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 .
Drawings Objections
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because figures 4A and 4B do not have descriptive legend’s on their (X) and (Y) axis. The newly submitted drawing on 7/28/2026 do not show any description to what these graphs represent. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepare new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Likewise, claim 11 is a system claim.
Under step 2A, prong 1: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception as explained in MPEP 2106.4, subsection II, a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mathematical relationships” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to the abstract idea of identifying, using a processor configured to operate a machine learning (ML) module, critical ranges of measurement values for at least a portion of the measurements encoded by the streams of data, wherein the ML module is trained to predict the critical ranges of measurement values at different scales based on, at least in part, the past measurement records from the one or more pieces of rotating equipment; extracting, using the processor configured to operate the machine learning (ML) module, a subset of the at least a portion of the measurements, wherein the subset is identified by using a discriminative score generated by the ML module, the discriminative score being indicative of a discriminative power in distinguishing between normal operating conditions and abnormal operating conditions for the one or more pieces of rotating equipment, and the subset of the at least a portion of the measurements being identified as having the discriminative score greater than a remainder of the at least a portion of the measurements; and within the critical ranges of measurement values such that the one or more pieces of rotating equipment are monitored continuously for deviations from the normal operating conditions. These limitations fall under mathematical concepts. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are accessing streams of data encoding measurements taken at one or more pieces of rotating equipment; accessing a database encoding past measurement records from the one or more pieces of rotating equipment; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generating, on a display device, at least one plot based on the subset of the at least a portion of the measurements, which is considered an extra solution activity such as outputting data (i.e. generating a plot). Other additional components are a processor and a display, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these instruments are needed in order to generate an output on a display. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “wherein the subset is identified by the ML module as more capable of distinguishing normal and abnormal operating conditions for the one or more pieces of rotating equipment than a remainder of the at least a portion of the measurements”) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the generated plot report.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity. Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the types of sensors, data used and the abstract steps of claims 1 and 11 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “critical” in claims 1 and 11, is a relative term which render the claims indefinite. The term “critical” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are dependent from, and inherit the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively. Thus, claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112 second paragraph for at least the same reasons specified above with respect to claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 7/28/2026, with respect to claims rejected under 35 USC sections 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-9 and 10-19 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the drawing objection, drawings were not amended along the lines of suggested revision which was to add descriptive legends to the X and Y axis of the graphic representation.
Regarding the 112 issues, the newly added recitation of “critical ranges” are not defined in the specification but merely give examples. Therefore, the word “critical” is a relative term which makes the claim vague and indefinite.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under step 2A, prong 1 and are not directed to a mathematical concept or mental process.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to the fact that the claims recite an abstract idea as discussed above. Under step 2A prong 1, the claims recite using a machine learning model to predict critical ranges and extract a portion of measurements. Under step 2, prong 2, the only additional elements are outputting data on a display, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MANUEL A RIVERA VARGAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights