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 .
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a device claim. Likewise, claim 14 is a method claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 14 are directed to the abstract idea of determine whether the actual sensor data point is an outlier and mark it accordingly, determine whether the actual data point represents a discontinuity, determine a slope by a regression model of a slope equation of a straight line in time fitted to at least a predefined first number of subsequently obtained sensor data points, and determine whether the actual sensor data point belongs to the learned regression model, if the actual sensor data point does not belong to the learned regression model, determine a new slope by learning a new regression model based on the actual data point and a predefined second number of preceding sensor data points, and create a segment comprising all sensor data points of one learned regression model. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are obtaining an actual sensor data point; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and display each sensor data point of the time series of sensor data points indicating the determined segment or being an outlier, wherein the segment of subsequent data points belonging to one learned regression model indicates a gradually developing physical process and the segment is assigned to the physical process of the technical system, and wherein the segment indicates anomalous behavior of the technical system that precedes failure of the technical system, which is an extra solution activity such as outputting data (i.e. displaying data). Further additional elements are: an analysis unit, sensors, a monitoring device and a display unit, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to process and display the sensor data. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed device/method. For instance, nothing is done with the displayed sensor data points.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-16 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 14 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendments integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under step 2A Prong 2.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the fact that the new amendments merely describe the data that’s being outputted by the system, and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claims are geared towards technological improvements which include monitoring for the purpose of providing preventive maintenance and anomaly detection, hence protecting industrial systems from damage and failure.
In response to the claimed language providing an improvement to the technology; the Examiner points out that the claimed language does not reflect the alleged improvement to the technology and the alleged improvements mentioned is generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) and as such is not indicative of a practical application of the abstract idea.
Further, it is noted that the claims don’t even tie the claims to a specific technology or field of use. The claims merely describe a “technical system” with “sensors” where data is being acquired and processed mathematically (i.e. iteratively or regression modeled). The description of outputted data is not an improvement to the technology.
Applicant argues that the claim ties the segmentation to detecting specific physical processes of the technical system that indicate anomalous behavior preceding failure. Therefore providing a technical benefit.
In response the Examiner points out that the amendments merely describe the data that’s being outputted by the system, and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention is tied to a concrete technical application such as monitoring technical system (pump).
In response there’s no mention in the claim that the technical system is geared towards pump monitoring and therefore applies to any generic field of use. Nevertheless, in order to move the case towards compact prosecution, the Examiner suggests the incorporation and positive recitations of limitations such as right after the segment indicates anomalous behavior of the technical system that precedes failure, the system takes measures to prevent further harm and describe something similar along those lines.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857