DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
2. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
3. No priority has been claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with the previous action.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 04/13/2022 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
6. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
7. 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.
8. Claims 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 9 recites:
9. A method comprising:
controlling a motor by a controller disposed on a circuit board, wherein the circuit board is attached to a bearing housing, wherein the bearing housing encases that supports a bearing, wherein the bearing that supports rotation of an air mover motor shaft associated with extending from a motor, wherein the motor is part of associated with an air mover;
collecting vibration data from an accelerometer device disposed on the circuit board; and
collecting temperature data from a temperature sensing device disposed on the circuit board, wherein the temperature sensing device is located on the circuit board such that the temperature sensing device is in contact with the housing, and wherein the temperature sensing device obtains in order to obtain a temperature of the bearing housing; and
determining, by the controller, an upcoming mechanical failure in the motor based on the vibration data and the temperature data collected in the memory device.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 15.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 9 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a process claim and claim 15 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental/ mathematical process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “controlling a motor by a controller disposed on a circuit board, wherein the circuit board is attached to a bearing housing, wherein the bearing housing encases that supports a bearing, wherein the bearing that supports rotation of an air mover motor shaft associated with extending from a motor, wherein the motor is part of associated with an air mover, determining, by the controller, an upcoming mechanical failure in the motor based on the vibration data and the temperature data collected in the memory device.”, which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 15.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “collecting vibration data from an accelerometer device disposed on the circuit board; and collecting temperature data from a temperature sensing device disposed on the circuit board, wherein the temperature sensing device is located on the circuit board such that the temperature sensing device is in contact with the housing, and wherein the temperature sensing device obtains in order to obtain a temperature of the bearing housing.” (claims 9 and 15) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “controller” (claims 9, and 15) however the “controller” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Specification describes a generic controller and circuitry that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “machine” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, the entire independent claims are directed to data gathering. Further, applicant’s specification recites that the computer readable medium could even be paper. (Paragraph 038)In this instance the paper would have the instructions written on it and would constitute a mental process.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 8, and 15). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 9 as well as claims 15, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 10-14, and 16-20, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 9, and 15.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-8 allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regards to the rejections of claims 9-20 in view of U.S.C 101. The other rejections have been withdrawn and the reasons for the pending rejections are detailed above. No specific arguments were presented with regards to the pending rejection. However, it should be noted that merely adding structure to an abstract idea does not necessarily make the claims eligible. Further, the amendment adding the determining step is considered abstract as a determination maybe done by mental process.
Examiner's Note:
10. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
11. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cella et al. US Pat # 11,281,202 teaches a method and system of modifying a data collection trajectory for bearings.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
14. 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.
15. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
16. 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://ppair-my.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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 April 2, 2026