DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 02/23/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6, & 8-10 remain pending. Claims 1, 3, 8-9 have been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments, see Claims 1 & 8, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to 112(b) rejection due to intended meaning of "equipping" and whether "bearings and gears" or "shaft line" is the subject have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-6, & 8-10 for that reason has been withdrawn (other 112(b) issues addressed below).
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see Drawings Fig. 3 & "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 9-12, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Objection to the Drawings due to Fig. 3 being in French have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Drawings Fig. 3 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, see "Claims" & "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 7 lines 13-16, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Objection to the Claims due to claim 8 antecedent basis objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of Claim 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 13 line 14 to page 18 line 6, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102 & 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-6, & 8-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-6, & 8-10 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 line 1 to page 8 line 17, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Section 112(b) Rejections of claims 1-6, & 8-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that
“The Office Action asserts that claims 1, 8, and 9 are unclear because they recite “at least one measurement yc[k], k being an integer index,” and that it is not clear what the index k represents. (Office Action at 11.) Applicant does not agree with this characterization. A person of ordinary skill in the art of signal processing, state estimation, or discrete-time modeling would immediately understand that bracket notations including yc[k], x[k], H[k], Y[k], fr[k], w[k], and v[k] denote discrete-time quantities indexed by a sample number.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2111.01(II): "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment."
Analysis:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification but without importing claim limitations from the specification the claim fails to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]. The claim discloses no more about ‘k’ than that “k being an integer index”. As claimed, “k” could be 1) an index representing data taken at different (equally spaced?) times 2) an index representing different machines 3) different configurations of a machine 4) different components of a machine, or etc.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim is indefinite at least because the claim does not make it clear that “v[k] denote discrete-time quantities indexed by a sample number” or what ‘k’ represents (scope is indefinite).
Note:
The specification (at para 0035) states 1) “k being an integer index indicating an acquisition rank among a series of absolute acceleration measurements” and 2) “k' being an integer index indicating an acquisition rank among a series of rotational speed measurements”
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 8 line 18 to page 9 line 13, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Section 112(b) Rejections of claims 1-6, & 8-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 18-21):
“The Office Action further asserts that it is not clear what x[k], Y[k], or H[k] represents, and suggests that there appears to be a “cross product” between a matrix H[k] and a vector x[k]. (Office Action at 12.) Applicant does not agree with the Office Action’s characterization.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Typical matrix multiplication for a matrix ‘A’ and a matrix ‘B’ is denoted ‘AB’ as shown in the NPL reference “Discrete Wavelet Transformations” Ch 2 by Fleet at page 27 under “Definition 2.8 (Matrix Multiplication)”. Therefore, the matrix product between a matrix H[k] and a vector x[k] would be denoted H[k]x[k].
On the other hand the cross product for a vector ‘A’ and a vector ‘B’ would be denoted as ‘
A
×
B
’ as shown in the NPL reference “Electromagnetic Fields: Theory and Applications” Ch3 by Khan at page 42 under “3.4.1.5 Cross-Product of Two Vectors”. Therefore “
H
[
k
]
×
x
[
k
]
"
appears to indicate a cross product between two vectors H[k] & x[k].
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 9 line 14 to page 11 line 8, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Section 101 Rejections of claims 1-6, & 8-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 9 line 18):
“i) The practical application analysis should consider the claim as a whole”
& (page 10 lines 12-13):
“When considered as a whole, the claims are clearly integrated into the practical application”
& (page 11 lines 3-7):
“Every limitation is integrated into the specific practical application. The claims very clearly “use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception [here, mental processes], such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106(I): “Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.”
See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2): “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.”
Analysis:
It is not the case that the analysis outlined in the MPEP 2106 and a ‘considering the claim as a whole’ are alternative methods for determining allowability. The analysis as required in the MPEP 2106 was followed.
At revised step 2A Prong One, the Claims were found to be directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). At Revised Step 2A Prong Two any additional elements or limitations were found to not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (reasons such as “extra-solution activity” see MPEP 2106.05(g) and “particular technological environment or field of use” see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Conclusion:
As a whole the judicial exception when considering all the other elements (i.e. “as a whole”) does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s).
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" page 11 line 9 to page 13 line 13, filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Section 101 Rejections of claims 1-6, & 8-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 11 lines 12-13):
“The claims do not actually explicitly recite steps that count as mathematical concepts for section 101 purposes, and hence the rejection is not in compliance with the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG)””
& (page 11 lines 16-18):
“It is well-established that “a mathematical equation [being] required to complete the claimed method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction.” (MPEP 2106.04)”
& (page 13 lines 10-13):
“the independent claims do not explicitly recite mathematical formulas. Further, Applicant’s dependent claims also do not recite mathematical formulas. Accordingly, Applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the section 101 rejection.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The independent claims (and the dependent claims due to inheritance) recite at least a mathematical equation(s) as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
134
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, in the Remarks filed 02/23/2026 page 14 lines 4-6 (102 section) Applicant states “However, Hosny does not disclose the specific mathematical structures and relationships expressly recited in claim 1”.
The reason a judicial exception (such as an equation) does not necessarily doom a claim(s) to abstraction is because there could be other elements or limitations within the claim(s) which would incorporate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (this is revised step 2A Prong Two). If the additional elements and limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application then the analysis proceeds to step 2B where it is determined if there are additional elements or limitations which are significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (more than generic or conventional teachings). The analysis in the non-final filed 12/19/2025 led to the conclusion “Claims is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101” (then end point of the 35 USC 101 analysis).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a first obtaining module configured to obtain at least one measurement yc[k], k being an integer index, of an absolute acceleration of the shaft in a fixed reference frame related to the rotating machine," in claim 8 lines 4-6.
"a second obtaining module configured to obtain a value fr[k] of a rotational frequency of the shaft for an instant in which said at least one measurement yc[k] was acquired," in claim 8 lines 7-9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Three-Prong test for “a first obtaining module”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“a first obtaining module” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above):
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above):
Yes;
It is unclear how “obtain at least one measurement yc[k], k being an integer index, of the absolute acceleration of the shaft in a fixed reference frame related to the rotating machine,” is done by the nonce.
In particular, it is not clear whether the ‘first obtaining module’ (nonce) includes a sensor element and if so what sort of acceleration sensor.
Conclusion:
The limitation of “a first obtaining module” for claim 8 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Three-Prong test for “a second obtaining module”
Prong (A) (As above):
Yes;
“a second obtaining module” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning.
Prong (B) (As above):
Yes;
“configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language.
Prong (C) (As above):
Yes;
It is unclear how "a second obtaining module configured to obtain a value fr[k] of the rotational frequency of the shaft for an instant in which said at least one measurement yc[k] was acquired," is done by the nonce.
In particular, it is not clear whether the ‘second obtaining module’ (nonce) includes a sensor element and if so what sort of acceleration sensor.
Conclusion:
The limitation of “a second obtaining module” for claim 8 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Note: the initially filed specification (filed 07/21/2023) was searched for an interpretation of "a first obtaining module configured to obtain at least one measurement yc[k], k being an integer index, of an absolute acceleration of the shaft in a fixed reference frame related to the rotating machine,"
The following evidence supporting an interpretation was found in para 0049:
“readable by the processor 1 and on which a computer program PROG in accordance with the invention is recorded, including instructions for the execution of steps of the monitoring method according to the invention. The program PROG defines functional modules of the monitoring device 12, which rely on or control the hardware elements 1 to 5 of the monitoring device 12 mentioned above, and which comprise in particular: e. a first obtaining module MOD_OBT1 configured to obtain at least one measurement yc[k] of the absolute acceleration of the shaft, f. a second obtaining module MOD_OBT2 configured to obtain a value fr[k] of the rotational frequency of the shaft for an instant in which said at least one measurement yc[k] was previously acquired”
Therefore, for the purposes of examination “…modules” are interpreted as code/programming.
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 1-6, & 8-10 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 “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”
Claims 1, 8, & 9 in lines 4, 5, 4-5 (respectively) recites the limitation "at least one measurement
y
c
k
,
k being an integer index". ‘yc’ is apparently a function of an independent variable ‘k’, but it is not clear what ‘k’ represents. Multiple functions throughout the claims are dependent on ‘k’. For the purposes of interpretation and based on para 0035: “(k' being an integer index indicating an acquisition rank among a series of rotational speed measurements)”, ‘k’ is interpreted as indicating different sets of collected data.
Claims 1 & 8 in line 11 & 12 (respectively) recites the limitation:
PNG
media_image2.png
67
481
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As of the amendment(removing “et”), w[k] and Y[k] are adjacent apparently indicating matrix multiplication of the elements. It is not clear what “x[k]” or “Y[k]” or “H[k]” represents. There appears to be a cross product between a matrix ‘H[k]’ and a vector ‘x[k]’, but a cross product is a binary operation defined over a field of vectors. In general, it is not clear what the equation is intended to convey beyond that there is noise in a signal from an acceleration sensor. For the purposes of examination, it is assumed that this limitation is equivalent to ‘acceleration measurements are made’.
Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”:
Claim 1, 3 & 8 in line 23, line 2, & lines 23-24 (respectively) recites the limitation "said quantity characteristic of said condition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s). “said quantity” could refer to many elements previously referenced in the claim(s). For the purposes of examination “said quantity” is assumed to be (for claim 1) from line 20: “a quantity characteristic of said contribution” and (for claim 8) from line 21: “at least one quantity characteristic of said contribution”.
Note: the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct.
Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’:
Claims 2-6, & 9-10 are rejected for inheriting the rejected limitation(s) of a parent claim without rectifying the issue for which the parent claim was rejected.
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.
PNG
media_image3.png
930
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
681
881
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106(II)(A), respectively.
Claims 1-6, & 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for monitoring a state of mechanical components …” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
Limitations directed towards the Abstract Idea Grouping of “Mathematical Concepts” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) in the form of equations and calculations such as shown below:
1)
PNG
media_image5.png
123
651
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2)
“determining an estimator of the vector x[k] from said matrix H[k]”
3)
“said set of steps further including, for at least one mechanical component, steps of: determining from said estimator, a quantity characteristic of said contribution associated with said mechanical component”
4)
“[steps of:] detecting a possible defect of said at least one mechanical component based on a comparison of said quantity characteristic of said contribution with a threshold.”
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional limitations/elements of:
“monitoring a state of mechanical components for bearings and gears on a shaft line attached to a rotating machine, said method comprising:”
“obtaining at least one measurement yc[k], k being an integer index, of an absolute acceleration of the shaft in a fixed reference frame related to a rotating machine, as well as a set of steps of:”
“obtaining a value fr[k] of a rotational frequency of the shaft for an instant in which said at least one measurement yc[k] was measured,”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: … (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”.
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. 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."
Analysis:
The judicial exception(s) necessarily requires the data gathering step of “monitoring the state of mechanical components” & “obtaining at least one measurement … of the absolute acceleration of the shaft” & “obtaining a value fr[k] of the rotational frequency of the shaft” or are calculations applied to the necessary data gathering . At the recited level of generality the data gathering steps imply nothing more than the judicial exception(s).
The elements of “mechanical components such as bearings and gears on a shaft” or of “rotating machine” amount to no more than indicating the field of use or technological environment corresponding to cpc symbol G01M 13/045 {Testing of machine parts}{ Bearings}{Acoustic or vibration analysis} and therefore do not amount to more than limiting the reach of the patent to a particular technological use.
Conclusion:
Therefore, additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A): “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: … iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use,”
Analysis:
Elements of the claim are not significantly more than field of use or technological environment limitations.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for monitoring a state of mechanical components …” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the estimator of the vector x[k] is determined by means of a minimax optimization algorithm or a least squares optimization algorithm.”
Explanation
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “Mathematical Concepts”
Analysis:
Limitations directed towards vectors and/or mimimax optimization or least squares optimization algorithms are directed towards mathematical concepts.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites limitations directed towards an abstract idea grouping.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for monitoring a state of mechanical components …” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein said quantity is representative of an amplitude or a phase or an energy of said quantity characteristic of said contribution.”
Explanation
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “Mathematical Concepts”
Analysis:
That measured quantities can be represented with amplitudes and phases is an abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts and a Natural phenomenon.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites limitations directed towards an abstract idea grouping.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for monitoring the state of mechanical components …” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“said method further including, if a defect is detected, a step of issuing an alert”
Explanation
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity").”
Analysis:
The limitation is not significantly more than the extra solution activity of adjusting an alert/alarm limit variable according to the judicial exception(s). The courts have found such limitations to be well-understood or conventional.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
Explanation
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). In Flook, the Court reasoned that "[t]he notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance. A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula". 437 U.S. at 590; 198 USPQ at 197; Id. (holding that step of adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was "post-solution activity").”
Analysis:
The courts have found adjusting alarm/alert limits to be conventional or obvious.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A method for monitoring the state of mechanical components …” which is a process and therefore one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein a plurality of absolute acceleration measurements are obtained recurrently, said set of steps being implemented after each time an absolute acceleration measurement is obtained.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “(3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting,… Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering:”
Analysis:
The claim is directed towards steps necessarily implied by the judicial exception(s) of necessary data gathering. The algorithms in the parent claim(s) require the data gathering of this claim, and the data gathering is implied by the judicial exception ( without “acceleration measurements” the judicia exception(s) would not be possible).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Explanation
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional.”
See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: Mere Data Gathering: … ii. Testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction,”
Analysis:
This limitation is not significantly more than extra-solution activity of data gathering for testing a system for a response, the response being used to determine system malfunction.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “A non-transitory computer-readable medium …” which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to implement the method of claim 1.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);”
See MPEP 2106.05(f): “(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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.”
Analysis:
The claim effectively states ‘use computing elements (no more than indicating a computing environment) to apply the judicial exception(s) of the parent claim 1’.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The elements of “non-transitory computer-readable medium” & “a processor” are no more than “mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery”.
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II): “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.”
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8-9 are rejected for analogous reasons as claims 1-6
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “An aircraft” which is a machine and therefore one of the four statutory categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“An aircraft including a monitoring system according to claim 9”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “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.”
Analysis:
The claim effectively states ‘use the judicial exception in the technological environment of airplanes’.
However, ‘airplanes’ amounts to no more than a field of use limitation where the field of use corresponds to at least the cpc symbols of G01M 15/14: “Testing gas-turbine engines or jet-propulsion engines” or of CPC Subclass B64C: “Airplanes; Helicopters”
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The there are no additional elements beyond “aircraft”.
“aircraft” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself at least because ‘airplane’ is no more than a field of use limitation.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190390565 A1 "Device and Process for the Determination of at Least One Rotation Parameter of a Rotating Device" (Nowoisky) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3 & Fig. 4.
US 7136794 B1 "Method And Apparatus For Estimating Values For Condition Indicators" (Bechhoefer) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 6, Fig. 7, & Fig. 16.
US 8958946 B2 "System For Detecting Defects On An Aircraft Engine Impeller Wheel" (Nicq) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 8234925 B2 "Device And Method For Monitoring The Vibratory Condition Of A Rotating Machine" (Marconnet) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4.
US 20200232883 A1 "Detecting an Object Impact Event" (Naylor) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3, Fig. 4, & Fig. 6.
US 11698287 B2 "System And Method For Detecting Vibrations In Rotating Machinery" (Ciciriello) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 4, Fig. 7, & Fig. 11.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858