DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 03/12/2026 in which claims 5-7, 13, and 21 stand cancelled, claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 18, and 20 have been amended, and no new claims have been added. Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14-20 are presented for examination.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has provided citations to the specification which include support for the amendments made to the claims and submits that no new matter has been added.
The specification has been evaluated and adequate support has been found such that it is apparent to the examiner that no new matter has been introduced by way of amendment.
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, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4, 8-12, and 14-19 are directed to a computing system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
and to quantitatively estimate crack geometric features of the structure in real-time; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a quantitative estimation of crack geometric features of a structure. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generated via Finite Element Modeling (FEM) simulation comprising fatigue crack growth source modeling modeled using a dipole moment excitation concept; and The claim limitation can be read to entail using a dipole moment excitation concept to generate datasets. This task of performing such modeling according to this phenomenon can be performed mentally and using assistive aids such as pen and paper, for example, by making evaluations of data per the concept and making judgments as to the response output. The inclusion of FEM simulation to perform such a step is the generic recitation of performing such mental process in a computing environment/ using generically recited FEM simulation as a tool to perform the mental process. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
performing a Choi-Williams transform (CWT) transformation on the AE signal data to generate a time-frequency representation, The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing a CWT on the AE signal data to generate a time-frequency representation. A CWT transformation is understood by the examiner as a set of numerical calculations, whereby a human being is capable of performing numerical calculations in the mind or with assistive aids. In Kravchenko et al (Kravchenko, V.F., Lazorenko, O.V., Pustovoĭt, V.I. et al. Choi-Williams transform and atomic functions in digital signal processing. Dokl. Phys. 52, 207–210 (2007)), this understanding is further supported by the statement “In practice, the Choi-Williams trans form is most commonly performed by means of numerical calculations using computer algebra systems.”. The use of a computer as a tool to perform such calculations does not exempt the claimed process from being considered a mental process. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, the recitation of a mathematical transformation is the recitation of a mathematical calculation which is a further recitation of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
and cropping and augmenting the time-frequency representation to fit a fixed-dimension visual feature map compatible with an input later of the machine-learned CNN model; The limitation can reasonably be read to entail the modification of a representation according to a fixed dimension. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by modifying a drawing, matrix representation, or the like of such representation to fit the criteria. The necessitation that the data is used as input to a CNN model merely necessitates that the process is performed in a computing environment, wherein the courts don’t distinguish between mental tasks performed entirely in the mind and those using a computer as an assistive aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
determining a characteristic dominant frequency of a crack-length-dependent standing wave pattern resulting from AE energy generated at one crack tip and traveling to the other crack tip of a crack formed in the monitored structure; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a standing wave pattern so as to make a judgement of the characteristic dominant frequency. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
quantitatively determining the crack length of the crack generating the AE signal data; and. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the signal data so as to make a quantitative judgement on the crack length associated with the signal. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
using the quantitative crack length determination to monitor crack growth and predict remaining useful life of the monitored structure by automatically generating an early warning of structural fatigue to adjust a maintenance schedule for the monitored structure. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the quantified crack length so as to inform predictive judgements regarding remaining useful life of the structure. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim further recites the automatic generation of an early warning for adjusting a maintenance structure. A human being can create a warning signaling the need for adjustment of a maintenance schedule by performing evaluations and forming a judgement of such notice. The inclusion of the word “automatically” for carrying out such process appears to be using a computer as a tool to execute the claimed functionality, whereby the courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the mind and those performed using a computer as a tool. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
one or more processors; and- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media that collectively store:- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
a machine-learned convolutional neural network (CNN) model configured to - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receive a time- frequency representation of high-frequency Acoustic Emission (AE) signal data sensed from a structure - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) for linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of acoustic emissions data on a structure
wherein the machine-learned CNN model is trained using synthetic datasets- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, configure the computing system to perform operations, the operations comprising: - This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
inputting the fixed-dimension visual feature map – This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering
into the machine- learned CNN model;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
as an output of the machine-learned CNN model - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) as mere data outputting
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/generic computing components or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim does not reflect an improvement into the functioning of a computer or other technology nor is the judicial exception applied or used in some meaningful way.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
receive a time- frequency representation of high-frequency Acoustic Emission (AE) signal data sensed from a structure – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation includes receiving and transmitting data over a network. This computer functionality has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
inputting the fixed-dimension visual feature map – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation includes receiving and transmitting data over a network. This computer functionality has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
as an output of the machine-learned CNN model – This limitation has been identified as the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation includes receiving and transmitting data over a network. This computer functionality has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The alleged improvement appears to be rooted in the judicial exception(s) themselves and the additional elements of the claim do not interact with the judicial exception in such a way to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 20:
Step 1: Claim 20 is directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
performing a Choi-Williams Transform (CWT) transformation on the AE signal data to generate a time-frequency representation The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail performing a CWT on the AE signal data to generate a time-frequency representation. A CWT transformation is understood by the examiner as a set of numerical calculations, whereby a human being is capable of performing numerical calculations in the mind or with assistive aids. In Kravchenko et al (Kravchenko, V.F., Lazorenko, O.V., Pustovoĭt, V.I. et al. Choi-Williams transform and atomic functions in digital signal processing. Dokl. Phys. 52, 207–210 (2007)), this understanding is further supported by the statement “In practice, the Choi-Williams trans form is most commonly performed by means of numerical calculations using computer algebra systems.”. The use of a computer as a tool to perform such calculations does not exempt the claimed process from being considered a mental process. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Further, the recitation of a mathematical transformation is the recitation of a mathematical calculation which is a further recitation of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts.
and cropping and augmenting the time-frequency representation to fit a fixed-dimension visual feature map compatible with an input layer of a machine-learned convolutional neural network (CNN) model; The limitation can reasonably be read to entail the modification of a representation according to a fixed dimension. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, for example, by modifying a drawing, matrix representation, or the like of such representation to fit the criteria. The necessitation that the data is used as input to a CNN model merely necessitates that the process is performed in a computing environment, wherein the courts don’t distinguish between mental tasks performed entirely in the mind and those using a computer as an assistive aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
to quantitatively estimate crack geometric features of the structure in real-time; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail making a quantitative estimation of crack geometric features of a structure. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
generated via Finite Element Modeling (FEM) simulation comprising fatigue crack growth source modeling modeled using a dipole moment excitation concept; The claim limitation can be read to entail using a dipole moment excitation concept to generate datasets. This task of performing such modeling according to this phenomenon can be performed mentally and using assistive aids such as pen and paper, for example, by making evaluations of data per the concept and making judgments as to the response output. The inclusion of FEM simulation to perform such a step is the generic recitation of performing such mental process in a computing environment/ using generically recited FEM simulation as a tool to perform the mental process. Per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
quantitatively determining, … the crack length of the crack generating the AE signal data; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating the signal data so as to make a quantitative judgement on the crack length associated with the signal. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
using the quantitative crack length determination to monitor crack growth and predict remaining useful life of the monitored structure by automatically generating an early warning of structural fatigue to adjust a maintenance schedule for the monitored structure. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail observing the quantified crack length so as to inform predictive judgements regarding remaining useful life of the structure. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim further recites the automatic generation of an early warning for adjusting a maintenance structure. A human being can create a warning signaling the need for adjustment of a maintenance schedule by performing evaluations and forming a judgement of such notice. The inclusion of the word “automatically” for carrying out such process appears to be using a computer as a tool to execute the claimed functionality, whereby the courts do not distinguish between mental processes performed entirely in the mind and those performed using a computer as a tool. Therefore, this claim limitation includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
obtaining, …, detected Acoustic Emission (AE) signal data from sensors used with an associated structure to be monitored;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. The limitation has been further identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
… by a computing system comprising one or more computing devices, …;- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
inputting, …, the fixed-dimension visual feature map into the machine-learned CNN model configured to receive AE signal data sensed from a structure and - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering. The limitation has further been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))
…by the computing system…- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
wherein the machine-learned CNN model is trained using synthetic datasets This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving, …, as an output of the machine-learned CNN model, a characteristic dominant frequency of a crack-length-dependent standing wave pattern resulting from AE energy generated at one crack tip and traveling to the other crack tip of a crack formed in the monitored structure;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. The limitation has further been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
by the computing system This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
as an output of the machine-learned CNN model This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting
The courts have found that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer/generic computing components or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))); adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))); and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h))) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim does not reflect an improvement into the functioning of a computer or other technology nor is the judicial exception applied or used in some meaningful way.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, additional elements were identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which must be further evaluated to determine if they are beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
obtaining, …, detected Acoustic Emission (AE) signal data from sensors used with an associated structure to be monitored;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering, as stated previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network. Transmitting and receiving data over a network have been recognized by the courts as computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a generic manner.
inputting, …, the fixed-dimension visual feature map into a machine-learned convolutional neural network (CNN) model configured to receive AE signal data sensed from a structure and - This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering, as stated above. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network. Transmitting and receiving data over a network have been recognized by the courts as computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a generic manner.
receiving, …, as an output of the machine-learned convolutional neural network (CNN) model, a characteristic dominant frequency of a crack-length-dependent standing wave pattern resulting from AE energy generated at one crack tip and traveling to the other crack tip of a crack formed in the monitored structure;- This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting, as noted previously. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network. Transmitting and receiving data over a network have been recognized by the courts as computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a generic manner.
as an output of the machine-learned CNN model This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data outputting. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation encompasses transmitting and receiving data over a network. Transmitting and receiving data over a network have been recognized by the courts as computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when claimed in a generic manner.
The courts have found that simply appending insignificant extra solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities to the judicial exception does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The remaining additional elements were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)), as stated previously. The courts have found that merely using generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform a mental process and generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not qualify the limitations as “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim is using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity in conjunction with well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable the performance of a task that can practically be performed within the human mind or using pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The alleged improvement appears to be rooted in the judicial exception(s) themselves and the additional elements of the claim do not interact with the judicial exception in such a way to provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation the determining operations include detecting peaks in a detected frequency spectrum that shift as crack length changes., which can reasonably be read to entail observing and evaluating AE waveforms to make an assessment of the presence of peaks in a particular frequency spectrum over time. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured so that. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 3
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 3, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation learns to predict crack length directly from individual AE signal data signals, for estimating in real-time the crack length information from high-frequency AE signal waveforms during fatigue crack growth., which can reasonably be read to entail observing and evaluating AE waveforms to make an assessment and judgment on the data in order to determine a length value. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured so that the machine-learned CNN model. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation estimates fatigue crack length in sheet metal structures using the crack length information contained in the high- frequency AE signal signatures., which can reasonably be read to entail observing AE signal signatures for information and evaluating the information to estimate crack length. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured so that the machine-learned CNN model. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 8, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 additionally recites the limitation wherein the fatigue crack growth source modeling represents a fatigue crack growth event as self-equilibrating dipole forces acting at one of the opposing crack tips which further describes the particularities of the modeling mental process recited in claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 9, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitation so that the surface strain (Exx and Eyy) captured by a PWAS sensor is extracted from FEM simulation so that the … model learns wavefield patterns due to fatigue crack growth., which can reasonably be read to entail performing a dipole force calculation and further evaluating the strain result of the calculation to associate patterns of wavefields that correspond to fatigue events and crack growth. The inclusion of force calculations is the explicit recitation of a mathematical calculation and therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. A human being is capable of evaluating numerical data and observing patterns in data to infer relationships. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. The claim includes the utilization of a machine-learned AI-enabled technology neural network architecture model to perform the recited mental process. Using generic computing components recited at a high level of generality to perform a mental process still amounts to the recitation of a mental process. Therefore, this claim includes the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 9 additionally recites the limitations wherein the one or more processors are further configured and machine-learned CNN model. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 10
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 10, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 additionally recites the limitation finite element modeling uses a moment tensor concept for achieving prediction of how crack length values affect the high-frequency content of AE signals. which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing the numerical representation of a physical phenomenon to evaluate how crack length values affect frequency data of AE signals, further describing the particularities of the exception of claim 1. The moment tensor concept is understood to leverage a mathematical function and therefore this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. Additionally, the numeric values derived from utilizing the moment tensor concept can be observed and evaluated in order to enable the prediction of how crack length values and high frequency content is related. The relationship between the length and the content of the signals is additionally the recitation of a mathematical relationship. In addition to the claim including the recitation of mathematical concepts, the claim further includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 11
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 11, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 additionally recites the limitation finite element modeling incorporates adaptation of the three-dimensional (3D) moment-tensor concept from geophysics to enable the prediction of AE signals in thin-plates using guided-wave theory., which can reasonably be read to entail utilizing the numerical representation of a physical phenomenon for the moment tensor in conjunction with mathematical concepts of guided wave theory to enable a prediction of AE signals. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept. The prediction can furthermore be performed practically within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid, as a human is capable of evaluating mathematical equations and inferring information to enable predictions. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 12
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 12, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation determines a proportional relation between the crack length and peaks in the frequency spectrum of the AE signal., which can reasonably be read to entail observing the peaks of a frequency spectrum with regard to crack length to make a judgment as to how the elements are related. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Because the peaks in the frequency spectrum can be quantified and the crack length is additionally a numeric value, determining the proportional relationship between the elements is furthermore the recitation of a mathematical relationship. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 12 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured so that the machine-learned CNN model. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 14
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 14, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured so that the machine-learned CNN model is tuned so that predictive AE models achieve concurrence with experimentally observed AE signals. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation merely describes the particular technological environment that the abstract idea is performed in. The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 14 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured so that the machine-learned Al-enabled technology neural network architecture model. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 15, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation makes selection of representative AE signal features in time domain and frequency domain to enable tuning of the predictive AE models. which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating AE signal features in time and frequency domains to determine and choose which representative features best enable tuning of predictive models. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 15 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured so that the machine-learned CNN model. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 16
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 16, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation sifts through experimental AE signals datasets to identify dominant trends correlated with crack length information., which can reasonably be read to entail observing AE signals datasets to infer patterns within the data that correspond to crack length information. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 16 additionally recites the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured so that the machine-learned CNN model. . This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 17, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 17 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 17 additionally recites the limitation wherein the machine-learned CNN model comprises an AlexNet convolutional neural network (CNN). This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation further describes the technological environment in which the abstract ideas are executed. The courts have ruled generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the recited abstract ideas into a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 18
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 18, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 18 additionally recites the limitation wherein the fixed-dimension visual feature map comprises a 227x227-pixel map, which further describes the specifics of the exception as given in the preceding claims from which this claim depends.
Step 2A Prong 2 & Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 19, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation for training its neural connections by backpropagating error and adjusting connection weights following standard steepest gradient descent., wherein backpropagation and steepest gradient descent are understood to be mathematical calculations. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 19 additionally recites the limitation wherein the machine-learned CNN model comprises neural network architecture following a standard multilayer perception model. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the claim is invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 8-12, and 14-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections set forth under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
A complete prior art search has been performed for the claims; however, the search did not reveal prior art that fairly teaches or suggests the features in the claims. Specifically, independent claims are considered allowable over the prior art since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP 2111.01, none of the references found either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claims, including at least:
wherein the machine-learned CNN model is trained using synthetic datasets generated via Finite Element Modeling (FEM) simulation comprising fatigue crack growth source modeling modeled using a dipole moment excitation concept; and
…
using the quantitative crack length determination to monitor crack growth and predict remaining useful life of the monitored structure by automatically generating an early warning of structural fatigue to adjust a maintenance schedule for the monitored structure.
The closest art includes:
Giurgiutiu et al. (US Patent Publication No. US 2020/0408720 A1) discloses a system for real time, online SHM of aircraft grade aluminum to evaluate fatigue cracks. The methodology discloses using time frequency analysis on acoustic emissions signals to extract signal signatures associated with geometric features of the crack, including crack length. Further, the AE signals are analyzed, dominant frequency peaks are located at various frequencies and the standing wave modes are described as being dependent on crack length. The crack length is described as being useful for assessing structural integrity and monitoring dynamic changes in materials. The reference discloses simulating fatigue crack growth using dipole excitation at the crack tips but does not disclose details as to how the dipole excitation is achieved. The reference discloses the desire for an early warning capability but does not automate the generation of an early warning of structural fatigue to adjust a maintenance schedule. The reference fails to disclose the utilization of a convolutional neural network in this process and modifying the signal data for use by the CNN.
Khan et al (Khan, A., Ko, D., Lim, S., and Kim, H., “Structural vibration-based classification and prediction of delamination in smart composite laminates using deep learning neural network”, 2019, Composites Part B 161, pp 586-594) discloses using a CNN capable of receiving spectrograms as input whereby vibration signals are subject to a transform so as to generate the spectrograms. The particular transform used is the Short Time Fourier Transform. The CNN is employed to discriminate features of the vibration-based spectrograms to make a distinction between healthy and delaminated scenarios of the material. The spectrograms provided to the CNN are given at specified dimensions of 256x256x2 and a feature map is described as being obtained from a convolution operation of the input data. The feature map is provided to a CNN and the CNN outputs a classification value. The reference discloses using FEM to develop an electromechanically coupled mathematical model but the reference fails to disclose training the CNN per using synthetic data generated from FEM simulation comprising fatigue crack growth source modeling using dipole moment excitation.
Joseph (Joseph, R., Bhuiyan, Y., Giurgiutiu, V., "Acoustic emission source modeling in a plate using buried moment tensors", April 28, 2017, Proc. SPIE 10170, Health Monitoring of Structural and Biological Systems 2017, 1017028; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2260167) discloses using the moment tensor concept in an explicit numerical derivation to represent a point excitation.
Joseph et al (Joseph, R. Giurgiutiu, V., “Analytical and Experimental Study of Fatigue-Crack-Growth AE Signals in Thin Sheet Metals”, October 2020, Sensors 20, no. 20: 5835. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20205835) discloses performing a Choi-Williams transform of acoustic emission signals to generate a time-frequency representation of the AE signal but does not describe the utilization of such representation in terms of cropping and augmenting for use by a CNN model.
Kim et al. (Kim, B., Cho, S., “Automated Vision-Based Detection of Cracks on Concrete Surfaces Using a Deep Learning Technique”, October 14, 2018, Sensors 18, no. 10: 3452. https://doi.org/10.3390/s18103452) discloses the cropping and augmentation of images for use in an AlexNet CNN.
These references, taken alone or in combination, would not render the claims of the present application obvious over the prior art. No other references have been found that would suggest any alternative combinations to cure the deficiencies of the cited art.
For the reasons stated herein, the independent claims are allowable over the prior art. When taken as a whole, the dependent claims have been found allowable over the prior art for at least the above features recited in the independent claims upon which they depend.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The claims have been amended in response to the rejection under 112(b) in the previous action for indefiniteness for the inclusion of the word “potentially”.
The amendment sufficiently overcomes the rejection and is accordingly withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicants arguments regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been considered but are not persuasive. Particularly:
Applicant has amended the independent claims and argues that, as amended, the claims are eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant specifically states that the claim is directed to a specific and inventive application of a machine-learned CNN model technology for real time structural health monitoring that goes beyond an abstract idea, the claim including features such as performing Choi Williams transform transformation on AE signal data and automatically generating an early warning of structural fatigue to adjust maintenance schedules for a monitored structure.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, applicant argues that the amended claim includes the Choi-Williams transform to generate a time frequency representation and further includes cropping and augmenting that representation to a particular fixed dimension feature map, which allegedly cannot be practically performed in the human mind.
Under broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification and of the teachings in the art, the Choi-Williams transform is merely a mathematical calculation that typically performed using computers. In Kravchenko et al (Kravchenko, V.F., Lazorenko, O.V., Pustovoĭt, V.I. et al. Choi-Williams transform and atomic functions in digital signal processing. Dokl. Phys. 52, 207–210 (2007)), this understanding is further supported by the statement “In practice, the Choi-Williams trans form is most commonly performed by means of numerical calculations using computer algebra systems.”. A human being is capable of performing mathematical calculations either purely in the mind or using assistive aids, such as pen and paper. The use of a computer as a tool to perform such calculations does not exempt the claimed process from being considered a mental process because the courts do not distinguish between mental processed performed entirely in the human mind and those performed using a computer. Therefore, this claim limitation is interpreted as a mental process, except for the use of generic computing components as tools to perform the process, in this step of the PEG considerations. Further, the recitation of a mathematical transformation is the recitation of a mathematical calculation which is a further recitation of the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. The further limitations of the claim to crop and augment a representation according to a specified size are further recitations of mental processes because modifying the representation can be done, for example by using assistive aids to modify a drawing, matrix representation, or the like to fit the criteria. The necessitation that the data is used as input to a CNN model merely necessitates that the process is performed in a computing environment, wherein the courts don’t distinguish between mental tasks performed entirely in the mind and those using a computer as an assistive aid.
The applicant argues that the present claim 1 is much like that of the Example 48 given in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, particularly pointing to claim 3. The applicant incorrectly argues that at Step 2A, Prong 2 the claim is found eligible because of elements (b), (c) and (d), wherein the limitations are: b) transforming a mixed speech signal into a time-frequency representation, c) creating embeddings using a DNN, and d) synthesizing the signals.
The limitations b, c, and d as given above, contrarily, are the identified recited abstract ideas of the claim and not the additional elements which were found to provide the improvement and which effectively integrated the exceptions into a practical application. What provided the improvement in Claim 3 of Example 48 is the additional elements (e) and (f). The CWT transformation and the CNN feature mapping are steps which can be construed as mental process, much like the analysis of Example 48. The additional elements of the present claims do not provide a practical application because they do not reflect any alleged improvement made by the applicant but rather the alleged improvement appears to be rooted in the abstract ideas themselves. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” and that additional elements must provide the inventive concept. The computing components relied upon to carry out the functions of the claimed invention are recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity have been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The input and output of the CNN are understood to be the sending and receiving of data over a network, which is understood as a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner. The recitation of an outcome of a judicial exception without providing particular details as to how the outcome is accomplished is further noted as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). There do not appear to be any additional elements that provide an inventive concept, either alone or in conjunction with their interactions with the judicial exception and therefore the additional elements do not effectively integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claim 1 positively recites applying the output of the CNN to a concrete, real world action of “automatically generating an early warning of structural fatigue to adjust a maintenance schedule for the monitored structure” and further agues this element is not insignificant extra solution activity.
Examiner agrees this is not insignificant extra solution activity. This process, except for the recitation of using a computer as a tool to perform the process (automatically), can be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human being can observe an output of a CNN and make an evaluation of criteria for the indication of structural fatigue. Based on this observation, a human being may generate a warning, for example, by writing on a piece of paper that an anomalous or worrisome event has occurred, whereby such note may be further evaluated to make a judgement on adjusting the maintenance schedule. The present claim does not recite how the early warning of the structural fatigue is generated in a way that is beyond human capacity, nor does the claim recite how the preventive maintenance is scheduled in a way that is beyond human capacity using assistive aids. Accordingly, because the abstract ideas cannot provide the improvement, this additional element does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant further points to the USPTO Example 47 regarding 101 guidance, noting that the claim was found to be eligible because the output of an AI is used to drop malicious network packets and block future traffic. The applicant argues that in the same way that the automated dropping of packets integrated the exception into a practical application, the automatic generation of a warning to adjust a maintenance schedule would likewise integrate the exception.
As stated above, this process is identified as the additional recitation of an abstract idea. The claim does not positively recite actionable steps that reflect any advantage or benefit for preserving structural integrity. The generation of an alert and the adjustment of a maintenance schedule do not necessitate than any particular action be taken on the structure such that the structure’s integrity is ever actually affected. For example, say an alert is issued and the maintenance schedule is updated accordingly but the maintenance personnel never effectively act upon the schedule in any meaningful capacity to preserve the integrity of the structure. In this scenario, the structure would continue to deteriorate and the alleged improvement would not be achieved. Therefore, there is no concrete application for preserving structural integrity. What is argued is the idea of an outcome or solution, in which the claim fails to recite details as to how the outcome is specifically achieved.
Applicant argues that under the PEG Step 2B, the combination of claimed elements provides significantly more than any asserted abstract idea in a conclusory manner, merely citing the order of the steps in the claim.
The bulk of the claim recites steps which can be construed as mental process and/or mathematical concepts. With this, the ordering of such steps nominally contributes to providing significantly more than the abstract idea. That is- the abstract ideas are still abstract ideas regardless of the order by which they are performed. Imparting generic computing components functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of such processes does not meaningfully transform the claim to significantly more than the exception(s).
For the reasons stated in this response, in conjunction with the updated rejection of this action, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant has amended the claims in response to the previous rejection(s) to the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and argues that the claims, as amended, are distinguished from the prior art of record. Applicant particularly points out that the references alone and combined fail to disclose all of the features of the claims, as amended, including at least: 1. Training the CNN model using synthetic datasets generated via FEM simulation comprising fatigue crack growth source modeling modeled using a dipole moment excitation concept; 2. Performing a CWT on the AE signal data to generate a time-frequency representation, and cropping and augmenting the time-frequency representation to fit a fixed-dimension visual feature map compatible with an input later of the machine-learned CNN model; and; 3. Automatically generating an early warning structural fatigue to adjust a maintenance schedule for the monitored structure.
The arguments have been considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections to the independent claims have been withdrawn, as well as the rejections to the dependent claims by incorporation of such features from their respective independent claim. The amended claims have been evaluated and searched further to determine if any additional prior art cures the deficiencies of the prior art of record. No additional prior art was found to disclose, either alone or in combination, the entirety of the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/EMERSON C PUENTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights