinity of a bearing supporting one of the axes of the wheels of the two toothed wheels of the aircraft gear”. This limitation doesn't distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “determine estimates of the signals s1 and s2 by minimizing a difference between all or part of the signal s and a product of these estimates”. This limitation is calculating the estimates using mathematical functions. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “re-sample a sequence derived from the signal s of a duration equal to an analysis duration”. This limitation is involves using mathematical functions for the “re-sampling”. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “said analysis duration being an integer multiple of a period of the low- frequency signal s2”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “said sequence derived from the signal s being re-sampled with a regular pitch equal to a fraction of the analysis duration”. This limitation involves using mathematical functions, see Pg. 17 lines 1-16 of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “said analysis duration being determined from a number of teeth of each of the two toothed wheels and from a meshing period of the aircraft gear”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “obtain a discrete Fourier transform of the re-sampled sequence, said discrete Fourier transform comprising a plurality of harmonics”. This limitation encompasses performing a mathematical calculation of a discrete Fourier transform, see Pg. 18 lines 4-15 of the specification. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “construct a matrix M(S) from the discrete Fourier transform obtained”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mathematical concepts. The “constructing” concept within the claim limitation encompasses constructing the matrix based on mathematical functions and relationships. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “the dimensions of the matrix depending on a number of harmonics determined for the signal s1 and on a number of harmonics determined for the signal s2”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “each component of the matrix comprising an amplitude of a harmonic of the discrete Fourier transform obtained”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “and perform a rank 1 approximation of the matrix M(S) and obtain discrete Fourier transforms of the estimates of the signals s1 and s2”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mathematical concepts. The performing a rank 1 approximation involves using mathematical functions. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8 recites “if a defect is detected at the end of the analysis step, a step of locating said defect on one of the toothed wheels using the identified contributions”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “a sensor configured to acquire a signal s which is modeled by a product of a high- frequency signal s1 and of a low-frequency signal s2, and generated by rotating the two toothed wheels by the rotating mechanical power transmission device”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “obtain a signal s from the sensor” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “analyze the estimates of the signals s 1 and s2 to detect the presence of a defect affecting the rotating mechanical power transmission device by filtering the signal s2 to identify a respective contribution of each of the toothed wheels to a vibratory signal amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where a band-pass filter is conducting the filtering of signal s2, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”.
Also, the limitation of “notify the defect and the location of the defect to a maintenance system” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “wherein after receiving the defect notification, maintenance of
the defective toothed wheel is performed which includes repairing or replacing the defective toothed wheel so as to maintain the rotating mechanical machine within an aeronautical industry safety margin” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the performing is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, claim 8 recites the additional elements of a processor and memory. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “a sensor configured to acquire a signal s which is modeled by a product of a high- frequency signal s1 and of a low-frequency signal s2, and generated by rotating the two toothed wheels by the rotating mechanical power transmission device”, “obtain a signal s from the sensor” and “notify the defect and the location of the defect to a maintenance system” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “analyze the estimates of the signals s 1 and s2 to detect the presence of a defect affecting the rotating mechanical power transmission device by filtering the signal s2 to identify a respective contribution of each of the toothed wheels to a vibratory signal amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where a band-pass filter is conducting the filtering of signal s2, see MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”.
Also, the limitation of “wherein after receiving the defect notification, maintenance of
the defective toothed wheel is performed which includes repairing or replacing the defective toothed wheel so as to maintain the rotating mechanical machine within an aeronautical industry safety margin” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the performing is being conducted. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the circuitry amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “a step of obtaining the number of teeth of each of the two toothed wheels and the meshing period of the aircraft gear by interrogating a user via an input or output means of a computing device”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 2 recites “said analysis duration being an integer multiple of a period of the low-frequency signal s2”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein: the step of performing a rank 1 approximation of the matrix M(S) uses a decomposition into singular values of the matrix M(S)”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 3 recites “said decomposition providing a first left singular vector of the matrix M(S), a first right singular vector of the matrix M(S) and a first singular value of the matrix M(S)”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 3 recites “and the discrete Fourier transform of the estimate of the signal s1 is obtained from the first left singular vector of the matrix M(S)”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 3 recites “and the discrete Fourier transform of the estimate of the signal s2 is obtained from the first right vector of the matrix M(S)”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 3 recites “either or both of the first left or right singular vectors being weighted”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 3 recites “a product of the applied weights being equal to the first singular value of the matrix M(S)”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the step of determining the estimates of the signals s1 and s2 further comprises a step of transforming, in the time domain, the discrete Fourier transforms obtained from the estimates of the signals s1 and s2”. This limitation encompasses mathematical concepts, where the transforming involves using an inverse Fourier transform. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the step of analyzing the estimates of the signals s1 and s2 is carried out from discrete Fourier transforms of the estimates of the signals s1 and s2”. This limitation, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses mathematical concepts. The “analyzing” concept within the claim limitation encompasses analyzing the estimates of the signals s1 and s2 based on mathematical functions and relationships. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites “wherein the maintenance of the defective toothed wheel comprises repairing or replacing the defective toothed wheel.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the repairing or replacing is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 recites “wherein the maintenance of the defective toothed wheel comprises repairing or replacing the defective toothed wheel.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The claim limitation doesn’t indicate how the repairing or replacing is occurring. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Even with the recent amendment to the claims, the claims still contain allowable subject
matter. The allowable subject matter was shown in the previous office action dated 12/3/24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Brown (U.S. PGPub 2001/0008083) is at least one dynamic condition of a pneumatic tire of a vehicle is determined by measuring the rotational angular position of the tire and/or a wheel or wheel carrier the tire is mounted on.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights