DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This final office action is in response to the amendment filed 29 October 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent claims.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed 29 October 2025 is accepted.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1; MPEP 2106.03). If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed toward a judicial exception (Step 2A; MPEP 2106.04). This step is broken into two prongs.
The first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1) determines whether or not the claims recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity). If it is determined at Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2; MPEP 2106.04). The second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2) determines whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determine whether the claim is a patent-eligible exception (Step 2B; MPEP 2106.05).
If an abstract idea is present int the claim, in order to recite statutory subject matter, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see: 2019 PEG).
Step 1:
According to Step 1 of the two Step analysis, claims 1- are directed toward a method (process). Claims 10-15 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 16-20 are directed toward a system (machine). Therefore, each of these claims falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 1, the claims recite:
outputting a reconstructed sound representation indicating purported sound of operation emitted from the run-time device (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of previous sound information to generate and output a sound prediction)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers and sound information from one or more microphones associated with a test device in a first environment
receiving real-time vibrational information from one or more second accelerometers associated with a run-time device in a second environment
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
generating a training data set that includes paired vibrational information and corresponding sound information that are aligned to represent a common operating state of an associated device, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model
in response to meeting a convergence threshold of the machine learning model utilizing the training data set, outputting a trained machine learning model
based on the trained machine learning model and the real-time vibrational information, output
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
generating a training data set that includes paired vibrational information and corresponding sound information that are aligned to represent a common operating state of an associated device, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model
in response to meeting a convergence threshold of the machine learning model utilizing the training data set, outputting a trained machine learning model
based on the trained machine learning model and the real-time vibrational information, output
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2:
With respect to dependent claim 2, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites:
and the sound prediction data is of the same form [time series, spectrogram, or order spectrogram data] (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of previous sound information to generate a sound prediction)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the vibrational information is in a form of time series, spectrogram, or order spectrogram data
This limitation is directed toward the received information (claim 1, lines 2-3). As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 2 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the vibrational information is in a form of time series, spectrogram, or order spectrogram data
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3:
With respect to dependent claim 3, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
wherein machine learning model is trained to predict sound utilizing the vibrational data as input and adjusting its trainable weights to minimize a sound prediction error
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 3 recites the following additional elements:
wherein machine learning model is trained to predict sound utilizing the vibrational data as input and adjusting its trainable weights to minimize a sound prediction error
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4:
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 4, the claim recites:
and the sound prediction is a second spectrogram (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of previous sound information to generate a sound prediction)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 4 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the vibrational data is a spectrogram
This limitation is directed toward the received information (claim 1, lines 2-3). As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 4 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the vibrational data is a spectrogram
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5:
With respect to dependent claim 5, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 5 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the trained machine learning model is a deep neural network
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 5 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the trained machine learning model is a deep neural network
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 6:
With respect to dependent claim 6, the claim depends upon dependent claim 5. The analysis of claim 5 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 6 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the deep neural network is a U-net or transformer network
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 6 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the deep neural network is a U-net or transformer network
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7:
With respect to dependent claim 7, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the first environment and the second environment are a different setting
This limitation is directed toward the received information (claim 1, lines 2-3). As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 7 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the first environment and the second environment are a different setting
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8:
With respect to dependent claim 8, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the first environment is a laboratory setting
This limitation is directed toward the received information (claim 1, lines 2-3). As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the first environment is a laboratory setting
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9:
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claim depends upon independent claim 1. The analysis of claim 1 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the training data set pairs the vibrational information with corresponding sound information
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the training data set pairs the vibrational information with corresponding sound information
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 10, the claims recite:
outputting a sound prediction indicating purported sound of operation emitted from the run-time device (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of previous sound information to generate a sound prediction)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers and sound information associated with corresponding vibrational information from a test device in a first environment, wherein the sound information is obtained from one or more microphones
receiving real-time vibrational information from a run-time device operating an actuator or electric dive in a second environment
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
generating a training data set utilizing at least the vibrational data and the sound information associated with the vibrational data, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model configured to output sound predictions
based on the trained machine learning model and the real-time vibrational information, output
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers and sound information associated with corresponding vibrational information from a test device in a first environment, wherein the sound information is obtained from one or more microphones
receiving real-time vibrational information from a run-time device operating an actuator or electric dive in a second environment
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Further, claim 10 recites the following additional elements:
generating a training data set utilizing at least the vibrational data and the sound information associated with the vibrational data, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model configured to output sound predictions
based on the trained machine learning model and the real-time vibrational information, output
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
With respect to dependent claim 11, the claim depends upon independent claim 10. The analysis of claim 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the vibrational information includes accelerometer data including x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis accelerometer information
This limitation is directed toward the received information (claim 10, lines 2-3). As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the vibrational information includes accelerometer data including x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis accelerometer information
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12:
With respect to dependent claim 12, the claim depends upon independent claim 10. The analysis of claim 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the deep neural network is a U-net or transformer network
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 12 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the deep neural network is a U-net or transformer network
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13:
With respect to dependent claim 13, the claim depends upon independent claim 10. The analysis of claim 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 13, the claims recite:
wherein the sound predication is output as raw time-series data or spectrogram data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of previous sound information to generate a sound prediction as either time-series data or spectrogram data, with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim 14:
With respect to dependent claim 14, the claim depends upon independent claim 10. The analysis of claim 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the first environment and the second environment are a different setting
This limitation is directed toward the received information (claim 10, lines 2-3). As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 14 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the first environment and the second environment are a different setting
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 15:
With respect to dependent claim 15, the claim depends upon independent claim 10. The analysis of claim 10 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the first environment is a laboratory setting
This limitation is directed toward the received information (claim 10, lines 2-3). As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the first environment is a laboratory setting
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 16:
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Following the determination that the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims recite a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1). In this instance, the claims are determined to recite a judicial exception (abstract idea; mental process).
With respect to claim 16, the claims recite:
outputting a sound prediction indicating purported sound of operation emitted from the run-time device (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of previous sound information to generate a sound prediction)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
a processor in communication with one or more sensors, wherein the processor is programmed
The additional elements of a programmable processor and sensors are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
receiving, from the one or more accelerometers, vibrational information from a test device
receiving, from one or more microphones and sound information associated with the vibrational information from a test device
receiving real-time vibrational data from a run-time device running an actuator or electric dive emitting the real-time vibrational data
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
generating a training data set utilizing at least the vibrational data and the sound data information associated with the vibrational data, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model configured to output sound predictions
based on the machine learning model and real-time vibrational data, output
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
a processor in communication with one or more sensors, wherein the processor is programmed
The additional elements of a programmable processor and sensors are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
receiving, from the one or more accelerometers, vibrational information from a test device
receiving, from one or more microphones and sound information associated with the vibrational information from a test device
receiving real-time vibrational data from a run-time device running an actuator or electric dive emitting the real-time vibrational data
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
Further, claim 16 recites the following additional elements:
generating a training data set utilizing at least the vibrational data and the sound data information associated with the vibrational data, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model configured to output sound predictions
based on the machine learning model and real-time vibrational data, output
These additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 17:
With respect to dependent claim 17, the claim depends upon independent claim 11. The analysis of claim 11 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the vibrational information includes three-dimensional information
This limitation is directed toward the received information (claim 16, lines 2-3). As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 17 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the vibrational information includes three-dimensional information
As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations directed toward receiving information amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 18:
With respect to dependent claim 18, the claim depends upon independent claim 16. The analysis of claim 16 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 18, the claims recite:
wherein the sound predication is spectrogram data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of previous sound information to generate a sound prediction as either time-series data or spectrogram data, with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim 19:
With respect to dependent claim 19, the claim depends upon independent claim 16. The analysis of independent claim 16 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Accordingly, after determining that a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception in Step 2A Prong Two. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the test device and the run-time device are a same type of devices
The claim recites the additional elements at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do no integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Based on the determination in Step 2A of the analysis that the claims are directed toward a judicial exception, in must be determined if any claims contain any element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements:
wherein the test device and the run-time device are a same type of devices
The claim recites the additional elements at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
In this instance, after considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 20:
With respect to dependent claim 20, the claim depends upon independent claim 16. The analysis of claim 16 is incorporated herein by reference.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
With respect to claim 20, the claims recite:
wherein the sound predication is in a form of time-series data (mental process; As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, this limitation encompasses performing an evaluation of previous sound information to generate a sound prediction as either time-series data or spectrogram data, with the aid of pencil and paper)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardel et al. (US 2023/0325292, filed 6 April 2022, hereafter Ardel) and further in view of Okurdera et al. (US 2020/0272125, published 27 August 2020, hereafter Okurdera), and further in view of Baharloui et al. (US 2023/0107463, filed 28 September 2021, hereafter Baharloui) and further in view of Sheaffer (US 2023/0379636, filed 19 May 2022).
As per independent claim 1, Ardel discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving vibrational information and other information from one or more first sensors associated with a test device in a first environment (paragraphs 0057-0058: Here, vibration measurements values and other measurement values, such as voltage, amperage, rotation rate, frequency, packet loss rate, error value, and/or pressure measurements, are received)
generating a training data set utilizing at least the vibrational information and the other information, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model (paragraphs 0063 and 0108-0109: Here, a model is trained using the observed historic data to detect anomalies)
in response to meeting a threshold of the machine learning model utilizing the training data set, outputting a trained machine learning model (Figure 9, paragraphs 0128-0141: Here, the model is trained until it is sufficiently reliable. Then the model is used to detect anomalous operations)
receiving real-time vibrational information from one or more second sensors associated with a run-time device in a second environment (paragraph 0077: Here, real time sensor data is received and compared to the trained model)
based on the trained machine learning model and the real-time vibrational information, outputting a prediction indicating purported operation emitted from the run-time device (paragraph 0065: Here, the model is used to predict future time series data for the sensor. The real-time data is compared to the predicted future data to detect anomalies)
Ardel fails to specifically disclose:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers and sound information from one or more microphones
a training data set that includes paired vibrational information and corresponding sound information that are aligned to represent a common operating state of an associated device
the machine learning model meeting a convergence threshold
outputting a reconstructed sound representation
However, Okudera, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting sound utilizing vibration data, discloses wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict sound utilizing vibrational data as input (Figure 2; paragraphs 0029-0031: Here, a prediction of a defect is created based upon sensor data including vibrational data. This defect prediction is in the form of a sound wave (Figure 2, item 3)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Okudera with the Ardel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for predicting defects based upon sound data (Okudera: paragraphs 0029-0031).
Further, Baharloui, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward training a machine learning model, discloses training a classifier (machine learning model) until it reaches a convergence threshold (paragraphs 0003-0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Baharloui with Ardel-Okudera, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for defining a threshold for implementing the model based upon convergence (Baharloui: paragraphs 0003-00004). This would have provided an improved model for classifying anomalies.
Finally, Sheaffer, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward joint processing of optical and acoustic signals, discloses:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers and sound information from one or more microphones (Figure 8; paragraph 0055: Here, a accelerometer is a vibrational sensor to receive vibration information and sound information is received from a microphone)
a data set that includes paired vibrational information and corresponding sound information that are aligned to represent a common operating state of an associated device (Figure 8; paragraphs 0077-0080: Here, first signal is received from an acoustic microphone and a second signal is received from a vibration sensor. The system determines discrepancies between the first signal and the second signal and determines a probability that the two sensors are receiving signals from two different sound sources based upon a discrepancy separation result)
outputting a reconstructed sound representation (Figure 3; paragraph 0041: Here, based upon the received information from the microphone and the vibration sensor, the data is processed to generate an audio signal)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sheaffer with Ardel-Okudera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for improved audio quality by combining different signals (Sheaffer: paragraph 0017).
As per dependent claim 2, Ardel, Okudera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel discloses wherein the vibrational information is in the form of either time series (paragraph 0058), spectrogram, or order spectrogram data, and the sound prediction is of the same form (paragraph 0108).
As per dependent claim 3, Ardel, Okudera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Okudera, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting sound utilizing vibration data, discloses wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict sound utilizing vibrational data as input (Figure 2; paragraphs 0029-0031: Here, a prediction of a defect is created based upon sensor data including vibrational data. This defect prediction is in the form of a sound wave (Figure 2, item 3)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Okudera with Ardel-Okudera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for predicting defects based upon vibrational information.
As per dependent claim 5, Ardel, Okudera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel disclose wherein the trained machine learning model is a deep neural network (paragraph 0036).
As per dependent claim 6, Ardel, Okudera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 5, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel disclose wherein the deep neural network is a U-net or transformer network (paragraph 0036).
As per dependent claim 7, Ardel, Okudera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the first environment and the second environment are different settings.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to train the machine learning model in a first environment, such as a laboratory setting, and receive real-time input in a second environment, such as a factory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for training the machine learning model and implementing the machine learning model in different locations. This would have allowed for improving the time required for implementation, as the model may be trained once and implemented across multiple devices.
With respect to claim 8, Ardel, Okudera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the first environment is a laboratory setting.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to train the machine learning model in a first environment, such as a laboratory setting, and receive real-time input in a second environment, such as a factory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for training the machine learning model and implementing the machine learning model in different locations. This would have allowed for improving the time required for implementation, as the model may be trained once and implemented across multiple devices.
As per dependent claim 9, Ardel, Okudera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel discloses wherein the training data set pairs the vibrational information with corresponding additional information (paragraphs 0057-0058). Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the other information is sound information.
However, Okudera, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting sound utilizing vibration data, discloses wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict sound utilizing vibrational data as input (Figure 2; paragraphs 0029-0031: Here, a prediction of a defect is created based upon sensor data including vibrational data. This defect prediction is in the form of a sound wave (Figure 2, item 3)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Okudera with the Ardel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for predicting defects based upon sound data (Okudera: paragraphs 0029-0031).
As per independent claim 10, Ardel discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving vibrational information and other information associated with corresponding vibrational information from a test device in a first environment (paragraphs 0057-0058: Here, vibration measurements values and other measurement values, such as voltage, amperage, rotation rate, frequency, packet loss rate, error value, and/or pressure measurements, are received)
generating a training data set utilizing at least the vibrational information and the other information associated with the vibrational data, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model configured to output predictions (paragraphs 0063 and 0108-0109: Here, a model is trained using the observed historic data to detect anomalies)
receiving real-time vibrational information from one or more run-time device operating in a second environment (paragraph 0077: Here, real time sensor data is received and compared to the trained model)
based on the machine learning model and the real-time vibrational information, outputting a prediction indicating purported operation emitted from the run-time device (paragraph 0065: Here, the model is used to predict future time series data for the sensor. The real-time data is compared to the predicted future data to detect anomalies)
Ardel fails to specifically disclose:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers
receiving sound information and outputting a sound prediction
wherein the sound information is obtained from one or more microphones
the machine learning model meeting a convergence threshold
the device operating an actuator or electronic dive
However, Okudera, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting sound utilizing vibration data, discloses wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict sound utilizing vibrational data as input (Figure 2; paragraphs 0029-0031: Here, a prediction of a defect is created based upon sensor data including vibrational data. This defect prediction is in the form of a sound wave (Figure 2, item 3)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Okudera with the Ardel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for predicting defects based upon sound data (Okudera: paragraphs 0029-0031).
Further, Baharloui, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward training a machine learning model, discloses training a classifier (machine learning model) until it reaches a convergence threshold (paragraphs 0003-0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Baharloui with Ardel-Okudera, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for defining a threshold for implementing the model based upon convergence (Baharloui: paragraphs 0003-00004). This would have provided an improved model for classifying anomalies.
Additionally, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date that devices may include operating an actuator or electronic dive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for training a model based upon a specific set of devices, such as an actuator or electric dive. This would have facilitated a more narrow training set in order to improve time associated with training.
Finally, Sheaffer, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward joint processing of optical and acoustic signals, discloses:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers and
wherein the sound information is obtained from one or more microphones (Figure 8; paragraph 0055: Here, a accelerometer is a vibrational sensor to receive vibration information and sound information is received from a microphone)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sheaffer with Ardel-Okudera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for improved audio quality by combining different signals (Sheaffer: paragraph 0017).
As per dependent claim 12, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 10, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel disclose wherein the deep neural network is a U-net or transformer network (paragraph 0036).
As per dependent claim 13, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 10, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel discloses wherein the prediction is output as raw time-series data or spectrogram data (paragraph 0108).
As per dependent claim 14, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 10, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the first environment and the second environment are the same device.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to train the machine learning model in a first environment, such as a laboratory setting, and implement the device in a second real-time environment, such as a factory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with the Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for training the machine learning model and implementing the machine learning model in different locations. This would have allowed for improving the time required for implementation, as the model may be trained once and implemented across multiple devices.
With respect to claim 15, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations similar to those in claim 10, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the first environment is a laboratory setting.
However, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to train the machine learning model in a first environment, such as a laboratory setting, and receive real-time input in a second environment, such as a factory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for training the machine learning model and implementing the machine learning model in different locations. This would have allowed for improving the time required for implementation, as the model may be trained once and implemented across multiple devices.
As per independent claim 16, Ardel discloses a system, comprising:
a processor in communication with one or more sensors (Figure 2), wherein the processor is programmed to:
receive, from the one or more sensors, vibrational information and other information associated with corresponding vibrational information from a test device (paragraphs 0057-0058: Here, vibration measurements values and other measurement values, such as voltage, amperage, rotation rate, frequency, packet loss rate, error value, and/or pressure measurements, are received)
generating a training data set utilizing at least the vibrational data and the other information associated with the vibrational data, wherein the training data set is sent to a machine learning model configured to output predictions (paragraphs 0063 and 0108-0109: Here, a model is trained using the observed historic data to detect anomalies)
receiving real-time vibrational information from a run-time device operating in a second environment (paragraph 0077: Here, real time sensor data is received and compared to the trained model)
based on the machine learning model and the real-time vibrational information, outputting a prediction indicating purported operation emitted from the run-time device (paragraph 0065: Here, the model is used to predict future time series data for the sensor. The real-time data is compared to the predicted future data to detect anomalies)
Ardel fails to specifically disclose:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers and
wherein the sound information is obtained from one or more microphones
receiving sound information and outputting a sound prediction
the machine learning model meeting a convergence threshold
the device operating an actuator or electronic dive
However, Okudera, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predicting sound utilizing vibration data, discloses wherein the machine learning model is trained to predict sound utilizing vibrational data as input (Figure 2; paragraphs 0029-0031: Here, a prediction of a defect is created based upon sensor data including vibrational data. This defect prediction is in the form of a sound wave (Figure 2, item 3)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Okudera with the Ardel, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for predicting defects based upon sound data (Okudera: paragraphs 0029-0031).
Further, Baharloui, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward training a machine learning model, discloses training a classifier (machine learning model) until it reaches a convergence threshold (paragraphs 0003-0004). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Baharloui with Ardel-Okudera, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for defining a threshold for implementing the model based upon convergence (Baharloui: paragraphs 0003-00004). This would have provided an improved model for classifying anomalies.
Further, the examiner takes official notice that it was notoriously well-known in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date that devices may include operating an actuator or electronic dive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined the well-known with Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for training a model based upon a specific set of devices, such as an actuator or electric dive. This would have facilitated a more narrow training set in order to improve time associated with training.
Finally, Sheaffer, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward joint processing of optical and acoustic signals, discloses:
receiving vibrational information from one or more accelerometers and
wherein the sound information is obtained from one or more microphones (Figure 8; paragraph 0055: Here, a accelerometer is a vibrational sensor to receive vibration information and sound information is received from a microphone)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Sheaffer with Ardel-Okudera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for improved audio quality by combining different signals (Sheaffer: paragraph 0017).
As per dependent claim 20, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 16, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel discloses wherein the prediction is in the form of time-series data (paragraph 0108). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Ardel with the 588 patent, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for performing anomaly detection based upon predicted time-series data (Ardel: paragraph 108).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer and further in view of Kawaguchi et al. (US 2020/0251127, published 6 August 2020, hereafter Kawaguchi).
As per dependent claim 4, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 1, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the vibrational data is a spectrogram and the sound prediction is a second spectrogram.
However, Kawaguchi, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward abnormal sound detection, discloses wherein the vibration data is a spectrogram (paragraph 0008) and the sound prediction is a second spectrogram (paragraph 0009). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Kawaguchi with Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for inputting and outputting spectrogram data (Kawaguchi: paragraphs 0008-0009).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer and further in view of Liao et al. (US 2023/0281094, filed 15 June 2022, hereafter Liao).
As per dependent claim 11, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 10, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the vibrational information includes accelerometer data including x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis accelerometer information.
However, Liao, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward detecting vibration data via gyroscopic sensors, discloses wherein the vibrational information includes accelerometer data (paragraph 0020) including x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis accelerometer information (paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Liao with Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed analyzing vibration data in three planes.
As per dependent claim 17, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 16, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the vibrational information includes accelerometer data including three dimensional information
However, Liao, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward detecting vibration data via gyroscopic sensors, discloses wherein the vibrational information includes accelerometer data (paragraph 0020) including x-axis, y-axis, and z-axis accelerometer information (paragraph 0025: Here, the x, y, and z-axis data is three dimensional data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Liao with Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed analyzing vibration data in three planes.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer and further in view of Armstrong-Crews et al. (US 12216474, filed 4 May 2021, hereafter Armstrong-Crews).
As per dependent claim 18, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer discloses the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 16, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the sound prediction is spectrogram data.
However, Armstrong-Crews, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward predictions based upon vibrational data, discloses wherein the sound prediction is spectrogram data (column 6, line 63- column 7, line 37: Here, the machine learning model receives vibration spectra as input and outputs spectrogram data presented in a digital form in the form of images/plots). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Armstrong-Crews with Ardel-Okurdera-Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for performing anomaly detection based upon spectrogram data (Armstrong-Crews: column 6, line 63- column 7, line 37).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2023/0121897, filed 20 October 2021, hereafter Liu).
As per dependent claim 19, Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer disclose the limitations substantially similar to those in claim 16, and the same rejection is incorporated herein. Ardel fails to specifically disclose wherein the test device and the run-time device are a same type of device.
However, Liu, which is analogous to the claimed invention because it is directed toward vibrational data, discloses wherein the test device and the run-time device are a same type of device (paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to have combined Liu with Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, with a reasonable expectation of success, as it would have allowed for evaluation performance of the device based upon the training data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ardel, Okurdera, Baharloui, and Sheaffer.
The factual assertions set forth in the Office Action dated 1 August 2025 has not been traversed. According to MPEP 2144.03 (C) the official notice statement is taken to be admitted prior art because the appellant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claimed invention “improves the functioning of evaluating a machine learning model utilizing a specific type of technical process (utilizing a shallow repressor model and residuals to generate a modified effect of an optimized model), a specific technological area, making the claims patent-eligible (page 6)” and “the claimed method introduces novel steps that enhance the operation and evaluation of machine learning models for a specific environment, demonstrating a technological improvement (page 6).”
In evaluating improvements, the examiner must determine whether a claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. Further, the examiner must evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement.
In this instance, it is not clear that the claimed invention reflects the novel steps that enhance the operation and evaluation of machine learning models. Specifically, the applicant has failed to demonstrated how the claimed limitations result in “utilizing a shallow repressor model and residuals to generate a modified effect of an optimized model.” For this reason, this argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sayadi et al. (WO 2021/201925): Discloses a machine learning system to train classifiers using force audio and other sensor signals (paragraph 0021) including microphones to capture sound and accelerometers to measure vibration (paragraph 0027)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE R STORK whose telephone number is (571)272-4130. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 2pm; 4pm - 6pm.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at 571/272-2589. 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.
/KYLE R STORK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128