METHOD FOR MONITORING A GEARED
MOTOR, INCLUDING MEASURING A GEARBOX
OIL LEVEL AND A GEARBOX VIBRATION, AND SYSTEM ADAPTED TO PERFORM THE METHOD
NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment/arguments of Feb. 04, 2026.
CLAIMS
In the event that the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same.
35 U.S.C. § 101
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 101, 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 - 18 and 21 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without anything significantly more.
Independent claim 16 sets forth a method comprising the following steps:
Step 1, measuring an oil level of the oil;
Step 2, measuring a vibration at a location of the gearbox;
Step 3, forming a first variable by combining the measurement of the oil level and the measurement of the vibration; and
Step 4, monitoring a value of the first variable for exceedance of a permissible extent of deviation from a setpoint value or a threshold value.
An updated analysis of the claim reveals,
Step 1 can be accomplished by nothing more than a mental process (ie. simple observation such as viewing an oil level through a sight glass).
Step 2 can also be accomplished by a mental process ( ie. mere observation of a vibration or listening for a vibration).
Step 3 can be accomplished by a mental process (ie. performing a mathematical calculation) of combining the determination of the oil level (performed by observation) and the determination of vibration (performed by listening) into a conclusion (ie. a variable) on the condition of the geared motor.
Step 4 can be accomplished by a mental process (ie. performing a mathematical calculation).
As such, claim 16 amounts to a judicial exception without anything significantly more being claimed, for an improvement to a judicial exception can not justify subject matter eligibility. In other words, an improvement to a judicial exception itself does not make claimed subject matter eligible. In addition, nothing in the body of the claim ties the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 16 fails to meet the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 17 further defines a mental step of claim 16 but does not add anything significantly more to that mental process (ie. measuring a filling-level height of oil by simple observation such as viewing an oil level through a sight glass).
Claim 18 further defines a mental step of claim 16 (monitoring data) but does not add anything significantly more to that mental process since forwarding warning information can be accomplish by a simple verbal command.
Claim 21 further defines a mental step of claim 16 but does not add anything significantly more than the mental process because the subject matter thereof is directed to the mental process of performing a mathematical calculation.
Claim 22 further defines a mental step of claim 16 but does not add anything significantly more than the mental process because the subject matter thereof is directed to the mental process of performing a mathematical calculation.
Independent claim 23 sets forth a method comprising the following steps:
Step 1, measuring an oil level of the oil;
Step 2, measuring vibration at a location of the gearbox;
Step 3, forming a first variable by combining the measurement of the oil level and the measurement of the vibration; and
Step 4, monitoring a value of the first variable for exceedance of a permissible extent of deviation from a setpoint value and/or a threshold value.
An updated analysis of the claim reveals,
Step 1 can be accomplished by nothing more than a mental process (ie. simple observation such as viewing an oil level through a sight glass).
Step 2 can also be accomplished by a mental process ( ie. mere observation of a vibration or listening for a vibration while using a mathematical calculation).
Step 3 can be accomplished by a mental process (ie. performing a mathematical calculation) of combining the determination of the oil level (performed by observation) and the determination of the vibration (performed by listening) into a conclusion (ie. a variable) on the condition of the geared motor. The Examiner notes that Step 3 does not require the actual determining of “an average of a Fourier transformed temporal progression of the measurement of vibration” but instead only the combining of the vibration measurement with the oil level measurement.
Step 4 can be accomplished by a mental process (ie. performing a mathematical calculation).
As such, claim 23 amounts to a judicial exception without anything significantly more being claimed, for an improvement to a judicial exception can not justify subject matter eligibility. In other words, an improvement to a judicial exception itself does not make claimed subject matter eligible. In addition, nothing in the body of the claim ties the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 23 fails to meet the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 24 sets forth a method comprising the following steps:
Step 1, measuring an oil level of the oil;
Step 2, measuring vibration at a location of the gearbox;
Step 3, forming a first variable by combining the measurement of the oil level and the measurement of the vibration; and
Step 4, monitoring a value of the first variable for exceedance of a permissible extent of deviation from a setpoint value and/or a threshold value.
An updated analysis of the claim reveals,
Step 1 can be accomplished by nothing more than a mental process (ie. simple observation such as viewing an oil level through a sight glass).
Step 2 can also be accomplished by a mental process ( ie. mere observation of a vibration or listening for a vibration while using a mathematical calculation).
Step 3 can be accomplished by a mental process (ie. performing a mathematical calculation) of combining the determination of the oil level (performed by observation) and the
determination of the vibration (performed by listening) into a conclusion (ie. a variable) on the condition of the geared motor. The Examiner notes that Step 3 does not require the actual determining of “an average of a Fourier transformed temporal progression of the measurement of vibration” but instead only the combining of the vibration measurement with the oil level measurement.
Step 4 can be accomplished by a mental process (ie. performing a mathematical calculation).
As such, claim 24 amounts to a judicial exception without anything significantly more being claimed, for an improvement to a judicial exception can not justify subject matter eligibility. In other words, an improvement to a judicial exception itself does not make claimed subject matter eligible. In addition, nothing in the body of the claim ties the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 24 fails to meet the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101.
35 U.S.C. § 112
(First Paragraph)
In view of the Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 16, 23, and 24, the claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as set forth in the previous Office Action of Nov. 7, 2025 has been overcome.
(Second Paragraph)
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claims 23 and 24 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which is regarded as the invention.
Amended claim 23 sets forth measuring vibration of the gearbox but then sets forth combining the oil measurement with an average of a Fourier transformed temporal progression of vibration. However, the claimed method never sets forth obtaining an average of a Fourier transformed temporal progression of vibration. The claimed method only sets forth the step of measuring vibration. Thus, uncertainty exists as to how the Fourier transformed temporal progression of vibration is obtained.
Amended claim 24 sets forth measuring vibration of the gearbox but then sets forth combining the oil measurement with an average of a Fourier transformed temporal progression of the measurement of vibration in a frequency band. However, the claimed method never sets forth obtaining an average of a Fourier transformed temporal progression of the measurement of vibration in a frequency band. The claimed method only sets forth the step of measuring vibration. Thus, uncertainty exists as to how the Fourier transformed temporal progression of the measurement of vibration in a frequency band is obtained.
Response To Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered and have been found to be persuasive. The previous grounds of rejection has been withdrawn. However upon an updated analysis, claims 16 - 18 and 21 - 24 still fail to meet the eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(a).
The improvement as claimed is the forming of a first variable by combining the measurement of the oil level and the measurement of the vibration, and then monitoring a value of the first variable against a setpoint value or a threshold value. However, both the forming of the first variable and the monitoring of the variable against a threshold value have been deemed as mental processes (ie. judicial exceptions).
MPEP 2106.05(a) sets forth that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981). In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
As such, the previous rejection has been amended to reflect MPEP 2106.05(a), and since the amended rejection is not the result of an amendment to the claims, this action is Non-Final.
The Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph, have been considered and have been found to be persuasive in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The said rejection has been overcome and withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph, have been considered and have not been found to be persuasive, for the Applicant’s amendments to claims 23 and 24 still leave indefiniteness as pointed out above. The corresponding rejection remains.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, 20, and 25 - 35 set forth a practical application, and thus the amendment of claim 16 to include the subject matter of either claim 19, 20, or 25 (claims 26 - 35 depend from claim 25) would make independent claim 16 claim eligible with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101. Also, a search of the prior art finds that the prior art fails to teach the subject matter of claims 19, 20, and 25. Thus, claims 19, 20, and 25 - 35 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected independent claim 16, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of independent claim 16 and all intervening claims.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status
information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For further questions, contact the Electronic Business Center at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855