This Office action is in response to RCE filed on 3/17/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments filed 3/17/2026 to the claims are entered. In this amendment:
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10, and 15 have been amended.
Claim 2, 13, and 16-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-27 have been added.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, and 21-27 are examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/17/2026 have been fully considered.
The amendment of the claim objection is persuasive and is withdrawn.
The argument regarding the 101 rejection is not persuasive for the below reason:
Applicant argues that “claim 1 provides a specific technological solution in the field of electromechanical system diagnostics and condition monitoring. Applicant submits that under MPEP §2106, claim 1 is patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Any mathematical modeling, rule logic, or machine learning elements alleged by the Office action as a potential ground for rejection. Claim 1 is not directed to a mental process, is meaningfully tied to a particular technological environment involving sensors and machinery, and recites a specific, nongeneric combination of symbolic transition encoding, sequential rule evaluation, and adaptive model refinement that improves the accuracy of detecting off-nominal behavior of the electro-mechanical test subject. This ordered combination constitutes significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as a whole is directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite any additional element that is significant more than the abstract idea. The court in MPEP 2106.05(f) stated mere instruction to apply an exception does not mean that the claim must be narrow without going further to require a specific implementation to improve how those functions are carried out in order to be eligible, and merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of [a] process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea. The court further defines that when determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The claim recites “applying labels” (mental process) and performing supervised training with a machine learning (ML) model… this seems using functional computer rather than provide significantly more. In addition, as addressed in the previous Office action, additional limitations “receiving” and “obtaining” are recited at a high level of generality and add insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106(g)).
In conclusion, (1) The claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, i.e., performing supervised training with a machine learning (ML) model... to generate a new model but does not provide details on how the model is integrated into a practical application. (2) The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, i.e., using a logic subsystem (such as a CPU/processor) that performs math and logic functions to perform abstract idea. (3) The claim does not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
It is suggested to review the specification in [0129] and [0134]-[0135], which discloses “improved” (e.g., optimized) features (e.g., improved feature 399 in figure 3) defined by user input data can be used to update the nominal model to comply with those improved features. Furthermore, the specification in [0138] discloses “the testing system can improve the control limits to minimize the quantity of phase space control chart alerts generated for training data labeled as nominal while also increasing or maximizing the quantity of phase space control chart alerts generated for training data labeled as off-nominal.”
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 15, 21, 24, and 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
p.2, last line and p.3 line 1: “measurements of a parameter” should read “measurements of [[a]]the parameter”,
p.3, lines 1-3: “for that parameter” should read “for [[that]]the parameter”, see p.2 line 6.
p.3, line 6: “that antecedent” should read “[[that]the antecedent”, and further,
“condition that identifies that an alert” is suggested as “condition that identifies [[that]] an alert” (to avoid confusing),
p.3, lines 11-12: “the test subject” should read “the electro-mechanical test subject” for consistency,
p.3, line 11: “for each” should read “for the each”, see p.2 line 10,
p.3, line 21 and p.4, line 3: “that the first symbol” should read “[[that]] the first symbol”, and p.4, line 16 “that the consequent” should read “[[that]] the consequent” (“that” is redundant),
p.5, lines 3-5: “at least one of an adjusted control limit, a different symbol of the symbol map, or a redefined sequential rule that is based on the labels…” is not clear. It should read “at least one of an adjusted control limit, a different symbol of the symbol map, or a redefined sequential rule
p.5, line 8: “parameters labeled” should read “the parameters labeled”, see p.5 line 7.
Claim 4, line 1: “for each parameter” should read “for the each parameter”, see p.2 line 6 or 10, further, in line 9 “an off-nominal event” should read “[[an]]the off-nominal event” (see p.4 line 3 from bottom up).
Claim 6, lines 4 and 6 recite “the parameter labeled” should read “[[the]]a parameter labeled”, if applicant means a plural “parameters labeled” (as recited in p.5 line 7), it should read “the parameters labeled”, further in line 6 “an off-nominal event” should read “[[an]]the off-nominal event” (see p.4 line 3 from bottom up).
Claim 7, line 1: “for each parameter” should read “for the each parameter”, see claim 1, further, in line 13: “the phase space value sets” should read “[[the]] phase space value sets” (no plural value sets defined prior), and in line 16 ”an off-nominal event” should read “[[an]]the off-nominal event”.
Claim 9, line 5: “a nominal event” should read “[[a]]the nominal event”, and line 8: “an off-nominal event” should read “[[an]]the off-nominal event”, further, in lines 5 and 8: “the parameter labeled” should be “a parameter labeled”. If applicant refers to a plural “parameters labeled” (as recited in p.5 line 7), should read “the parameters labeled”.
Claim 10, line 10: “an off-nominal event” should read “[[an]]the off-nominal event”
Claim 12, lines 4 and 6: “the parameter labeled” should read “[[the]]a parameter labeled”, if applicant means a plural “parameters labeled” (as recited in p.5 line 7), it should read “the parameters labeled”, further in line 4: “a nominal event” should read “[[a]]the nominal event”, and in line 6: “an off-nominal event” should read “[[an]]the off-nominal event” (see p.4 line 3 from bottom up).
Claim 15, line 7: “the one or more parameters” should read “the one or more parameters of the plurality of parameters”, further, in line 8: “for the parameter relative” should read “for the one or more parameters”.
Claim 21:
p.11, line 1: “the electro-mechanical” should read “[[the]]an electro-mechanical”, further, in line 15: “a parameter of the plurality of parameters” should read [[a]]the parameter of the plurality of parameters”, lines 15-17: “for that parameter” should read “[[that]]the parameter”,
p.11, line 20: “that antecedent” should read “[[that]] the antecedent” and “condition that
identifies that an alert” is suggested as “condition that identifies [[that]] an alert” (to avoid confusing),
p.12, lines 13, 17: “that the first symbol” should read “[[that]] the first symbol”,
p.13, line 3: “that the second symbol” should read “[[that]] the second symbol”,
p.13, line 8: ‘’that the consequent” should read “[[that]] the consequent” (above “that” in p.12-13, is redundant),
p.13, lines 18-19: “at least one of (1) an adjusted control limit, (2) a different symbol of the symbol map, or (3) a redefined sequential rule that is based on the labels…” is not clear. It should read “at least one of an adjusted control limit, a different symbol of the symbol map, or a redefined sequential rule
p. 13, line 22 “parameters labeled” should read “the parameters labeled”, see claim 21.
Claim 24, line 3: “for each parameter of the plurality of parameters” should read “for the each parameter of the plurality of parameters”, see p.11, lines 4, 7 and p.12 line 3, further, in line 10: “an off-nominal” should read “[[an]]the off-nominal”.
Claim 26, lines 4, 6 “the parameter labeled” should be “a parameter labeled”. If applicant refers to a plural “parameters labeled” (in p.13 line 21), should read “the parameters labeled”.
Claim 27, line 3: “for each parameter of the plurality of parameters” should read “for the each parameter of the plurality of parameters”, see claim 21, further, “the phase space value sets” should read “[[the]] phase space value sets” (no plural value sets defined prior), and in line 6:”an off-nominal event” should read “[[an]]the off-nominal event”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-4, 7, 10, 22-24, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3, line 4 recites “that parameter” which is unclear as to whether this language refers to “the subject parameter” recited in claim 3 or “the parameter of the plurality of parameters as recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the language “that parameter’ is interpreted as “the subject parameter”.
Claim 4, line 4 recites “that parameter” is indefinite. It is unclear whether (1) an ordinal parameter based on (2) a parameter definition of the nominal model for that parameter”, or (3) “the parameter of the plurality of parameters in claim 1. It is interpreted “that parameter” is interpreted as “the ordinal parameter”.
Claim 7 line 6: (1) “a phase space value set for each of the time-based series”, line 7: “(2) the phase space value set for a current value”, line 13: (3) “the phase space value sets to the parameter-specific control band”, lines 17-19: (4) “the phase space value sets of the test data”, and (5) “the phase space value sets of the training data” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear whether (2), (3), (4), and (5) are the same or are different to (1). (Please see the above objection in claim 7). It is interpreted all (1), (2), (3),(4), and (5) are different, thus, (2), (3), (4) and (5) should read “a” instead of “the”, i.e., “a phase space value set for a current value” in (1), and so on.
Claim 10, lines 1-2: “for each parameter:” lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether “each parameter” refers to “the each parameter of the plurality of parameters”, or “the each parameter-specific control parameter” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 22, lines 4: “for that parameter” is indefinite. It is unclear whether “(1) the parameter-specific control band for (2) a subject parameter of the plurality of parameters are programmatically defined based, at least in part, on a predefined deviation from a statistic of the training data for that parameter”, or “the parameter of the plurality of parameters in claim 1. It is interpreted “[[that]]the parameter-specific control band”.
Claim 23, line 4: “that parameter” is indefinite. It is unclear whether (1) an ordinal parameter based on (2) a parameter definition of the nominal model for that parameter”, or (3) “the parameter of the plurality of parameters in claim 1. For purpose of examination, “that parameter” is interpreted “the ordinal parameter”.
Claim 24, line 5 “that parameter” is indefinite. It is unclear whether “(1) the parameter is an ordinal parameter based on (2) a parameter definition of the nominal model for that parameter, or (3) “the parameter of the plurality of parameter” in claim 21. For purpose of examination, “that parameter” is interpreted “the ordinal parameter”.
Claim 27 line 7: (1) “a phase space value set for each of the time-based series”, line 8: “(2) the phase space value set for a current value”, p.17 line 3: (3) “the phase space value sets to the parameter-specific control band”, p.17 lines 7-8: (4) “the phase space value sets of the test data”, and (5) “the phase space value sets of the training data” lack antecedent basis. It is unclear whether (2), (3), (4), and (5) are the same or are different to (1). (Please see the above objection in claim 27). It is interpreted all (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) are different, thus, (2), (3), (4) and (5) should read “a” instead of “the”, i.e., “a phase space value set for a current value” in (1), and so on.
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, 3-12, 14-15, and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process and system (claims 1 and 21) which are statutory categories.
However, evaluating claim 1 under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea because the following limitations fall in the grouping mathematical concepts including “a symbol map that defines ...; implementing a testing phase…; selecting the parameter…, comparing the time based series…, selectively generating a test result…; determining the first symbol…; response to determining the first symbol…; upon identifying the second symbol…; determining the second symbol…; and applying the labels…; while the following limitations fall in both groupings of mathematical concepts and mental processes including “a sequential rule definition that defines…; performing supervised training…; and implementing the test phase for the electro-mechanical test subject.”
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Claim 1 does not recite any additional element that can integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitations of “receiving test data” and “obtaining a nominal model” are data gathering, which are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and add the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use/apply a computer, i.e., a logic subsystem, as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Similarly, independent claim 21 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, claims 1 and 21 do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activity (i.e., mere data gathering “receiving and obtaining data” adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
merely use a computer as a tool (i.e., a logic subsystem “CPU/processor”) to perform abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e., a testing method performed by a computing system with respect to an electro-mechanical test subject as recited in the preamble.
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more
under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-12, 14-15, and 22-27 that are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations (claims 3-12, 14-15, and 22-27) that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts and/or mental process.
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refers to extra-solution activities and at a high level of generality, i.e., receiving/obtaining data (claims 3, 14, 22-23) and used machine learning to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (claims 3, 7-11, 22-23), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-15, and 21-27 are considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art but as currently presently are rejected under 35 USC 101 as set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for considering novel and non-obvious subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 21, none of the prior art in individual or in combination does not teach or suggest “determining, by the logic subsystem, that the first symbol defined by the sequential rule definition as the antecedent is present within the test data as encoded by the first symbol defined by the symbol map; conducting, by the logic subsystem, a search of the sequential rule definition for the consequent to the antecedent to identify the second symbol as the consequent to the antecedent; searching, by the logic subsystem, the test data for the second symbol within a subsequent portion of the time-based series of measurements occurring after the parameter-specific transition encoded by the first symbol; determining, by the logic subsystem, that the second symbol defined by the sequential rule definition as the consequent is present within the test data as encoded by the second symbol defined by the symbol map”
Dependent claims 3-12, 14-15, and 22-27 are also distinguished from the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM-6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights