DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 7-13 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2025 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
4. The drawings submitted on 09/19/2025 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
5. 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.
6. Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 7 recites:
A computer-implemented method for determining and registering load cycles in real time that act on a component, wherein a first buffer of a non-transitory computer readable memory contains a first value (xi) of a physical variable in a first position of the first buffer and a second value (x2) of the physical variable in a second position of the first buffer, the method comprising:
measuring a third value (x3) of the physical variable with a sensor, the physical variable being one of a force or torque acting on the component or a temperature of the component delivering the third value (x3) of the physical variable to a third position of the first buffer;
applying the Rainflow filter to the second value (x2);
overwriting the first position of the first buffer with the second value (x2); and
overwriting the second position of the first buffer with the third value (x3);
discretizing the second value (x2) to determine a discretized form of the second value;
storing the discretized form of the second value as a last entry (s4) in a second buffer of the non-transitory computer readable medium memory; and,
determining whether a second-from-last entry (s3) and a third-from-last entry (s2) in the second buffer form a load cycle, with reference to a last entry (s4), the second-from-last entry (s3), the third-from- last entry (s2), and a fourth-from-last entry (si) in the second buffer;
determining that the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) form a load cycle;
registering the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) in a Rainfall matrix; and
removing the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) from the second buffer; and
re-checking whether the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) of the second buffer form another load cycle.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 10.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 7 and 10 belong to a statutory category, namely they are process claims.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mental process and/ or mathematical concept. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “applying the Rainflow filter to the second value (x2); overwriting the first position of the first buffer with the second value (x2); and overwriting the second position of the first buffer with the third value (x3); discretizing the second value (x2) to determine a discretized form of the second value; determining whether a second-from-last entry (s3) and a third-from-last entry (s2) in the second buffer form a load cycle, with reference to a last entry (s4), the second-from-last entry (s3), the third-from- last entry (s2), and a fourth-from-last entry (si) in the second buffer; determining that the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) form a load cycle; registering the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) in a Rainfall matrix; and removing the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) from the second buffer; and re-checking whether the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) of the second buffer form another load cycle.” which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 10.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including “measuring a third value (x3) of the physical variable with a sensor, the physical variable being one of a force or torque acting on the component or a temperature of the component delivering the third value (x3) of the physical variable to a third position of the first buffer; and storing the discretized form of the second value as a last entry (s4) in a second buffer of the non-transitory computer readable medium memory;” (claims 7 and 10) which are merely data gathering or storing steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “computer” (claims 7 and 10) however the “computer” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0026-0027] describing a generic “computing device” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “computer” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provide) 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 claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, the computer is organizing data and continuously checking a buffer to see if a load cycle is formed.
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 with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, 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 (claims 7 and 10). 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 as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claim 10, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 8-9 and 11-13, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 7 and 10.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this instance Applicant argues that the claims “cannot qualify as a mental process because they cannot be practically performed in the human mind.” This argument is unpersuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require any “large number” of data analyses that are beyond the capabilities of a human being, e.g. the claim requires analysis of three values.
While the claims are performed in real-time as claimed, it is unclear why a human would not be able to perform these calculations after receiving the sensor data, e.g. judgement or opinion, are capable of being performed mentally or using pen and paper, e.g. merely writing such information down on paper, and thus falls within the category of mental processes, e.g. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another. For instance, in CyberSource, the court determined that the step of "constructing a map of credit card numbers" was a limitation that was able to be performed "by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address." In making this determination, the court looked to the specification, which explained that the claimed map was nothing more than a listing of several (e.g., four) credit card transactions. The court concluded that this step was able to be performed mentally with a pen and paper, and therefore, it qualified as a mental process.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
11. 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.
12. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
13. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 February 3, 2026