DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/05/2026.
The claims 1-11 are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 & 11 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
I) Arguments against 102/103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 02-05-2026 in pages 9- 11, with respect to the amended limitations of the independent claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 102/103 rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of discovery of NPL article to Leahy et al. and its combination with prior cited Tralshawala. Specifically, Examiner agrees that the prior cited Tralshawala fails to teach rubbing occurring between a rotating shaft and a stationary member as argued.
II) Arguments against 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pages 7-8, filed on 02-05-2026 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Examiner notes that the various placeholder terms (“part”) of the claims that are under 112(f) interpretations are being implemented as, inter alia, “stored in the storage medium or the like in the form of a program”, see spec, para.020. Accordingly, the outstanding 112 (b) rejections of the claims are withdrawn.
III) Arguments against 101 Rejection:
Applicant's arguments filed 02-05-2026, see Remarks, pages 8- 9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, applicant argues, in substance that the amended claim 1 taken as a whole recites significantly more than the supposed abstract idea of mental process or the judicial exception itself since the claim 1 is amended to require “determination part for determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring between a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part of the rotating machine, based on an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part”. See Remarks, page 8.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, examiner notes that, under BRI, the claimed subject matter of the claim 1 is “An operating condition decision device” comprising “a determination part” and “an operating condition decision part”. Thus, the claimed subject matter corresponds to applicant’s device 100 of fig. 1 that does not require the details of the machine 10 or its sensors. Accordingly, limitation of “an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part” of claim 1 is not positively recited and cannot receive patentable weight.
Second, even when considering the claim 1 as a whole, the claim merely requires two steps to be performed by the operation condition decision device. These steps are: (1) determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring between a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part of the rotating machine using an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part and (2) deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress the rubbing if the determination part determines that the rubbing is present using generic computer elements.
Here, both steps, as drafted cover performance of the limitation in human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, namely “a determination part” and “an operating condition decision part” because these limitations can be practically performed in human’s mind. The additional elements are only those determination part and an operating condition decision part but both of them are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even viewing the claim as a whole, the claim continues to be mere using of a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental processes - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, examiner notes that applicant’s reply does not challenge the examiner position that the limitations can be performed in human’s mind. Therefore, the claim 1 and similarly the claim 11 and the dependent claims are not patent eligible under 101 for the reasons fully elaborated below. The outstanding 101 rejections are respectfully maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1- 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 5, “a determination part for determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring” should be changed to “a determination part for determining a presence or absence of rubbing occurring” to avoid improper antecedent basis.
The claims 2- 9 are also objected to because they also carry the same deficiency of the claim 1 due to their dependency with claim 1.
In claim 11, line 5, “the presence or absence” should be changed to “a presence or absence”.
In claim 11, line 8, “by the determination part” should be changed to “by a determination part”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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:
in claims 1- 10:
“a determination part”: item 120, see Spec, paras. 020-023,
“an operating condition decision part”: item 130, see Spec, para. 020-023.
In claim 9:
“an operating state identification part”: Fig. 6, item 210
“a map creation part”: fig. 6, item 220
In claim 10:
“an operating state identification part”: Fig. 6, item 210
“a map creation part”: item 220
“a control target value decision part”: fig. 9, item 310
“a control part”: Fig. 9, item 320
In claim 11:
“a determination part”: item 120, see Spec, paras. 020-023,
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.
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- 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to Judicial Exception (“abstract idea”) without significantly more.
As to claim 1
The claim is reproduced below.
1. An operating condition decision device for a rotating machine, comprising:
[a] a determination part for determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring between a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part of the rotating machine, based on the AE an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part; and
[b] an operating condition decision part for, if the determination part determines that the rubbing is present, deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress the rubbing.
1. Step 1: Yes. The claim is to “An operating condition decision device” with generic computer elements of a determination part and an operating condition decision part, which is one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The claimed operation condition decision device corresponds to applicant’s device 100 of fig. 1 and does not cover machine 10.
2. Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. The both claim limitations shown above without bold emphasis can be practically performed in human’s mind at most with the aid of pen and paper hence are mental processes. That is, both steps, under BRI as drafted, cover performance of the limitation in human’s mind but for the recitation of generic computer elements, namely determination part and operating condition decision part since nothing in the claim limitations preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring between a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part of the rotating machine, based on an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part” cover human user to observe information of an acoustic emission signal (which can be represented in numerical format or text format that can be read by the user when they are in digital form) of the AE sensor disposed on the fixed part. By using user’s judgement and comparing the numerical/textual values of the AE signals to some threshold values, human can judge that there is presence or absence of rubbing occurring in between a rotational shaft of the machine and a fixed part of the rotating machine. Similarly, when human mind concludes that there is a rubbing occurring, human mind can select/identify one or more rubbing suppression actions. Please note that the claim does not require implementing of the determined rubbing suppression operation condition. Simply put, limitations shown without bold emphasis clearly cover concepts performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
3. Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites only two additional elements, namely “a determination part” and “an operating condition decision part”. Here, the using of determination part and an operating condition decision part are recited at high level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the individual and combination of additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the above abstract idea other than running the abstract idea into a generic computer. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
4. Step 2B: No. The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the using of the determination part and an operating condition decision part amount no more than performing the action on the computer having a determination part and an operation condition decision part both of which are interpreted as generic computer elements. Accordingly, the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception other than executing the abstract idea using a generic computer. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2- 8, these claims depend on claim 1 and also add other limitations. Therefore, they recite same abstract idea and additional elements set forth above. These added other limitations also can be practically performed in human’s mind and hence still abstract. That is, none of the added limitations of the claims 2- 8 represent additional elements since they too can be practically performed in human’s mind. Just because the information of these claims cover/represent rotating machine’s conditions, do not mean that such information can be evaluated in human’s mind. Accordingly, claims 2- 8 also fail to provide a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2 and an inventive step in Step 2B. These claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 9- 10, these claims depend on claim 1 and also add other new limitations. Therefore, they recite same abstract idea and additional elements set forth above in claim 1. The claimed “an operating state identification part for identifying an operating state of the rotating machine; a map creation part for creating a map based on a determination result of the determination part and the operating state identified by the operating state identification part” of claim 9 can be practically performed in human’s mind but for the recitation of respective parts and device. The limitation of “a display part for displaying the map created by the map creation part” is another additional element. Here, the display limitation is discussed at high-level of generality hence is akin to adding of an insignificant extra solution activity that is well-known in the art. The various parts are part of the generic computer and go nothing beyond using computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, in the claim 9, the additional elements individually and also in combination fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. The claim is not patent eligible.
Similar to claim 9, the claim 10 also recites various parts coupled with respective functions. Here, all of these functions can be practically performed in human’s mind hence still abstract. The parts are recited at high-level of generality hence are nothing more than using computer elements as tools to perform the mental processes based abstract idea. Thus, claim 10’s additional elements individually and also in combination fail to provide a practical application and an inventive step. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is reproduced below for convenience.
11. An operating condition decision method for a rotating machine, comprising:
[a] a step of determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring between a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part of the rotating machine, based on an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part; and
[b] a step of, if the rubbing is determined to be present by the determination part, deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress the rubbing.
Step 1: Yes. This claim recites series of steps hence is a process which is one of the four statutory category.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes. Here, other than “by the determination part,” each limitations can be practically performed in human’s mind hence still mental processes based abstract idea. That is, the claim covers steps or performance of the limitations in human’s mind but for the recitation of generic computer element, namely by the determination part. Put differently, the limitation of “step of determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring between a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part of [[in]] the rotating machine, based on the AE an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part” can be practically performed in human’s mind. Similarly, the limitation of “a step of, if the rubbing is determined to be present by the determination part, deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress
the rubbing” can be performed in human’s mind but for the recitation of “determination part”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: No. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites only an additional element of “the determination part”. Here, the determination part is recited at high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere using computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Such using of the generic computer element fails to impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: No. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “the determination part” in deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition step goes nothing beyond mere using computer as a tool to execute the abstract idea hence fails to provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 8, & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tralshawala et al. (US 20170254783 A1) in view of Leahy et al. (“Acoustic Emission for the Detection of Shaft-To-Seal Rubbing in Large Power Generation Turbines in Large Power Generation Turbines”, see attached NPL article).
Regarding claim 1, Tralshawala teaches an operating condition decision device [“example computing system 300”] for a rotating machine [“state of a component in a machine”, e.g., “compressor 14”], comprising: (Fig. 1-3, Abstract, [1026, 039]);
a determination part for determining [reading of various AE signals] the presence or absence of rubbing occurring data receiver 312 receives AE signals from a plurality of sensing devices that collect AE signals from a machine”] acquired from an AE sensor [“sensing devices”] disposed
an operating condition decision part for, if the determination part determines [“In Step 460, crack initiation, rubbing ,or propagation are distinguished from one another”] that the rubbing is present, deciding a rubbing suppression operating condition [one or more of the responses of step 490 which includes “inspection, repair, emergency shut down, and/or decommissioning.”] imposed on control of the rotating machine to suppress the rubbing ([045- 046]).
Tralshawala teaches detecting of presence or absence of rubbing using information acquired from AE sensors disposed at various portions of the machines such as compressors and generating appropriate responses in step 490 ([045- 046] Fig. 4).
However, Tralshawala still fails to teach to detect presence or absence of rubbing occurring between a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part of machine using information of AE sensor disposed on the fixed part. Put differently, while Tralshawala teaches of acquiring acoustic emission (AE) signal from the monitored rotating machine such as compressor using “plurality of sensing devices”, it is still silent about capturing (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part as claimed and shown above with the strikethrough emphasis.
However, the missing limitations of Tralshawala are clearly disclosed in Leahy.
Specifically, Leahy teaches an operating condition decision device [“Data Acquisition System” like “AE transducers were connected to variable gain pre-amplifiers (20, 40 and 60 dB), which were in turn connected to a ruggedised PC containing three Physical Acoustics Corporation PCI-2 acquisition cards”] for a rotating machine including a turbine, the decision device comprising: a determination part [“software employed a hardware accelerator to perform calculations in real time”] for determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring [Page 433: “the interaction of surface asperities of a rotating shaft and a stationary seal will result in the generation of acoustic emission”] between [“Until it was verified that the bearing mounted transducers could detect rubbing between the replica seals and the shaft, one of the AE acquisition channels was connected to the transducer affixed to the seal that was inducing the rub”] a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part [“a stationary seal”] of the rotating machine, based on an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor [“As a precaution, AE transducers were mounted directly to the seals to ensure that a rub could be detected as soon as it was initiated”] disposed on the fixed part (Pages 433-438).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Leahy and Tralshawala because they both related to a computing device monitoring rubbing in various rotating machines by processing AE signals from pluralities of the sensing devices and (2) have modified the operating condition decision device/method of Tralshawala to also receive an acoustic emission (AE) signal acquired from an AE sensor disposed on the fixed part for determining the presence or absence of rubbing occurring between a rotational shaft of the rotating machine and a fixed part of the rotating machine as in Leahy. Doing so would allow accurately detecting rubbing induced by the seals of the rotating machine in the system/method of Tralshawala (Leahy page 435). Accordingly, Tralshawala in view of Leahy teaches each element of the claim and renders invention of this claim obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 8, Tralshawala in view of Leahy teaches/suggests the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 1, wherein the determination part is configured to determine the presence or absence of the rubbing, based on a rubbing detection index [“frequency domain features… the variations in these distributions, wavelets, and the like”] calculated based on information on a phase [frequency domain data can be understood to cover a phase] of the acoustic emission signal (Tralshawala, [033-034] & Leahy Page 435).
Regarding claim 11, Tralshawala in view of Leahy teaches an operating condition decision method for a rotating machine for the similar reasons set forth above in device claim 1.
Claim(s) 2- 3 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tralshawala et al. (US 20170254783 A1) in view of Leahy, and further in view of Arar (US 20130104564 A1, reference of record).
The combination of Tralshawala, Leahy, and Arar is referred as TLA hereinafter.
Regarding claim 2, Tralshawala in view of Leahy teaches operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 1 set forth above. Tralshawala in above combination further teaches its system to generate response when the determination part determines that the rubbing is present. Still further, Tralshawala teaches its operation condition device 300 to determine operation mode [“step 420, operational data regarding the operating conditions of the machine are received”] of the monitored machine after AE signal is received (Tralshawala, [046]).
However, Tralshawala in view of Leahy still fails to select different rubbing suppression depending on the identified operating condition. Thus, Tralshawala in view of Leahy fails to teach remaining limitations of the claim.
Arar relates to control operating of a rotating machine (gas turbine) to ensure rotating blades do not rub against their seals by selecting different rubbing suppression method depending on the operating mode of the rotating machine ([025], fig. 1). More specifically, Arar teaches an operating condition decision device [a controller 24 for “active clearance control system 26”] for the rotating machine according to the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to wherein the rubbing suppression operating condition is set in advance for each operation mode [“During steady-state operation”, “during a start-up phase of the gas turbine” have different clearance control process] of the rotating machine, and wherein the operating condition decision part is configured to select the rubbing suppression operating condition corresponding to the operation mode implemented in the rotating machine ([004, 0022, 027-028]). In summary, Arar clearly teaches that performing different rubbing suppression operating conditions depending on the detected operating condition of the rotating machine.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Arar and Tralshawala in view of Leahy because they both related to determining and avoiding rubbing in the rotating machine having various operating conditions and (2) modify the operating condition decision device to include missing limitations from Arar so that different rubbing suppression operating conditions are selected depending on the detected operational mode in Tralshawala’s step 420. Doing so would allow to generate and utilize most appropriate responses to the detected rubbing events by factoring on the inherently present different thermal expansion characteristics depending on the operating mode (e.g., “during startup and cools during shutdown”) to further improve the system of Tralshawala in view of Leahy (Arar, [004]). Thus, TLA teaches each element of the claim and renders invention thereof obvious to PHOSITA.
Regarding claim 3, TLA teaches the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to The operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to wherein the operation mode involves fluctuations in rotation speed or load of the rotating machine (Arar, [027-028]).
Regarding claim 7, TLA teaches the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 2, wherein the operating condition decision part is configured to, if the rubbing is determined to be present, decide the rubbing suppression operating condition so that a clearance [“clearance control process”] between the fixed part and a rotating part in the rotating machine is increased (Arar, [027-028]).
Claim(s) 9- 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tralshawala et al. (US 20170254783 A1) in view of Leahy, and further in view of Kubo et al. (US 20130184852 A1, reference of record).
Regarding claim 9, Tralshawala in view of Leahy teaches an operation assistance device for a rotating machine, comprising: the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 1; an operating state identification part for identifying [step 420] an operating state of the rotating machine (Tralshawala, [046]).
Tralshawala in view of Leahy fails to teach a map creation part for creating a map based on a determination result of the determination part and the operating state identified by the operating state identification part; and a display part for displaying the map created by the map creation part.
Kubo teaches an operation assistance device comprising: a map creation part for creating a map [“entry prohibited area 309” vs not prohibited area] based on a determination result of the determination part and the operating state identified by the operating state identification part; and a display part for displaying [“which display of a machining program portion in which collision determination has been invalidate”] the map created by the map creation part ([045, 051, 0105]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Kubo and Tralshawala in view of Leahy because they both related to operating condition detecting device including determining and avoiding rubbing/collision of the rotating machine and (2) modify the device of Tralshawala in view of Leahy to include missing limitations as in Kubo. Doing so would allow to inform the operator of Tralshawala in view of Leahy about additional scenarios where rubbing can occur in its machine thereby helping to minimize occurring of rubbing events.
Regarding claim 9, Tralshawala in view of Leahy teaches an control device for a rotating machine, comprising: the operating condition decision device for the rotating machine according to claim 1; an operating state identification part for identifying an operating state of the rotating machine (Tralshawala, Fig. 4, [046]);
Tralshawala in view of Leahy fails but Kubo teaches a control device for rotating machine comprising a map creation part for creating a map based on a determination result of the determination part and the operating state identified by the operating state identification part; a control target value decision part for deciding a control target value for a control parameter of the rotating machine, based on the map created by the map creation part; and a control part for controlling the control parameter, based on the control target value decided by the control target value decision part ([045, 051, 0105]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Kubo and Tralshawala in view of Leahy because they both related to operating condition detecting device including determining and avoiding rubbing/collision of the rotating machine and (2) modify the device of Tralshawala to include missing limitations as in Kubo. Doing so would allow to inform the operator of Tralshawala in view of Leahy about situations/scenarios where rubbing can occur thereby helping to minimize occurring of rubbing events.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4- 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4- 6, they recite novel and non-obvious subject matter over prior arts of the record.
Conclusion
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) NOWOISKY et al. (US 20190063503 A1 ) teaches detecting local contact between the shaft 6 and the lining of the sliding bearing 1 (Fig. 10, [061]).
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 “for monitoring the health of components in other machines, including various turbomachines, compressors, gas turbines, steam turbines, or generators”
Prosecution Insights