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. No information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted with the previous response.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
5. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. 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 method for determining and registering load cycles in real time carried out by a vehicle control unit, 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 mounted on a vehicle, the physical variable being one of a force or torque acting on a vehicle component or a temperature of the vehicle component;
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) using a function with a number n of classes 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 thereby limiting a number n of entries in the second buffer to 2n-1;
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 Rainflow matrix;
removing the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) from the second buffer;
re-checking whether the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) of the second buffer from another load cycle until no further load cycle is contained in the second buffer within the 2n-1 limited number of entries in the second buffer, and
by the vehicle control unit, evaluating the registered load cycles in the Rainflow matrix to determine a degree of material fatigue and operational durability of the vehicle component.
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) using a function with a number n of classes 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 Rainflow matrix; removing the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) from the second buffer; re-checking whether the second-from-last entry (s3) and the third-from-last entry (s2) of the second buffer from another load cycle until no further load cycle is contained in the second buffer within the 2n-1 limited number of entries in the second buffer, and by the vehicle control unit, evaluating the registered load cycles in the Rainflow matrix to determine a degree of material fatigue and operational durability of the vehicle component. ” 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 mounted on a vehicle, the physical variable being one of a force or torque acting on a vehicle component or a temperature of the vehicle component 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 thereby limiting a number n of entries in the second buffer to 2n-1;” (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” and/or “control unit” (claims 7 and 10) however the “computer” and/or “control unit” 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” and/or “control unit” 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 and determines material fatigue. Nothing is done with the determination.
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
8. Applicant's arguments filed 8/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In this instance applicant argues that the inclusion of the claimed components in addition to mathematical concepts integrates the exception into a practical application citing 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance. 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")”. Therefore, just having physical elements that perform their known function does not make the claims eligible.
Applicant goes on to argue that the claims are analogous to examples 40 and 41 of the subject matter eligibility guidance. Examiner disagrees that the claims are analogous to the cited examples. Example 40 improves monitoring of network traffic. The claim recites the combination of additional elements of collecting at least one of network delay, packet loss, or jitter relating to the network traffic passing through the network appliance, and collecting additional Netflow protocol data relating to the network traffic when the collected network delay, packet loss, or jitter is greater than the predefined threshold. Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post-solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data. Specifically, the method limits collection of additional Netflow protocol data to when the initially collected data reflects an abnormal condition, which avoids excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance. The collected data can then be used to analyze the cause of the abnormal condition. This provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in improved network monitoring. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application.
Example 41 uses the combination of additional elements use the mathematical formulas and calculations in a specific manner that sufficiently limits the use of the mathematical concepts to the practical application of transmitting the ciphertext word signal to a computer terminal over a communication channel. Thus, the mathematical concepts are integrated into a process that secures private network communications, so that a ciphertext word signal can be transmitted between computers of people who do not know each other or who have not shared a private key between them in advance of the message being transmitted, where the security of the cipher relies on the difficulty of factoring large integers by computers.
The pending claims perform calculations using measured variable and determines material fatigue and operational durability of a component without integrating the evaluation into a practical application. Therefore, the rejection has been deemed proper and maintained.
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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 August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights