DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the 11/11/2025.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are examined.
Claims 1 and 9-10 have been amended.
Claims 2-7 and 11 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive and/or moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Objections
Objections are withdrawn.
101 Rejection
This rejection is withdrawn. The claim is reevaluated in light of the amendments.
103 Rejection
These rejections are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/17/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the foreign NPL documents are missing an English translation. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term "gradually" is a subjective term, which renders the claim indefinite. A claim that requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction may render the claim indefinite. The claim or specification does not supply some standard for measuring the scope of the term, similar to the analysis for a term of degree. Some objective standard must be provided in order to allow the public to determine the scope of the claim and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 8-10 are rejected by dependency.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a system. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes
The Office submits that the foregoing limitations (bold) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “a mathematical equation” (algorithm):
converting the analog sensed values to digital form through an Analog-to-Digital
Converter (ADC) and processing the digital values through a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) processor to generate converted values;
This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of an algorithm. For example, calculation would be performed based on determined conversion algorithm for FFT analysis. This step is directed to an algorithm.
extracting, by an Artificial Intelligence (Al) module integrated within the SoC,
feature values by applying an equation: Feature value =Ax+ By+ Cz +D, where x, y, z are the FFT-converted values of temperature, voltage, and current respectively, wherein the feature values form wave patterns that initially fluctuate and gradually converge over time
This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of an algorithm. For example, calculation would be performed based on determined algorithm for FFT-converted values. This step is directed to an algorithm.
extracting final feature values only when the distance between ridge and furrow becomes smaller than the dynamically determined threshold value;
(e) applying k-means clustering algorithm to the final feature values extracted after wave convergence to generate two clusters, and determining a normal cluster among the two clusters by comparing feature values located at center points of each cluster with preset reference values;
This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of an algorithm. For example, calculation would be performed based on determined algorithm for cluster analysis. This step is directed to an algorithm.
determining the motor state as failure-expected or safe by applying linear and Gaussian classification algorithms to the feature values included in the normal cluster; and
(g) calculating a specific failure-expected period in days, weeks, or months when the motor state is determined as failure-expected
This limitation as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers the abstract idea of an algorithm. For example, calculation would be performed based on determined algorithm for cluster analysis. This step is directed to an algorithm.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No
Claim 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claim recites use of “by a sensor” for sensing current state variables and SoC for performing diagnosis. This is understood as generic computing components as there is no improvement of the computing. Further, “stating for monitoring failure of a motor of a car”, generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicles). The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. The claim is found to not recite any use of significant structure for integrating into a “practical application”.
The Office submits that the foregoing limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim additionally recites the additional elements of “continuously acquiring, by a sensor, analog sensed values of temperature, voltage, and current state variables of the motor during a vehicle operation;”, “implementing wave convergence analysis comprising:”, “monitoring distance between ridge and furrow of the wave pattern formed by the feature values”, and “dynamically determining a convergence threshold value based on vehicle operational context, wherein the threshold value is set larger during braking operations to enable faster detection and set smaller during engine start operations to enable more accurate detection;”. These elements disclosed here are seen as directed to extra-solution activity of collecting/organizing data. These steps alone or together also amount to mere organizing/collecting data which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP2106.05(g).
The claim additionally recites, “wherein the wave convergence analysis enables detection of motor degradation patterns that are not detectable through direct sensor data analysis, and the dynamic threshold adjustment based on vehicle operational context provides situation-appropriate detection timing for enhanced vehicle safety.” This is recited at a high level of generality. The diagnosis system merely describes how to generally “apply” the algorithm judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control environment. The control system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely describes where application is possible for use but does not actually perform said use (Examiner’s Note: This step would be better if applied positively; instead of stating what it is used for, positively claim that use in the claim).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No
Claims 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
Per the evaluation in step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B. Here, the steps of determining particular properties is understood as collecting/organizing data which is considered to be extra-solution activities in Step 2A, and thus they are reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the computing system is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 8-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Therefore, the claims 8-10 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
The claims have no further art rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A CASTRO whose telephone number is (571)272-4836. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm on campus.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 5712703969. 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.
PAUL A. CASTRO
Examiner
Art Unit 3662
/P.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662