DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 14 and 16 are amended.
Claims 3 10 15 and 18-20 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-17 are pending.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under step 1, claim 1 and 14 belongs to a statutory category of a method and a device.
Under Step 2A prong 1, the claims as a whole are identified as being directed to a judicial exception as claim 1 and similarly 14 recite(s) “transforming, by the at least one processing device, the sensor data into a frequency domain to generate a spectral representation of the sensor data influenced by the one or several operational parameters of the machine; generating, by the at least one processing device, a first compressed sensor data representation based on applying a first compression technique to the spectral representation of the sensor data, wherein applying the first compression technique includes applying an alignment transformation that is dependent on the rotation speed to align the spectral representation of the sensor data with at least one reference spectrum of a set of reference spectra, and determining a set of decomposition coefficients of a linear decomposition of the spectral representation of the sensor data;”, “in response to receiving the trigger event, modifying the first compression technique to a second compression technique; generating, by the at least one processing device, a second compressed sensor data representation based on applying the second compression technique to the spectral representation of the sensor data at a time the corresponding sensor data was captured, wherein applying the second compression technique comprises applying the alignment transformation that is dependent on the rotation speed to the spectral representation of the sensor data to align the spectral representation of the sensor data with the at least one reference spectrum of the set of reference spectra, and determining the set of decomposition coefficients of the linear decomposition of the spectral representation of the sensor data;”, “one or several operational parameters of a machine having a rotating component, the one or several operational parameters of the machine influencing the sensor data and being distinct from the sensor data, wherein the one or several operational parameters of the machine include a rotation speed of the rotating component;”, and “wherein an applied compression technique including the first compression technique and the second compression technique is dependent on the one or several received operational parameters of the machine that is running, and wherein the applied compression technique is adjusted as the one or several operational parameters of the running machine vary” which are directed to mathematical concepts and/or mental processes per applicant’s specification, (examiner notes that while an “improved, particular method of digital data compression” is sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology, looking at the applicants claims in light of the specification, the applicant’s invention appears to be directed to applying known digital data compression technique based on what is considered to be mental processes and/or mathematical algorithms (as can be seen on page 14 Lines 16-17 “adjust the compression, i.e. the mathematical operations”), rather than a particular method of digital data compression).
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “receiving, by the at least one processing device, a trigger event indicative of a detected change the one or several operational parameters of the machine;”, “transmitting, by the at least one processing device, a compressed sensor data representation comprising the first compressed sensor data representation and the second compressed sensor data representation to a computing device, wherein the compressed sensor data representations include the set of decomposition coefficients;” and “receiving, by the at least one processing device, a trigger event” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “at least one processing device”, “a computing device” “an interface” and “processing sensor data for transmission” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving, by the at least one processing device, a trigger event indicative of a detected change the one or several operational parameters of the machine;”, “transmitting, by the at least one processing device, a compressed sensor data representation comprising the first compressed sensor data representation and the second compressed sensor data representation to a computing device, wherein the compressed sensor data representations include the set of decomposition coefficients;” and “receiving, by the at least one processing device, a trigger event” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g)(i or iv) and are well understood routine and conventional per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i), as the courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). The elements of “at least one processing device”, “a computing device” “an interface” and “processing sensor data for transmission” are considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-9, and 11 are considered to be further directed to the abstract ideas cited above.
Claim 7 recites “analyzing, the compressed sensor data representation” is considered to be further directed to the abstract ideas cited above. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “receiving, the compressed sensor data representation” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The elements of “a data analytics computer” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receiving, the compressed sensor data representation” are considered to be well understood routine and conventional per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i). The elements of “a data analytics computer” are considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claims 12-13 and 16-17 recite “wherein the at least one processing device is a field sensor device”, “wherein the machine is a generator or a motor” and “a system, comprising: a machine having a rotating component, in particular a motor or a generator, or a machine having a reciprocating component;” which are not integrated into a practical application or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are is considered to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and are considered to be well understood routine and conventional per MPEP 2106.05(d) (See US 20180188715 A1, US 20190033172 A1, and US 20190174207 A1).
Claims 16 and similarly 17 recite “determine a compression technique that is to be applied to the sensor data as a function of the one or several operational parameters of the machine, the one or several operational parameters of the machine influencing the sensor data and being distinct from the sensor data, wherein the one or several operational parameters include a rotation speed of the rotating component; transform the sensor data into a frequency domain to generate a spectral representation of the sensor data influenced by the one or several operational parameters of the machine; generate a first compressed sensor data representation based on applying a first compression technique to the spectral representation of the sensor data, wherein applying the first compression technique comprises applying an alignment transformation that is dependent on the rotation speed to the spectral representation of the sensor data to align the spectral representation of the sensor data with at least one reference spectrum of a set of reference spectra, and determining a set of decomposition coefficients of a linear decomposition of the spectral representation of the sensor data; in response to a trigger event, indicative of a detected change the one or several operational parameters of the machine that is running, modify the compression technique that is to be applied to the sensor data as the function of the one or several received operational parameters of the machine to a second compression technique; and generate a second compressed sensor data representation based on applying the second compression technique as modified to the spectral representation of the sensor data, wherein applying the second compression technique comprises applying the alignment transformation that is dependent on the rotation speed to the spectral representation of the sensor data to align the spectral representation of the sensor data with the at least one reference spectrum of the set of reference spectra, and determining the set of decomposition coefficients of the linear decomposition of the spectral representation of the sensor data;” and “wherein the applied compression technique is adjusted as the one or several operational parameters of the running machine vary” are considered to be mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (examiner notes that while an “improved, particular method of digital data compression” is sufficient to show an improvement in existing technology, looking at the applicants claims in light of the specification, the applicant’s invention appears to be directed to applying known digital data compression technique based on what is considered to be mental processes and/or mathematical algorithms (as can be seen on page 14 Lines 16-17 “adjust the compression, i.e. the mathematical operations”), rather than a particular method of digital data compression).
Under Step 2A prong 2, evaluating whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application of that exception, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because “a device for processing sensor data for transmission, comprising: an interface adapted to” and “at least one processing circuit adapted to:” are considered to be generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The elements of “receive one or several operational parameters of the machine having the rotating component or having the reciprocating component, the one or several operational parameters being different from the sensor data;” and “output circuitry adapted to transmit the compressed sensor data representation including the first compressed sensor data representation and the second compressed sensor data representation, wherein the compressed sensor data representations include the set of decomposition coefficients” are considered to be data gathering steps required to use the correlation do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under Step 2B, evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept both individually and in combination, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because “receive one or several operational parameters of the machine having the rotating component or having the reciprocating component, the one or several operational parameters being different from the sensor data;” and “output circuitry adapted to transmit the compressed sensor data representation including the first compressed sensor data representation and the second compressed sensor data representation, wherein the compressed sensor data representations include the set of decomposition coefficients” are considered to be adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception per MPEP 2106.05(g)(i or iv) and are well understood routine and conventional per MPEP 2106.05(d)(i), as the courts have decided that receiving or transmitting data over a network as well-understood, routine, conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) other types of activities example i. receiving or transmitting data over a network, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network). The elements of “a device for processing sensor data for transmission, comprising: an interface adapted to” and “at least one processing circuit adapted to:” are considered to be well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Examiner Note with regards to Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-17 are distinguished over the prior art of record based on the reasons below.
In claim 1, 14, 16-17, the claims differs from the closest prior arts of record, US 20190174207 A1, US 20180284758 A1, US 20180188715 A1, in that it fails to anticipate or render obvious “wherein applying the first compression technique includes applying an alignment transformation that is dependent on the rotation speed to align the spectral representation of the sensor data with at least one reference spectrum of a set of reference spectra, and determining a set of decomposition coefficients of a linear decomposition of the spectral representation of the sensor data;” and “wherein applying the second compression technique comprises applying the alignment transformation that is dependent on the rotation speed to the spectral representation of the sensor data to align the spectral representation of the sensor data with the at least one reference spectrum of the set of reference spectra, and determining the set of decomposition coefficients of the linear decomposition of the spectral representation of the sensor data;” in combination with all the other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s 101 arguments on pages 10-12, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Per MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) “However, 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.” Thus the claims are not considered to be an improvement. Further, per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) “Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11228820 B2, Generating And/or Encoding Rotational Data For A Mechanical Element Over A Digital Network; US 20210229188 A1, AUTOMATIC HOLE-PROCESSING METHOD WITH SELF-ADAPTING ADJUSTMENT OF PROCESSING PARAMETERS;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON J BECKER whose telephone number is (571)431-0689. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.J.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
