DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts the pending claims are integrated into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees. The instant claims are directed to an abstract idea falling into the category of mathematical concepts. The identified abstract idea, as recited, is implemented on a computer and is not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. While the claimed invention aids in monitoring a condition of rotating equipment, the calculations for determining that condition are performed by a general-purpose computer. Thus, here, as in Electric Power, “the focus of the claims is not on … an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.” Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350, 2016 WL 4073318, at *4 [119 USPQ2d 1739].
The claims, as an ordered combination, do not provide "significantly more" to the abstract idea, as a sensor configured to detect mechanical vibrations on one or more rotations of the rotating equipment is well known and conventional in the art of sensing rotational vibrations; see the provided evidence below. The sensors and generically claimed computer elements are not bettered or improved by the mathematical operations, thereby failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the claim does not apply the results of the calculations to control or improve the rotating equipment or the sensor itself.
Further, the Board correctly determined that the recited sensor does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidance.
Claim 2 is directed to mathematical concepts, including estimating rotation speeds, modifying data values based on those speeds, and determining a condition of rotating equipment through mathematical calculations. Applicant does not dispute that these steps constitute an abstract idea.
The claim recites that the plurality of data values are obtained by sampling a signal from a sensor responsive to rotations of the equipment. However, this limitation merely identifies the source of the input data and does not alter the character of the claim as a whole. The sensor does not perform any part of the claimed mathematical processing, nor does the claim require that the result of the calculations be applied to control, modify, or improve the operation of the rotating equipment. Instead, the sensor simply provides data that are then processed by generic computer components executing the abstract mathematical steps.
Federal Circuit precedent is clear that mere data gathering, even when tied to a physical sensor, does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363–64 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The sensor here functions in precisely this manner: it gathers information that serves as input to the abstract calculations, without imposing any meaningful limitation on how the abstract idea is performed.
Applicant’s reliance on Diamond v. Diehr is misplaced. In Diehr, the mathematical equation was integrated into a broader industrial process that included controlling physical equipment and transforming raw material into a cured product. In contrast, claim 2 does not apply the results of the mathematical calculations to any physical process or machine operation. The claim merely determines a condition based on calculated values, with no further action taken on the rotating equipment itself.
The claim also does not resemble those found eligible in Enfish or DDR Holdings. Claim 2 does not improve computer functionality, nor does it solve a problem specifically arising in computer technology or networks. Rather, it recites a generic computer used in its ordinary capacity to perform mathematical calculations on input data. As the Board correctly explained, the computer is invoked merely as a tool to carry out the abstract idea.
Many abstract ideas require data to operate, but functional dependence on data does not equate to integration into a practical application. The claim does not define any unconventional sensor operation, nor does it recite any technological improvement to sensing, signal acquisition, or machinery monitoring itself. Therefore, the claims are not found patent eligible.
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 2 and 4-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) estimate, for the plurality of data values, a respective plurality of rotation speeds; modify the plurality of data values based on the plurality of rotation speeds; and determine the condition of the rotating equipment based on the modified plurality of data values wherein the estimation of the plurality of the rotation speeds comprises sequentially calculating a rate of acceleration in said rotation speeds between each pair of the plurality of data values that are temporally adjacent. The identified abstract idea falls with the jucical exception of mathematical concepts, as evidenced by applicant’s filed specification. The disclosed estimation step and modify steps use mathematic concepts related to signal processing. The recited computer storage memory and processors merely act as tools for performing the identified abstract ideas without providing significantly more or implementing the abstract idea in to a practical application. The memory and processor are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed combination a sensor configured to detect mechanical vibrations responsive to one or more rotations of the rotation equipment and rotating equipment fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The sensor merely gathers data at a high level of generality and feeds that data into the identified abstract idea, thereby reading as an insignificant pre-solution activity of mere data gathering; as neither the performance or result of the abstract improves the collected data or sensor. MPEP 2106.05(g)
The recited rotating equipment and bearings merely links the abstract idea to a field of use without providing significantly more or implementing the abstract idea into a practical application; as neither the performance or result of the abstract idea improves the rotating equipment. MPEP 2106.05(h)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of a sensor collecting data is well known, as evidenced by Birchmeir (6,351,714) below. Further, the rotating equipment and bearings merely tie the abstract idea to a field of use without providing an improvement or significantly more. Therefore, the additional element, neither alone or in combination, amount to significantly more.
Claim 14 is rejected similar to claim 1. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 15 further define the additional element sensor without providing significantly more or implementing the abstract idea into a practical application, as the recited limitations are well known, as seen evidenced above. The claim sensor merely gathers the data needed to perform the mathematical operation in a computer environment without improving that environment or any other additional element found within the claims. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 5 and 16 further define the additional element of the rotating equipment to be a wind turbine generator without providing significantly more or implementing the abstract idea into a practical application, as the recited limitations merely links the abstract idea to a field of use, having no impact to the wind turbine generator. MPEP 2106.05(h)
Claims 6 and 17 further define the data collected by the additional element of the sensor without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or providing significantly more; as neither the result or performance of the abstract idea improves the generically claimed sensor and its respective data. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claims 7-8, 11-13 and 18-21 further define the identified abstract idea falling within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts without providing significantly more or implementing the abstract idea into practical application; as interpolation is considered to be an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Claim 10 further defines the additional elements of computer elements acting as tools for performing the identified abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or providing significantly more; as autocorrelation is considered to be an abstract idea falling into the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bianchi et al. (5,445,028) which teaches a method for monitoring the performance of a rotating machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached on 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853