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 .
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/27/2026 has been entered.
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, 5 and 10-33 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim. Likewise, claim 18 is a system claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships/algorithms/concepts” or “mental process and concepts performed in the human mind” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 is directed to the abstract idea of determining at least one of a displacement, a velocity, or an acceleration from at least a portion of the captured vibration;
mapping the captured vibration to at least one vibration frequency segment of a multi- segment vibration frequency spectrum, the mapped at least one vibration frequency segment bounding the captured vibration; determining a severity value for the captured vibration based on the captured vibration, the mapped at least one vibration frequency segment, and a severity normalizing value, wherein the severity normalizing value is dependent on a frequency of the captured vibration;
mapping the severity value to one of a plurality of severity units defined for [[the]]a corresponding mapped vibration frequency segment; and based upon the one of the plurality of severity units, signaling a predictive maintenance server to execute a corresponding maintenance action on the portion of the particular industrial machine, wherein signaling the predictive maintenance server to execute the corresponding maintenance action includes transmitting a signal to a component of the particular industrial machine which executes the maintenance action responsive to receiving the signal. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are each particular industrial machine comprising at least one vibration sensor disposed to capture vibration of a portion of the particular industrial machine; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a plurality of industrial machines in an industrial environment; and a centralized server computing device arranged remotely from and in continuous communication with each of the at least one vibration sensors; which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to signal the predictive maintenance server. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 18 is directed to the abstract idea of mapping the captured vibration to at least one vibration frequency segment of a multi- segment vibration frequency spectrum, the mapped at least one vibration frequency segment bounding the captured vibration; determining a severity value for the captured vibration based on the captured vibration and the mapped at least one vibration frequency segment, wherein the severity value is based on: (i) a peak amplitude of a displacement determined from at least a portion of the captured vibration when a frequency of the captured vibration is below a first threshold of the multi- segment vibration frequency spectrum, (ii) a peak velocity determined from at least a portion of the captured vibration when the frequency of the captured vibration corresponds to a mid-range of the multi-segment vibration frequency spectrum between the first threshold and a second threshold higher than the first threshold, or (iii) a peak acceleration determined from at least a portion of the captured vibration when the frequency of the captured vibration is above the second threshold of the multi-segment vibration frequency spectrum; mapping the severity value to one of a plurality of severity units defined for the corresponding at least one vibration frequency segment; and
based upon the one of the plurality of severity units, signaling a predictive maintenance server to execute a corresponding maintenance action on the portion of the particular industrial machine,
wherein signaling the predictive maintenance server to execute the corresponding maintenance action includes transmitting a signal to a component of the industrial machine which executes the corresponding maintenance action responsive to receiving the signal. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are each particular industrial machine comprising at least one vibration sensor disposed to capture vibration of a portion of the particular industrial machine; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a plurality of industrial machines in an industrial environment,
a centralized server computing device arranged remotely from and in continuous communication with each of the at least one vibration sensors, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to signal the predictive maintenance server. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering and processing steps are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “based upon the one of the plurality of severity units, signaling a predictive maintenance server to execute a corresponding maintenance action on the portion of the particular industrial machine”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, there’s no mention to what the corresponding maintenance action is.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Dependent claims 5, 10-17, and 19-33 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 18 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: claims 28, 30, 31 and 33 partially contain limitations which can overcome the 101
because they describe the maintenance action, (i.e. “increasing or decreasing a frequency for collection and analysis of further vibration data using the at least one vibration sensor” and “reducing a duty cycle of the industrial machine; or reducing an operating cycle rate of the industrial machine.” These limitations can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights