DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 04/27/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-3 remain pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 of 23 line 8 to page 10 of 23 line 7, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to Figures 4, 7, & 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Figures 4, 7, & 10 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 10 of 23 line 8 to page 11 of 23 line 2, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 10 of 23 lines 28-29):
“The Office Action alleges that the instant claim falls under the MPEP 2106.04(a) groupings of a mathematical concept.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.03(I):
“35 U.S.C. 101 enumerates four categories of subject matter that Congress deemed to be appropriate subject matter for a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. As explained by the courts, these "four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful.”
&
“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.”
Analysis:
In the Non-Final office action filed 02/04/2026, the claim(s) were rejected in the subject matter eligibility test at step 1 for being directed towards an algorithm which is not one of the four statutory categories.
An algorithm is “code or a set of instructions detached from any medium” and so is not within one of the four patentable categories.
In the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” filed 04/27/2026 page 11 of 23 lines 21-26 the applicant states: “In the instant case, claim 1 recites an optimization algorithm … The claimed invention is not a generic mathematical exercise; rather, it is a signal preprocessing tool specifically engineered to interface with physical vibration sensors (e.g., accelerometers) mounted on industrial bearings.”
A “preprocessing tool” is an algorithm and the claims are directed towards algorithms which is not within one of the four patentable categories.
Conclusion:
The claims were rejected before step 2 of the subject matter eligibility test was reached.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 11 of 23 line 3 to page 20 of 23 line 17, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 11 of 23 lines 3-4):
“Applicants respectfully submit that the claim is patent eligible because it integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.”
& (page 14 of 23 lines 7-10):
“In conclusion, the step (7) in Claim 1 is related to practical applications, which provides the technical means to improve the fidelity and reconstruction accuracy of the actual bearing vibration signal processing.”
& (page 17 of 23 lines 20-23):
“In conclusion, step (7) of claim 1 is integrated into a practical application, as it provides the final technical verification to ensure the diagnostic process can be reliably applied in practical industrial environments..”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The consideration of ‘integrate the exception into a practical application’ would be considered at revised step 2A Prong Two. However, the claims were rejected prior to this step at step 1 due to the claims being directed towards an algorithm which is not one of the four patentable categories.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 20 of 23 line 18 to page 22 of 23 line 27, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 20 of 23 lines 18-19):
“B. Claim 1 is Patent Eligible Under USPTO Step 2B Because it Recites a Combination of Elements That is Significantly More Than an Abstract Idea.”
& (page 22 of 23 lines 3-5):
“It can be seen that the method of the clarified Claim 1, is integrated into the practical application of identifying critical mechanical defects under heavy background noise, which amounts to more than an abstract idea and holds significant practical application value.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The claim(s) were rejected at step 1.
A combination of elements in which none of the elements are within one of the four patentable categories does not result in a patentable claim (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(III): “The Prong Two analysis considers the claim as a whole. That is, the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception need to be evaluated together to determine whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Because a judicial exception alone is not eligible subject matter, if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.”)
Therefore, the claim elements whether evaluated singularly or as a combination do not amount to significantly more than either non patentable subject matter or an abstract idea.
Regarding “Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 22 of 23 line 28 to page 23 of 23 line 3, filed 04/27/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 23 of 23 lines 1-2):
“In view of the foregoing amendments, it is respectfully submitted that all claims particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the instant invention.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter at least because it is not clear what αopt is or how it is obtained.
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 "step (1) establishing a bandwidth optimization sub-model to obtain an optimal bandwidth parameter αopt mode energy is measured by self-power spectral density, bandwidth of a mode is calculated, and an optimal bandwidth parameter αopt is obtained;". 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 20230358638 A1 "Aero-Engine Bearing Fault Diagnosis Method Based on Variational Mode Decomposition and Residual Network" (Wan) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1: "Variational mode decomposition".
NPL "Fault Diagnosis for Rolling Bearings Using Optimized Variational Mode Decomposition and Resonance Demodulation. Entropy" (Zhang) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4: "VMD decomposition".
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.
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
Prosecution Insights