DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to the amendment filed 1/07/2026. In the amendment, claims 18 and 19 were cancelled, and no claims were amended1 or added. Thus, claims 1-17 and 20-21 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
The present application claims foreign priority based on European Patent Application No. EP21206218.6 filed 11/03/2021. The examiner notes that a certified copy (in German) of the above-noted application was received on 12/15/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of the information disclosure statement filed 1/07/2026, which complies with 37 CFR 1.97. As such, the information disclosure statement has been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The amendments to the claims submitted 1/07/2026 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2) because each claim has not been provided with the proper status identifier, and as such, the individual status of each claim cannot be identified. In particular the status identifiers for claims 1-17 and 20-21 indicate that these claims are “(Previously Presented)” (see, e.g., pages 2-5 of applicant’s amendment filed 1/07/2026). However, none of applicant’s claims have been amended to-date. As such, the claim identifiers in the claim listing submitted with the amendment filed 1/07/2026 for claims 1-17 and 20-21 should indicate “(Original)” and not “(Previously Presented)”. (see 37 CFR 1.121(c), which states “The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).” and “Only claims having the status of ‘currently amended,’ or ‘withdrawn’ if also being amended, shall include markings.”). Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the previous office action have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The cancellation of claims 18 and 19 renders the rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 moot. However, as discussed below, rejections of claims 1-17 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 remain and are being maintained.
Regarding the rejections of claims 16 and 17 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, applicant generally asserts, which examiner does not concede, that “Claims 16 and 17 clearly recite "A machine-readable storage medium comprising the computer program product of claim 14/15," which requires a "storage medium." Applicant believes that a "storage medium" does not include a "signal per se" because "a signal per se" is not capable of storing information. A "signal per se" is a mechanism by which information is transmitted, and paragraph [0002] of the specification as originally filed clearly distinguishes between a "storage medium" and a "data transmission signal."” Before concluding “Applicant believes that claims 16 and 17 recite patent eligible subject matter and respectfully requests that the rejection of claims 16 and 17 as being directed to "a signal per se" be withdrawn.” (applicant’s remarks, pages 6-7).
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant’s above-noted arguments regarding claims 16 and 17, as discussed in the previous Office Action and below, these claims both recite “A machine-readable storage medium” and they do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a "machine-readable storage medium" which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments.
Contrary to applicant’s above-noted assertions, according to the original specification of the Applicant, the utilization of machine-readable storage media is not limited to non-transitory machine-readable media. Applicant’s reliance on paragraph 2 of the specification is misplaced. Even assuming arguendo that “paragraph [0002] of the specification as originally filed clearly distinguishes between a "storage medium" and a "data transmission signal."” as generally alleged by applicant (applicant’s remarks, page 6), applicant’s specification, in the cited portion, and elsewhere, does not explicitly disclaim transitory embodiments for the claimed “machine-readable storage medium”. According to the specification, including the relied-upon paragraph 2, which recites “a machine-readable storage medium with such a computer program product and a data transmission signal which carries the aforementioned commands.” and paragraphs 66-67, which recite “a machine readable storage medium 2 for storing, for example, buffering, machine-executable components”, and “The storage medium 2 comprises machine-executable commands 4 which can be executed by the processor unit, and when they are executed, executes the learning method described above based on the historical data 5. The historical data can be made available to the storage medium 2 or stored thereon.” the specification fails to explicitly define the recited “machine-readable storage medium”, let alone specify or require that the claimed "machine-readable storage medium" is non-transitory. Therefore, "A machine-readable storage medium", under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, does not exclude a transitory signal and is considered non-statutory subject matter.
With reference to the rejections of claims 1-15 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to an abstract idea, applicant generally asserts “Regarding claims 1-17, 20, and 21, Applicant believes that these claims recite patent eligible subject matter. Claim 1 recites, and is clearly directed to, the training of a model ("A computer-implemented method for training a model for recommending threshold values of at least one spatial vibration component of an electric rotary machine").” (applicant’s remarks, page 7). With reference to the Appeals Review Panel in Ex parte Desjardins, No. 2024-000567 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 26, 2025) (hereinafter “Desjardins”), applicant further states “Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider the rejection in light of the Appeals Review Panel Decision, Ex Parte Desjardins decision that has been designated as "precedential" which was further clarified in the December 05, 2025 memo specifically addressing the evaluation of claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence. In this application, Applicant has identified technical improvements associated with, and recited by, the claims as described, for example, in paragraphs [0005, 33, 34] so as to address the problem of paragraph [0006] and to obviate other prior art shortcomings by improving vibration-based status monitoring of electric rotary machines.” Id.
Examiner’s response:
Regarding applicant’s above-noted arguments and assertions regarding the rejections of claims 1-15 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertions and allegations, and points applicant to the discussion below.
In response to applicant’s above-noted assertion vis-à-vis Desjardins and the December 5, 2025 memorandum “Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins” (hereinafter, “Memo”), the Memo merely summarizes Desjardins and related updates to the MPEP, and states that “Examiners are expected to consider existing precedent like Enfish, as discussed in MPEP § 2106, in addition to these updates when assessing eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Memo at 1.
Regarding applicant’s apparent reliance on the decision of the Appeals Review Panel in Desjardins, in Desjardins, unlike in the claims at issue here, the appellants specifically argued that the claimed invention “address[es] challenges in continual learning and model efficiency by reducing storage requirements and preserving task performance across sequential training”. Desjardins, op. at 7. That is, the appellant in Desjardins specifically alleged that the claimed subject matter improves machine learning itself. By contrast, Applicant in the instant case repeatedly characterizes the improvement as pertaining to the abstract idea of “monitoring of electric rotary machines” (applicant’s remarks, page 7). The claims at issue here are distinguishable from Desjardins because, as detailed below, Desjardins includes an improvement related to addressing catastrophic forgetting while the instant claims only use a generically-recited “model for recommending threshold values” at a high level to perform an abstract idea and Desjardins provided a specific training strategy that allows the model to preserve performance on earlier tasks even as it learns new ones. In contrast applicant’s instant claims merely employ a generically-recited model without reciting any details of its training (see, e.g., the above-noted, relied upon claim language reciting “A computer-implemented method for training a model for recommending threshold values of at least one spatial vibration component of an electric rotary machine” and use machine learning at a high level.
Desjardins is distinguishable from the present claims. In Desjardins, unlike the claims at issue here, the appellants specifically identified claim language that reflected a technological improvement. In particular, the appellants argued that, when evaluating the claim as a whole, independent claim 1 included the following limitation evidencing an improvement: "adjust the first values of the plurality of parameters to optimize performance of the machine learning model on the second machine learning task while protecting performance of the machine learning model on the first machine learning task". The board was persuaded that this limitation constituted an improvement to the operation of the machine learning model itself, rather than merely an abstract mathematical calculation (Desjardins, op. at 9.). Thus, the appellant in Desjardins expressly alleged and supported that the claimed subject matter improved machine learning technology itself. By contrast, in the instant application, Applicant does not identify any specific claim language characterizing a comparable technological improvement, not does Applicant point to claim limitations analogous to those at issue in Desjardins.
With reference to Example 39 from the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples” issued January 7, 2019 and the preamble of applicant’s claim 1, applicant asserts, which examiner does not acquiesce to “that the "computer implemented method for training a model" is not a "mental process" as the mind alone is not capable of training a model. The human mind is simply not equipped to practically perform what is claimed. See also PEG 39” (applicant’s remarks, page 7, referencing, but not quoting, Example 39 from the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples” issued January 7, 2019).
With continued reference to Example 39, applicant generally asserts that Example 39 “emphasizes that the claim of PEG 39 does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind.” (applicant’s remarks, page 7, referencing Example 39, but not quoting applicant’s claims or Example 39).
Examiner’s response:
In response to applicant’s above-noted assertion vis-à-vis Example 39 and applicant’s claims, applicant’s reliance on Example 39 from the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples” issued January 7, 2019 is misplaced. Unlike applicant’s claims, the eligible claim 1 in Example 39 is concerned with the detection of human faces by using an expanded training data set where the claimed subject matter in Example 39 recites collecting images from a database; applying transformations to digital facial images; creating a training set comprising the transformed images; training a neural network using the training set; creating a second training set comprising non-facial images incorrectly classified as facial by the neural network; and retraining the network. The human mind is not meaningfully equipped to perform any of these limitations because the claims in example 39, by their terms, require the mirroring, smoothing, contrast reduction, etc. of digital images and conducting machine learning on those images. In contrast, the instant claims are not, by their terms, limited to machine learning applications of data that cannot be mentally manipulated.
In contrast to claim 1 in the relied-upon Example 39, none of applicant’s pending claims, including independent claim 1, generally alleged to be similar to Example 39 because the recitation in the preamble of claim 1 of a “computer implemented method for training a model" is not a "mental process"” (applicant’s remarks, page 7), recite anything comparable to applying transformations to digital facial images; creating a training set comprising the transformed images; training a neural network using the training set; creating a second training set comprising non-facial images incorrectly classified as facial by the neural network; and retraining the network, as in claim 1 of Example 39. Thus, unlike Example 39, applicant’s reliance on the generally-recited “computer implemented method for training a model" from the preamble of claim 1 as supporting the conclusion that “The human mind is simply not equipped to practically perform what is claimed.” (applicant’s remarks, page 7), none of applicant’s claims, including independent claim 1, recite anything analogous to applying transformations to digital facial images; creating a training set comprising the transformed images; training a neural network using the training set; creating a second training set comprising non-facial images incorrectly classified as facial by the neural network; and retraining the network, as in claim 1 of Example 39.
With reference to claim 1, applicant asserts, which examiner does not concede, that “Applicant has identified technical improvements associated with, and recited by, the claims as described, for example, in paragraphs [0005, 33, 34] so as to address the problem of paragraph [0006] and to obviate other prior art shortcomings by improving vibration-based status monitoring of electric rotary machines.” (applicant’s remarks, page 7).
With reference to the dependent claims, applicant generally asserts “that the remining [sic – remaining] claims, when properly considered "as a whole," recite a "practical limitation" directed to training a model for recommending threshold values of at least one spatial vibration component of an electric rotary machine. More specifically, claim 5 uses the trained model of claim 1 to monitor the status of the electric rotary machine and output a warning message when the values of the at least one spatial vibration component exceed the threshold.” Id.
Examiner’s response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertions vis-à-vis the alleged improvements. Regarding the above-noted assertions that “Applicant has identified technical improvements associated with, and recited by, the claims … to address the problem of paragraph [0006] and to obviate other prior art shortcomings by improving vibration-based status monitoring of electric rotary machines.” and “that the remining [sic – remaining] claims, when properly considered "as a whole," recite a "practical limitation" directed to training a model for recommending threshold values of at least one spatial vibration component of an electric rotary machine”, applicant does not specifically identify such improvements, or the claimed features leading thereto.
Moreover, as detailed below, the claimed operations and steps recited in the claims, including claims 1 and 5 cited by applicant, under their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, encompass mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) but for the recitation of generic computer components, mere instructions to apply an exception language and insignificant extra-solution activity language.
As detailed in the section 101 rejections below, independent claim 1 and the dependent claims, including claim 5, mainly recite detecting plateaus by making an evaluation/judgment/opinion based upon observed historical data and “actual data”, performing an analysis based upon observed data (i.e., observed operating states of an electric rotary machine) in order to detect/determine clusters/groups of data, determining/identifying threshold values to be recommended which is making a judgement based upon observed data (i.e., defined operating states) in order to determine recommendations, assigning/correlating plateaus to operating states based upon observed time series data in order to map a time series and checking observed values to determine if they exceed an observed threshold value in order to determine if a warning should be output/generated (i.e., evaluations/judgments/opinions based on observed data). As detailed in below in the section 101 rejections, such detecting, determining, assigning and checking (evaluation/judgment/opinion based on observed input data) can be done by hand with pen and paper (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). If this particular arrangement provides a technological advantage, this advantage is not sufficiently reflected in the claims. At the level of detail provided, the limitations are seen to encompass a mental process. Thus, the claims do not recite a practical application and applicant’s arguments to the contrary do not otherwise overcome the rejections under 101.
For at least these reasons, the examiner finds applicant’s arguments unpersuasive and respectfully maintains the section 101 rejections of claims 1-17 and 20-21.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the previous office action have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The cancellation of claims 18 and 19 renders the rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 moot. The rejections of claims 1-17 and 20-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
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 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 16 and 17 both recite “A machine-readable storage medium”. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a "machine-readable storage medium" which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. According to the original specification of the Applicant, the utilization of machine-readable storage media is not limited to non-transitory machine-readable media. According to the specification, paragraphs 2 and 66-67 recite “a machine-readable storage medium with such a computer program product and a data transmission signal which carries the aforementioned commands.”, “a machine readable storage medium 2 for storing, for example, buffering, machine-executable components”, and “The storage medium 2 comprises machine-executable commands 4 which can be executed by the processor unit, and when they are executed, executes the learning method described above based on the historical data 5. The historical data can be made available to the storage medium 2 or stored thereon.” but fails to explicitly define the recited “machine-readable storage medium”, let alone specify or require that the claimed "machine-readable storage medium" is non-transitory. Thus, "A machine-readable storage medium", under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), in light of the specification, does not exclude a transitory signal and is considered non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner suggests that Applicant amend independent claims 16 and 17 to recite: "A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium".
Claims 1-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis below of the claims’ subject matter eligibility follows the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) (“2019 PEG”) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, 89 Fed. Reg. 58128-58138 (July 17, 2024) (“2024 AI SME Update”).
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 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). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, the second step in the analysis is to determine whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A). The Step 2A analysis is broken into two prongs. In the first prong (Step 2A, Prong 1), it is determined 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 in Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims recite a judicial exception, the analysis proceeds to the second prong (Step 2A, Prong 2), where it is determined whether or not the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If it is determined at step 2A, Prong 2 that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the analysis proceeds to determining whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (Step 2B). If an abstract idea is present in the claim, 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 else amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1 for Claims 1-21:
Claims 1-13 are directed to methods, corresponding to a process, one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 14-15 are directed to a computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponding to an article of manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claims 20-21 are directed to a senso and computing facility, corresponding to a machine, one of the four statutory categories of invention. Therefore, Claims 1-17 and 20-21 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, an article of manufacture, and a machine.
Regarding independent claim 1, this claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, corresponding to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation: detecting operating plateaus in the historical data, with each operating plateau being defined when the at least two operating parameters are constant over a predeterminable period of time; as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses detecting plateaus which is making an evaluation/judgment/opinion based upon observed historical data which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation: performing a cluster analysis on the detected operating plateaus in order to detect operating point clusters, with the various operating point clusters defining various operating states of the electric rotary machine; - as drafted, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses performing an analysis based upon observed data (i.e., observed operating states of an electric rotary machine) in order to detect/determine clusters/groups of data, which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation: determining threshold values to be recommended for the defined operating states for the at least one spatial vibration component; as drafted, under its BRI, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining/identifying threshold values to be recommended which is making a judgement based upon observed data (i.e., defined operating states) in order to determine recommendations, which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: A computer-implemented method for training a model for recommending threshold values of at least one spatial vibration component of an electric rotary machine, said method comprising: <the above-noted steps>, which are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The training and “model” are recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the model or training process such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., the “computer” used to implement the “computer-implemented method for training a model”) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
That is, the limitations: A computer-implemented method for training a model for recommending threshold values of at least one spatial vibration component of an electric rotary machine, said method comprising: <the above-noted steps of the abstract idea>, as drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract idea, and they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (e.g., by using the computer for implementing the “computer-implemented method” as a tool).
Regarding the “model for recommending threshold values”, no details of the model or its training are recited and the model is recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. The claimed “model”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and modified by hand with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the provided “historical data”). The model is recited at a high level of generality and therefore is being interpreted as performing a mental process on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § III.C which states that “a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” still recite a mental process.
The claim also recites the limitations:
providing historical data which comprise time series of at least two operating parameters and at least one spatial vibration component of the electric rotary machine; … and
providing the defined operating states and the threshold values to be recommended for the defined operating states. As drafted, these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of “providing historical data” amounts to mere data gathering, and the additional element of “providing the defined operating states and the threshold values to be recommended” amounts to necessary data outputting, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, these limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activities (amount to necessary data gathering and data outputting) to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., the additional elements recite a “computer” of the “computer-implemented method” for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the recitations of “providing historical data which comprise time series of at least two operating parameters and at least one spatial vibration component of the electric rotary machine” and “providing the defined operating states and the threshold values to be recommended” are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Claim 2:
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 2 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
The limitation: estimating a center of gravity for each operating point cluster, As drafted, under its BRI, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses estimating a center for a point cluster/group, which is making an evaluation/judgment/opinion based upon observed data in each operating point cluster/group which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., the “computer” used to implement the “computer-implemented method” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., computer-executable instructions for the recited “computer” used to implement the “computer-implemented method” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 3:
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 3 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation: wherein the historical data comprise time series of two or three spatial vibration components, and further comprising determining threshold values to be recommended for the two or three spatial vibration components for the defined operating states, As drafted, under its BRI, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining threshold values to be recommended which is making a judgement based upon data in order to determine recommendations which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., the “computer” used to implement the “computer-implemented method” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., computer-executable instructions for the recited “computer” used to implement the “computer-implemented method” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 4:
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 4 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in claim 1, discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The limitation wherein the operating parameters are rotational speed and slip frequency requires using the specific operating parameters of rotational speed and slip frequency, which amounts to no more than “generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the limitation wherein the operating parameters are rotational speed and slip frequency merely requires using the specific operating parameters of rotational speed and slip frequency and amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 5:
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 5 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation: detecting operating plateaus in the actual data, with each operating plateau being defined when the at least two operating parameters are constant over a predeterminable period of time, As drafted, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses detecting/identifying plateaus which is making an evaluation/judgement/opinion based upon observed “actual data” which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation: providing a model trained as set forth in claim 1, assigning the detected operating plateaus to the operating states defined by the trained model in order to be able to map the time series of the at least one spatial vibration component to the operating states defined by the trained model, as drafted, under its BRI, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses assigning/correlating plateaus to operating states which is making an evaluation/judgement/opinion based upon observed time series data in order to map a time series, which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitations: checking whether values of the at least one spatial vibration component exceed a threshold value recommended by the trained model; and when the values of the at least one spatial vibration component exceed the threshold value, outputting a warning message according to a predeterminable criterion, as drafted, under their BRI, cover concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitations in the context of this claim encompass checking observed values to determine if they exceed an observed threshold value in order to determine if a warning should be output/generated, which is making an evaluation, judgment or opinion based upon observed data values, which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites these additional elements: A computer-implemented method for monitoring a status of an electric rotary machine, said method comprising: <the above-noted steps>, which are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The monitoring is recited at a high-level of generality with no details such that the limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., the “computer” used to implement the “computer-implemented method for monitoring”) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
That is, the limitations: A computer-implemented method for monitoring a status of an electric rotary machine, said method comprising: <the above-noted steps of the abstract idea>, as drafted, are additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for the abstract idea, and they amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer (e.g., by using the computer for implementing the “computer-implemented method” as a tool).
The claim also recites the limitations:
providing actual data which comprise time series of at least two operating parameters and at least one spatial vibration component of the electric rotary machine; … and outputting a warning message according to a predeterminable criterion. As drafted, these limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of “providing actual data” amounts to mere data gathering, and the additional element of “outputting a warning message” amounts to necessary data outputting, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, these limitations are adding insignificant extra-solution activities (amount to necessary data gathering and data outputting) to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., the additional elements recite a “computer” of the “computer-implemented method” for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the recitations of “providing actual data which comprise time series of at least two operating parameters and at least one spatial vibration component of the electric rotary machine … and outputting a warning message according to a predeterminable criterion” are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Claim 6:
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 6 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claim 5 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation: wherein the warning message is output when at least three successive values of the at least one spatial vibration component exceed the threshold value, as drafted, under its BRI, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses checking observed values from a component to determine if they exceed an observed threshold value in order to determine if a warning should be output/generated, which is making an evaluation, judgment or opinion based upon observed data values which, can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites this additional element: wherein the warning message is output. As drafted, this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of “wherein the warning message is output” amounts to necessary data outputting, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, this limitation is adding insignificant extra-solution activity (amounts to necessary data outputting) to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Insignificant extra-solution activities cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the recitation of “wherein the warning message is output” is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Claim 7:
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 7 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claim 5 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation: checking whether values of the two or three spatial vibration components exceed corresponding threshold values recommended by the trained model, as drafted, under its BRI, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses checking values if they exceed a threshold which is making an observation of data which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites this additional element:
wherein the actual data comprise time series of two or three spatial vibration components – this limitation only recites an additional element regarding what “the actual data” includes (i.e., “time series of two or three spatial vibration components”). As such, this limitation merely narrows the “actual data” gathered by the “providing actual data” of intervening claim 5 to include “time series of two or three spatial vibration components”. As noted above, the “providing actual data” limitation of claim 5 is an insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering). As such, the above-noted limitation of claim 7 merely narrows the type of data being gathered and amounts to an insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional element that further narrows the “providing actual data” of claim 5 to “comprise time series of two or three spatial vibration components” amounts to mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, this limitation is adding insignificant extra-solution activity (amounts to necessary data gathering) to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Insignificant extra-solution activities cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the recitation of “providing actual data” of claim 5 to “comprise time series of two or three spatial vibration components” in claim 7 is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 8 is directed to a method as depending from claim 7, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claims 5 and 7, and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis:
The claim is directed to an abstract idea. In particular, the claim recites mental processes that are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) combined with a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations).
The limitation: calculating for each value of the at least one spatial vibration component exceeding the threshold value an effective value for each spatial vibration component; as drafted, under its broadest BRI, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion). The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses determining/calculating an effective value based on an observed threshold value and observed data values from a component (evaluation/judgment/opinion to compare observed vibration data with the threshold to determine if each value exceeds the threshold) based on a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations – calculating the effective value). Such determining/calculating and comparing (evaluation/judgment/opinion based on observed input data) can be done by hand with pen and paper (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper) based on a mathematical concept (the calculating).
The limitation: calculating a geometric mean from the calculated effective values, as drafted, under its BRI, is a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations – calculating a geometric mean from the calculated effective values). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) A claim that recites a mathematical calculation will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number.)
Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea - mental processes combined with a mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The claim does not recite any additional limitations. Therefore, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Merely asserting that a judicial exception is to be carried out on a generic computer (i.e., the “computer” used to implement the “computer-implemented method” of base claim 1) cannot meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., computer-executable instructions for the recited “computer” used to implement the “computer-implemented method” of base claim 1) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 9 is directed to a method as depending from claim 8, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claims 5 and 7-8, and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The limitation: wherein the warning message is output when the geometric mean exceeds 4mm/s, as drafted, under its BRI, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. The above limitation in the context of this claim encompasses observing a geometric mean value to determine if it exceeds a threshold value (e.g., 4mm/s) in order to determine if a warning should be output/generated, which is making an evaluation, judgment or opinion based upon an observed data value, which can be feasibly performed within the human mind (corresponding to mental processes which can be done mentally or by pen and paper). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites this additional element: wherein the warning message is output. As drafted, this limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional element of “wherein the warning message is output” amounts to necessary data outputting, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, this limitation is adding insignificant extra-solution activity (amounts to necessary data outputting) to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Insignificant extra-solution activities cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the recitation of “wherein the warning message is output” is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 10 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claim 5 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract ideas as identified in claims 1 and 5, discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites this additional element: wherein the warning message comprises a number of exceedances and associated time stamps. – This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that 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. In particular, this limitation only recites an additional element regarding what “the warning message” includes (i.e., “a number of exceedances and associated time stamps”). As such, this limitation merely narrows the “warning message” output by the “outputting a warning message” of claim 5 to include gathered data of “time series of two or three spatial vibration components”. As noted above, the “outputting the warning message” limitation of claim 5 is an insignificant extra-solution activity (data outputting). As such, the above-noted limitation of claim 10 merely narrows the type of data being output and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional element further narrows the “outputting the warning message” of claim 5 to comprise “a number of exceedances and associated time stamps” and amounts to data gathering and outputting, which are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. That is, this limitation is adding insignificant extra-solution activities (amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting) to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element are insignificant extra-solution activities. Insignificant extra-solution activities cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the recitation of “outputting the warning message” of claim 5 “wherein the warning message comprises a number of exceedances and associated time stamps” in claim 10 are the well-understood, routine, conventional activities of receiving and transmitting data over a network, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 11 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claim 5 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract ideas as identified in claims 1 and 5, discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites this additional element: wherein the time series of the actual data go back up to two days. This limitation requires using the time series data of the provided “actual data” that goes back up to two days, which amounts to no more than “generally linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use”. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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, there are no additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the limitation wherein the time series of the actual data go back up to two days amounts to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). 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.
This claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional element of this dependent claim is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 12 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claim 5 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract ideas as identified in claims 1 and 5, discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites this additional element: storing the actual data; This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data, storing data in memory, and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that 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.
The claim also recites the additional element of: retraining the model provided at predetermined time intervals. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The retraining is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of the training process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the “the model”, no details of the model or its training (which is merely retrained “at predetermined time intervals”) are recited and the model is recited at a high level of generality and can be constructed by hand with pen and paper. The claimed “model”, under the BRI, in light of the specification, could be constructed and modified by hand at predetermined time intervals with pen and paper based on a reasonable amount of observed data (i.e., the provided “historical data”). The model is recited at a high level of generality and therefore is being interpreted as performing a mental process on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) § III.C which states that “a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept” still recite a mental process.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception (i.e., the additional elements recite a “model” for applying the abstract ideas). Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, receiving, communicating, and storing data are insignificant extra-solution activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP2106.05(d)(II) (“The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions… i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network…iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”) (citing OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Therefore, the recitation of “storing the actual data” is the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of storing information in memory, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 13 is directed to a method as depending from claim 12, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claims 5 and 12, and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract ideas as identified in claims 1 and 5, discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
In particular, the claim recites this additional element: wherein the predetermined time intervals are every month. This limitation amounts to extra-solution activity of gathering data and outputting for use in the claimed process. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that 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.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all of the additional elements are insignificant extra-solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception. Insignificant extra-solution activities and mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 14 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in claim 1 (see, e.g., the recitation in claim 14 of “carry out a method as set forth in claim 1”), discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The claim recites the additional limitations: A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method as set forth in claim 1. The computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., “a computer”) amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions (i.e., executable instructions stored in the computer program product embodied in a generically-recited “computer readable medium comprising commands”) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method as set forth in claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The execution of a computer program product is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). That is, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 15 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claim 5 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract ideas as identified in claims 1 and 5 (see, e.g., the recitation in claim 15 of “carry out a method as set forth in claim 5”), discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitations: A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method as set forth in claim 5. The computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands is recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., “a computer”) amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions (i.e., executable instructions stored in the computer program product embodied in a generically-recited “computer readable medium comprising commands”) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising commands which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out a method as set forth in claim 5 are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The execution of a computer program product is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). That is, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 20 is directed to a method as depending from claim 1, thus the analysis for patent eligibility of claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract idea as identified in claim 1 (see, e.g., the recitation in claim 20 of “carry out a method as set forth in claim 1”), discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The claim recites the additional limitations: A sensor and computing facility for monitoring a status of an electric rotary machine, said sensor and computing facility designed to detect data which relates to an operation of the electric rotary machine on the electric rotary machine and which comprises time series of at least two operating parameters and of at least one spatial vibration component of the electric rotary machine, said sensor and computing facility comprising commands, which, when executed by the sensor and computing facility, cause the sensor and computing facility to carry out a method as set forth in claim 1. The sensor and computing facility are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a “computing facility”) amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions (i.e., executable instructions stored by/in the “computing facility comprising commands”) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of A sensor and computing facility for monitoring a status of an electric rotary machine, said sensor and computing facility designed to detect data which relates to an operation of the electric rotary machine on the electric rotary machine and which comprises time series of at least two operating parameters and of at least one spatial vibration component of the electric rotary machine, said sensor and computing facility comprising commands, which, when executed by the sensor and computing facility, cause the sensor and computing facility to carry out a method as set forth in claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The execution of a computer program product is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). That is, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 21:
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 21 is directed to a method, i.e., a process, one of the statutory categories. Claim 21 is directed to a method as depending from claim 5, thus the analysis for patent eligibilities of intervening claim 5 and of base claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim does not recite any judicial exception. However, it is still directed to the same abstract ideas as identified in claims 1 and 5 (see, e.g., the recitation in claim 21 of “carry out a method as set forth in claim 5”), discussed above.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional limitations: A sensor and computing facility for monitoring a status of an electric rotary machine, said sensor and computing facility designed to detect data which relates to an operation of the electric rotary machine on the electric rotary machine and which comprises time series of at least two operating parameters and of at least one spatial vibration component of the electric rotary machine, said sensor and computing facility comprising commands, which, when executed by the sensor and computing facility, cause the sensor and computing facility to carry out a method as set forth in claim 5. The sensor and computing facility are recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e., a “computing facility”) amount to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amount to no more than mere instructions (i.e., executable instructions stored by/in the “computing facility comprising commands”) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of A sensor and computing facility for monitoring a status of an electric rotary machine, said sensor and computing facility designed to detect data which relates to an operation of the electric rotary machine on the electric rotary machine and which comprises time series of at least two operating parameters and of at least one spatial vibration component of the electric rotary machine, said sensor and computing facility comprising commands, which, when executed by the sensor and computing facility, cause the sensor and computing facility to carry out a method as set forth in claim 5 are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The execution of a computer program product is recited at a high-level of generality with no detail of process such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f). That is, the additional limitations amount to no more than using generic computer components to implement the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; and all references generally relate to techniques, methods and systems for using and training machine learning models and neural networks to monitor, diagnose, analyze and predict operational issues such as faults and maintenance needs for electrical machines and devices.
For example, non-patent literature Neuzil, et al. ("A distributed fault detection system based on IWSN for machine condition monitoring." IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 10.2 (2013): 1118-1123. hereinafter, “Neuzil”) discloses “a novel framework for industrial wireless sensor networks (IWSNs) used for machine condition monitoring (MCM). Our approach enables the use of state-of-the-art computationally intensive classifiers in computationally weak sensor network nodes. … The proposed concept was evaluated in IRIS IWSN by means of a rotary machine simulator”, where “The above depicted framework of an MCM [machine condition monitoring] system was experimentally evaluated on a rotary machine simulator.”, “It can effectively detect major out-of-balance of a rotary machine” and “the network performs condition monitoring and early warning. Each node executes 250 samples at frequency 7.7 kHz, computes the features from the signal, and classifies it as a target or an outlier, i.e., decides whether the condition of the machine is healthy or faulty.” (see, Abstract and pages 1120, Sect. III, Sect. III B, and 1121, Sect. III. C.).
Also, for example, Nataraj et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2021/0397177 A1, hereinafter “Nataraj”) discloses “training a fault detection model based on the determined features. In one or more cases, the least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform operations including performing, based on the trained fault detection model, diagnostic testing on a second component of a second dynamic system to detect an operation condition fault of the second component.” and “the dynamic system 102 may be any type of electrical and/or mechanical system that includes one or more components, for example, but not limited to, nonlinear pendulums, bearings, gears, shafts, servo actuators ( e.g., electrohydraulic servo actuators), electric motors, and the like. In one or more cases, a sensor, such as sensor 104 or 106 may be operably coupled to a component of the dynamic system 102 to provide sensor data to the diagnostic system 110, via the DAQ system 108, to detect a fault. For example, … may be rotary motion sensors used to detect a fault in parameter estimations. In an example, the example rotary motion sensor may be used to estimate a fault parameter” (see, paragraphs 8 and 27).
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY K BALDWIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5222. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Kamran Afshar can be reached on 571-272-7796. 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.
/RANDALL K. BALDWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
1 As noted in the claim objections below, none of applicant’s claims have been amended to-date. As such, the claim identifiers in the claim listing submitted with the amendment filed 1/07/2026 for claims 1-17 and 20-21 should indicate “(Original)” and not “(Previously Presented).
Prosecution Insights