DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 03/09/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Regarding claims 7 and 20: cancelled and Claims 21-22: added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described in claims, specifically claims 1 and 14, e.g. “wherein the encoder is trained using a decoder to decode the feature vector into a second order spectrum”, the disclosure disclose “The decoder can be trained using an encoder to encode the feature vector into a second order spectrum”, see [0016] of current application PgPub. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed, i.e. about to fail. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.".
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-6, 8-19 and 21-22 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claim 1-6 and 8-13 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)). For example, each of claims 14-19 and 21-22 fall within category of process.
Regarding Claims 1-6 and 8-13
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of classify the order spectrum.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A system, comprising:
a computer that includes a processor and a memory, the memory including instructions executable by the processor to:
transform acoustic data to an order spectrum including amplitude and phase;
input the order spectrum which includes a magnitude of acoustic energy versus rotational speed to an encoder to determine a feature vector wherein the encoder is trained using a decoder to decode the feature vector into a second order spectrum;
input the feature vector to a one-class classifier to classify the order spectrum as anomalous or non-anomalous; and
output the classified order spectrum wherein, based on the output classified order spectrum, the encoder and the one-class classifier are retrained and re-deployed.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “transform acoustic data to an order spectrum; determine a feature vector [..]to decode the feature vector into a second order spectrum [..]” is mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
For example, the limitations “ classify the order spectrum as anomalous or non-anomalous” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “input the order spectrum which includes a magnitude of acoustic energy versus rotational speed to an encoder; input the feature vector to a one-class classifier; output the classified order spectrum wherein, based on the output classified order spectrum, the encoder and the one-class classifier are retrained and re-deployed” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field of use and /ordata gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The 2nd additional element is “A system, comprising: a computer that includes a processor and a memory, the memory including instructions executable by the processor to: ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic computer components of a system, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The 3rd additional element of “encoder, decoder, classifier” in limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept and it is recited a computer component at a high level of generality. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer components with computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea..
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 2-6 and 8-13
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-13 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-5 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2-3 are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering).
For example, the limitations of Claims 4 are generic component, which is well understood, routine and conventional.
For example, the limitations of Claims 5-6 and 8-13 are a mental step a combination of mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) with a computer component at a high level of generality.
Claims 14-20
Claims 14-19 and 21-22 contains language similar to claims 1-6 and 8-13 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 14-19 and 21-22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it., see page 7.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because limitations, specifically claim 1 represent a combination of mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic computer components with high level of generality and computer software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting a analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, in view of improvements, the claim merely recites the encoder/decoder network details at a high level without details regarding how the network is trained in any particularly way such that it merely attempts to limit the abstract idea of classifying anomalous order spectrums to a particular field of use of using an encoder decoder network to perform the classifications that are otherwise abstract. The encoder-decoder model is a neural network used for tasks where both input and output are sequences, often of different lengths. It is commonly applied in areas like translation, summarization and speech processing and nothing new in the industries. As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s amendment with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered and prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Li et al. (Recent progress on decoupling diagnosis of hybrid failures in gear
transmission systems using vibration sensor signal: A review, 2016)
b) Powel (The Use of the Acoustic Signal to Diagnose Machines Operated Under Variable Load, 2019).
c) Neu. Et al. (US 20120186324) discloses a fabrication of wear surfaces for laboratory tread wear testing that are configured to reproduce a full spectrum of roughness ranges characteristic of actual road surfaces in order to obtain realistic tire wear. With reference to FIG. 1, laboratory tread wear testing is performed via a tread wear machine 100 comprising a road wheel 102 having a substantially rigid hardened wear surface 104. d) Vath et al. (US 20210156763) disclose a method for determining an operating condition of at least one plain bearing includes measuring, by a sensor, structure-borne noise arising from a toothed engagement of a first gear and a second gear, wherein the first gear is rotatably mounted via the plain bearing and meshes with the second gear. The method further includes assigning, to a signal of the sensor, a variable that correlates with the operating condition of the plain bearing.
d) Koizumi et al. (US 11467570) disclose Accuracy of unsupervised anomalous sound detection is improved using a small number of pieces of anomalous sound data. A threshold deciding part (13) calculates an anomaly score for each of a plurality of pieces of anomalous sound data, using a normal model learned with normal sound data and an anomaly model expressing the pieces of anomalous sound data, and decides a minimum value among the anomaly scores as a threshold. A weight updating part (14) updates, using a plurality of pieces of normal sound data, the pieces of anomalous sound data and the threshold, weights of the anomaly model so that all the pieces of anomalous sound data are judged as anomalous, and probability of the pieces of normal sound data being judged as anomalous is minimized.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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 A 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights