DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on September 11, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 11, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on September 11, 2026 have been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 1-7 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 4-6), filed on 09/44/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (p. 6) that Under Step 2A – Prong One, the present invention that improves data collection and broadcast functionality, i.e., functionality of the computer itself. For example, the edge application is incorporated into the processing between the data instrumentation unit and the (industrial) IoT platform to calculate, in response to a data input including data which are sampled with a high sampling frequency like vibration acceleration data, a feature (a feature value) required in performing diagnosis and broadcast the feature to the (industrial) IoT platform. Accordingly, the volume of data collected and broadcasted by the (industrial) IoT platform may be significantly reduced and further adjustments may be made on the side of an edge in such a way to ensure the real-timeness of processing. The edge application operates on the industrial IoT platform and the edge application includes a data collection and analysis module configured to calculate a feature value for the instrumentation data from the data instrumentation unit and broadcast the feature value to the industrial IoT platform as an input to the industrial IoT platform for an analysis (e.g., a vibration analysis) on the industrial IoT platform.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that according to the specification (as indicated in the previous office action):
“The data diagnosis unit DA is configured with a central processing unit (CPU), a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), etc., (none of which is shown) … The data diagnosis unit DA is operated, for example, on a supervision system at a production facility, a production site or the like. As discussed earlier, the data diagnosis unit DA includes an industrial IoT platform 60 and an edge application 40 that operates in cooperation with the industrial IoT platform 60. Typically, the industrial IoT platform 60 is a software to be installed to an industrial computer incorporated in a supervision system at a production facility or the like … Typically, just like the industrial IoT platform 60, the edge application 40 is also a software to be installed to an industrial computer” (see p. 8, lines 7-25).
Based on this, the examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, using software (i.e., IoT platform, edge application) running on a generic computer, to perform an abstract idea (e.g., data collection and analysis) does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the examiner submits that transforming data for reducing the amount of information for transmission purposes, does not reflect an improvement to the computer itself, but instead, as indicated in the MPEP: “For data, mere “manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’” has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Applicant also argues (p. 7) that Under Step 2A - Prong 2, for example, as noted in the Specification as filed (page 6), because a feature (value) required in the diagnosis performed on the edge application is calculated on the side of an edge, the execution of unnecessary processing or an unused volume of files transferred can be eliminated to thereby ensure the real-timeness of processing. Thus, the current claim 1 when viewed in light of the present application calls for a practical application and improvement in the field of condition monitoring systems in that collection and analysis of data from the data instrumentation unit can be targeted to the feature value implemented/adjusted by the edge application and thereby improved the resulting diagnosis.
These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner submits that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claimed invention collects data and analysis the data while appending extra-solution activities, mere computer implementation and a field of use (see rejection below), with the analysis being implemented for data transformation (e.g., data reduction) for transmission purposes.
The examiner further submits that according to the Office guidance:
“It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology” (see MPEP 2106.05(a));
“Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology” (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); and
“Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The examiner also notes that the prior art of record discloses the use of edge computing and IoT platform configurations for diagnosing equipment conditions (see Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art section).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (p. 6-7), filed on 09/11/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. In view of the amendments to the claims, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim language should read “The condition monitoring system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the edge application includes, in addition to the data collection and analysis module, [[a]]the data diagnosis module, a supervision and control module, and a data display module” in order to provide appropriate antecedence basis (“a data diagnosis module” is already recited in claim 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test (see italic text for abstract idea):
the limitation “a data diagnosis unit configured to receive the instrumentation data from the data instrumentation unit and use the instrumentation data to perform a diagnosis process to diagnose the conditions of the piece of equipment, the data diagnosis unit including an edge application and an industrial Internet-of-Things (IoT) platform, wherein the edge application operates on the industrial IoT platform and the edge application includes a data collection and analysis module that carries out processing between the data instrumentation unit and the industrial IoT platform whereby a feature value for the instrumentation data from the data instrumentation unit is calculated as an input being broadcast to the industrial IoT platform, wherein the industrial IoT platform collects the feature value, processes the collected feature value, and broadcasts the processed feature value to a data diagnosis module, the data diagnosis module performing diagnosis based on the processed feature value broadcasted from the industrial IoT platform” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, covers performance of the limitation using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts to evaluate data (e.g., calculating a value (i.e., feature value) from collected data (see specification at p. 5, 9-10; see also claims 6-7) and compare it to thresholds to perform diagnosis (see specification at p. 11, 13-14)). Except for the recitation of the extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated, data gathering/broadcasting), the particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., diagnosing conditions of equipment), and the computer elements/implementation (i.e., data diagnosis unit including an edge application and an industrial Internet-of-Things (IoT) platform, data instrumentation unit, edge application including a data collection and analysis module, data diagnosis module; see Fig. 1 and p. 7-9) used to facilitate the application of the judicial exception, the limitation in the context of the claim mainly refers to performing mental evaluations and/or applying mathematical concepts to manipulate data.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application when considering the claim as a whole. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim (see non-italic text for additional elements):
“A condition monitoring system for monitoring conditions of a piece of equipment” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., diagnosing conditions of equipment; see MPEP 2106.05(h)), while adding computer components (e.g., conditioning monitoring system; see specification at p. 6-7) as tools to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f));
“a sensor configured to be installed to the piece of equipment” adds a machine (i.e., a sensor, see specification at p. 7; see also claim 2) recited at a high level of generality and used for extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated; see MPEP 2106.05(b));
“a data instrumentation unit configured to receive a sensing signal from the sensor to acquire instrumentation data from the sensing signal under a predefined instrumentation condition” adds computer components (i.e., data instrumentation unit, see specification at p. 6) as tools and used for extra-solution activities (e.g., to receive data, see specification at p. 7; see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and
“a data diagnosis unit configured to receive the instrumentation data from the data instrumentation unit and use the instrumentation data to perform a diagnosis process to diagnose the conditions of the piece of equipment, the data diagnosis unit including an edge application and an industrial Internet-of-Things (IoT) platform, wherein the edge application operates on the industrial IoT platform and the edge application includes a data collection and analysis module that carries out processing between the data instrumentation unit and the industrial IoT platform whereby a feature value for the instrumentation data from the data instrumentation unit is calculated as an input being broadcast to the industrial IoT platform, wherein the industrial IoT platform collects the feature value, processes the collected feature value, and broadcasts the processed feature value to a data diagnosis module, the data diagnosis module performing diagnosis based on the processed feature value broadcasted from the industrial IoT platform” adds extra-solution activities (e.g., source/type of data being evaluated, data gathering/broadcasting; see MPEP 2106.05(g)), a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., diagnosing conditions of equipment; see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and computer elements/implementation (i.e., data diagnosis unit including an edge application and an industrial Internet-of-Things (IoT) platform, data instrumentation unit, edge application including a data collection and analysis module, data diagnosis module; see Fig. 1 and p. 7-9) used as tools to facilitate the application of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim, when considered as a whole, does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., diagnosing conditions of equipment), which as indicated in the MPEP: “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application” (see MPEP 2106.05(h));
add a machine (i.e., a sensor; see specification at p. 7; see also claim 2) recited at a high level of generality and used for extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated), which according to the MPEP: “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(b));
recite extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering/broadcasting, selecting a particular data source/type to be manipulated), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity” (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and
append generic computer components (i.e., data instrumentation unit, data diagnosis unit including an edge application and an industrial Internet-of-Things (IoT) platform, edge application including a data collection and analysis module, data diagnosis module) used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (i.e., mere computer implementation), which as indicated in the MPEP: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(f), item 2).
The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test.
Based on the analysis, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional limitations (Claims 4-7), that under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts; and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (e.g., mere data gathering using a data type or source), generic machines/computer components and/or field of use (Claims 2-3), which as indicated in the Office’s guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A – Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B) when considering the claimed invention as a whole.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior Art
Claims 1-7 are distinguished over the prior art of record for the following reasons:
Regarding claim 1.
Hoyte (US 20050240289 A1, IDS reference) discloses:
A condition monitoring system for monitoring conditions of a piece of equipment ([0005]: an integrated monitoring and control system for a plant having a plurality of equipment is presented, the integrated monitoring and control system including sensors for monitoring plant operations and assessing equipment conditions), the condition monitoring system comprising:
a sensor configured to be installed to the piece of equipment ([0005], [0012]: industrial plant includes sensors installed on equipment for monitoring conditions (see [0015]-[0016], [0018]-[0019]); examiner notes that sensors need to be installed in order to monitor equipment);
a data instrumentation unit (Fig. 1, item 76 – “controller”) configured to receive a sensing signal from the sensor to acquire instrumentation data from the sensing signal under a predefined instrumentation condition ([0018]: a (skid) controller receives signals from sensors and processes the signals according to predetermined algorithms (see also [0013] regarding a local diagnostic module, [0015] regarding field modules or preprocessing modules, [0020]-[0021] regarding other control systems, and [0033], [0045] regarding I/O device and data collection devices)); and
a data diagnosis unit (Fig. 1, item 20 – “distributed control system (DCS)”) configured to receive the instrumentation data from the data instrumentation unit ([0013], [0017]-[0021]: a distributed control system collects process parameter data from controller (or local diagnostic module or field modules; see also [0046])) and use the instrumentation data to perform a diagnosis process to diagnose the conditions of the piece of equipment ([0013]; [0037]-[0038]: the DCS analyzes the data to determine health of the machines), the data diagnosis unit including an application ([0037]: DCS includes a plurality of hardware layers (Fig. 4, item 402) performing various functions (applications)) and an industrial platform ([0036]: DCS includes a continuous integrated machinery monitoring system (CIMMS) (industrial platform) (see also [0021], [0040])),
wherein the application operates on the industrial platform and the application includes a data collection and analysis module (Fig. 4, items 404 and 410 – “communications layer” and “data analyzer layer”) that carries out processing between the data instrumentation unit and the industrial platform ([0038]-[0039]: data analyzer layer processes the data received by the DCS through communications layer and performs signal processing such as average and peak detection (feature value)) whereby a feature value for the instrumentation data from the data instrumentation unit is calculated as an input being broadcast to the industrial platform ([0040]-[0041]: CIMMS uses data available in the DCS hardware layers, which implies that the signal processing results determined by the data analyzer layer are broadcasted to the CIMMS),
wherein the industrial platform collects data, processes the collected data, and broadcasts the processed data to a data diagnosis module, the data diagnosis module performing diagnosis based on the processed data broadcasted from the industrial platform ([0040]-[0041]: CIMMS comprises a plurality of software layers (Fig. 4, item 114) including a derived quantity layer (Fig. 4, item 416), which transmits information (e.g., vibration data) to a vibration analyzer for determining pump condition (see also [0043]-[0044])).
Regarding “the data diagnosis unit including an edge application and an industrial Internet-of-Things (IoT) platform”, Oyekanlu (E. Oyekanlu, “Predictive edge computing for time series of industrial IoT and large scale critical infrastructure based on open-source software analytic of big data,” 2017 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), Boston, MA, USA, 2017, pp. 1663-1669, doi: 10.1109/BigData.2017.8258103) teaches:
“The Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) is quite different from the general IoT in terms of latency, bandwidth, cost, security and connectivity. Most existing IoT platforms are designed for general IoT needs, and thus cannot handle the specificities of IIoT. With the anticipated big data generation in IIoT, an open source platform capable of minimizing the amount of data being sent from the edge and at the same time, that can effectively monitor and communicate the condition of the largescale engineering system by doing efficient real-time edge analytics is sorely needed. In this work, an industrial machine condition-monitoring open-source software database, equipped with a dictionary and small enough to fit into the memory of edge data-analytic devices is created. The database-dictionary system will prevent excessive industrial and smart grid machine data
from being sent to the cloud since only fault report and requisite recommendations, sourced from the edge dictionary and database will be sent … Statistical analysis at the network edge using well known industrial methods such as kurtosis and skewness reveal
significant differences between generated machine signal and reference signal” (Abstract: an IIoT condition monitoring edge-analytics configuration (analogous to the edge application operating on the industrial IoT platform) is employed at an edge analytic device (see p. 1664, col. 1, par. 2) to effectively monitor the condition of engineering systems using statistical analysis, while reducing the amount of data being transmitted to the cloud (see also Fig. 4)).
Zhang (CN 108494884 A, IDS reference, see translation) discloses:
“A vibration analysis system based on internet of things gateway edge computing, comprising: the vibration sensing unit for collecting the tested device of vibration data and the vibration data uploaded by the digital channel; gateway analyzing unit for collecting vibration data uploaded by the vibration sensing unit, vibration analysis primarily by edge computing, and the vibration data is received and a primary vibration analysis result of re-uploading via the transmission channel; the background analyzing unit for the tested device and vibration, to manage data according to vibration data and a primary vibration analysis results of vibration analysis for the second time, and the computed intermediate calculation data in the analysis process and the final analysis result sent by the data interface; a customer service unit for obtaining the data result sent by the background analyzing unit, and the vibration sensing unit and gateway analyzing unit and a background analyzing unit the operation of three control and adjusted” (p. 5-6, section ‘Description’: a vibration analysis system based on internet of things gateway edge computing includes a vibration sensing unit for collecting data, a gateway analyzing unit for performing a primary vibration analysis (calculating statistics, see p. 6), a background analyzing unit for performing additional testing and analysis, and a customer service unit for obtaining final results for control and adjustment of equipment).
The closest prior art of record, taken individually and in combination, fail to teach or suggest (see italic text):
“wherein the industrial IoT platform collects the feature value, processes the collected feature value, and broadcasts the processed feature value to a data diagnosis module, the data diagnosis module performing diagnosis based on the processed feature value broadcasted from the industrial IoT platform”
in combination with all other limitations within the claim, as claimed and defined by the applicant (the examiner submits that the prior art of record does not disclose an additional layer of transmission of processed data for performing diagnosis (broadcasting the processed feature value to a data diagnosis module) as claimed by applicant).
Regarding claims 2-7.
They are also distinguished over the prior art of record due to their dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA CORDERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6:00 pm.
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, ANDREW SCHECHTER can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights