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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/15/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figs. 4, 7, & 10; all axes should be labeled with both the parameter name and the units in which the parameter is graphed.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 in lines 3-6 recites the limitation "establishing a bandwidth optimization sub-model to obtain an optimal bandwidth parameter". It is not clear what αopt is or how it is obtained. The claim recites that a “optimization sub-model” is used but it is not clear what the model is or what the optimized parameter is, or what the units of the optimized parameter is.
Claims 2-3 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of base claim 1 without rectifying the issue(s) for which the base claim was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A)
Claims 1-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
The claim is directed towards an algorithm, which is code and not one of the four statutory categories.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03 (I):
“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”
&
“Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.”
Analysis:
The claim begins with “An optimization algorithm for …”. Algorithms are not within one of the four statutory categories. Algorithms have no physical form and are not substantially more than information or a computer program. The claim is not directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Conclusion:
Therefore, Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
The claim is directed towards an algorithm, which is code and not one of the four statutory categories.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03 (I):
“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”
&
“Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.”
Analysis:
The claim begins with “The optimization algorithm for …”. Algorithms are not within one of the four statutory categories. Algorithms have no physical form and are not substantially more than information or a computer program. The claim is not directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Conclusion:
Therefore, Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
No;
The claim is directed towards an algorithm, which is code and not one of the four statutory categories.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03 (I):
“Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations”
&
“Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.”
Analysis:
The claim begins with “The optimization algorithm for …”. Algorithms are not within one of the four statutory categories. Algorithms have no physical form and are not substantially more than information or a computer program. The claim is not directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Conclusion:
Therefore, Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Note:
Additionally, at revised step 2A Prong One (if analysis were to pass step 1), the claims are determined to “Recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon”. At Revised Step 2A prong Two, the claims are determined to not “recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application”. At step 2B, the claims are determined to not “recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception”. Therefore, if the claims could be interpreted or amended to be directed towards one of the four statutory categories they would then likely be rejected at step 2B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7206709 B2 "Determination Of Damping In Bladed Disk Systems Using The Fundamental Mistuning Model" (Griffin) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Figs. 2 & 9.
US 11644391 B2 "Fault Diagnosis Method Under Convergence Trend Of Center Frequency" (Jiang) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 20200349302 A1 "Method for Structural Optimization of Objects Using a Descriptor for Deformation Modes" (Wollstadt) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
NPL “Selecting Effective Intrinsic Mode Functions of Empirical Mode Decomposition and Variational Mode Decomposition Using Dynamic Time Warping Algorithm for Rolling Element Bearing Fault Diagnosis.” (Kumar) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858