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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 03/16/2026.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-17 are pending. Claims 2, 5-6 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 7, and 17 have been amended.
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.
The recited “interpolating means ”, “determining means”, “filtering means”, recited by respective claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and “sensing means” recited by claims 7, 12, 15-16, have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph however no corresponding structure have been found on the original disclosure of the invention for the claimed means.
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.
Claim limitation “interpolating means ”, “determining means”, recited by respective claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and “sensing means” recited by claims 7, 12, 15-16 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Clarification and 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, 3-4, and 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, “2019 PEG’). The patent subject
matter eligibility analysis is threefold. First, via step 1, determine that the claim belongs
to a valid statutory class. Second, via step 2A, identify that an abstract idea is claimed in
prong one and if so, identify whether additional elements are recited that integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application in prong two. Finally, in step 2B, determine
whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 1, applied to the present application, the claims belong to
one of the statutory classes of a process (method claim 1), and device (claim 3) with substantially similar claim language as the method of claims 1.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two prongs. Prong 1 requires the
examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the
abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts,
mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
With respect to step 2A, prong one, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claim(s) 1 and 3 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) for determining intermediate samples, each intermediate sample being centered between two consecutive samples and the value of each intermediate sample is determined by interpolating the values of the two consecutive samples, the samples being samples of the continuous signal at a predetermined sampling frequency, determining an intermediate set of samples comprising the samples and the intermediate samples, filtering the intermediate set of samples to determine one final value from an odd number of consecutive samples of the intermediate set of samples by decimating the intermediate set by the float number and to remove frequencies below a first cut-off frequency equal to the predetermined sampling frequency divided by two within a predetermined tuning value, the float number being equal to the odd number of consecutive samples divided by two (claims 1 and 3).
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional element(s) in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the “device”, “interpolating means”, “determining means”, “filtering means” amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the “receiving,…the continuous signal…”, “determine intermediate samples”, “samples of the continuous signal at a predetermined sampling frequency”, “processing unit” recited by respective claims 1 and 3, is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. transmitting the final set of samples to a gateway, wireless device) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does
not recite a specific machine. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or
reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not
contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which
describe a particular technology or technical field, which is being improved by the use of
the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from
Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing
process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the
mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of
a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a
better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite
carrying out any comparable technological process.) Instead the additional elements in
the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-
solution activity - merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the
mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract
idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claim would tend
to monopolize the abstract idea itself, across a wide variety of different practical
applications in the general field-of-use.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the
additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. The considerations in this case are essentially the same as the
considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion
that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements amounts the recitation of a general purpose computer “processor” and to mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claim and 17, when each is analyzed as a whole, are similarly held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claims only recite further limitations which are part of the abstract idea discussed previously, and do not recite any additional elements which are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or to make the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations merely add further details as to the type of data being received/input and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, and also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea at Prong 1.
Claims 4, 7-17 further expands on the abstract idea by appending additional steps which can be considered to describe concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which includes data characterization.
Dependent claims 4, 7-17 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, for determining intermediate value equal to the average value of the values of the two consecutive associated samples (claim 9); “filter having at least a second cut-off frequency and configured to filter the continuous signal representative of measurements, the filtering means being configured so that the first cut-off frequency and the second cut-off frequency are different by tuning the predetermined tuning value” (claim 10, 13) and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea (i.e. intermediate sample is equal to the average of the values of the two consecutive samples, [see claim 9]).
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
Prong 2, of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional element(s) in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because, the “device”, (claim 4) “filtering means”, “polyphase filter” (claim 4, 8, 10) amounts to a general purpose computer to implement the abstract, amounts to the implementation of the abstract idea on a generic computer and also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h); and because the “sensor” (claims 7-16) “sensor comprising: a sensing means, a sampler… configured to deliver a continuous signal representative of measurements, the sampler being configured to sample the continuous signal at the predetermined sampling frequency and to deliver the samples to the device” (claim 7), “sensing means are configured to measure vibrations” (claim 12, 15, 16), and “a sensor…for measuring vibrations of the shaft, the predetermined sampling frequency being equal at least to twice the rotating frequency of the shaft” (claim 17) is mere gathering recited at high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. “a shaft”, shaft vibration measurements, claim 17) and the results of the algorithm are merely output as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. a wireless transmitter configured to transmit the final set of samples to a gateway, claim 11, 14) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does
not recite a specific machine. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or
reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not
contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which
describe a particular technology or technical field, which is being improved by the use of
the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from
Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing
process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the
mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of
a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a
better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite
carrying out any comparable technological process.) Instead the additional elements in
the claim appear to merely be generic computing elements and insignificant extra-
solution activity - merely gathering the relevant data necessary which is the input for the
mental process/math in the abstract idea, and then outputting a result of the abstract
idea. Based on these considerations, the additional elements in the claim do not appear
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Instead, the claim would tend
to monopolize the abstract idea itself, across a wide variety of different practical
applications in the general field-of-use.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the
additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. The considerations in this case are essentially the same as the
considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion
that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements amounts to mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-4, and 7-17 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see last three paragraphs of page 10; and second paragraph and penultimate paragraph on page 11 of the remarks, filed 03/16/2026, with respect to claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 with respect to 35 USC 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The recited “interpolating means ”, “determining means”, “filtering means”, recited by respective claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and “sensing means” recited by claims 7, 12, 15-16, are still being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph however no corresponding structure have been found on the original disclosure of the invention for the claimed means.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 with respect to 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to applicant arguments with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections made to claims 3, 4, 8 and 10 and claims 7, 12, 15-16 (see third paragraph on page 6 of remarks filed on 03/16/2026), applicant argues that as amended claim 3 as amended recite that the device includes “a processing unit configured” to execute the “interpolating means”, “determining means” and “filtering means” and submits that the claim now recites a structure that performs the function and the functions are clearly linked to the structure.
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that although the claim 3 now recites a processing unit, which is a structure, although the processing unit is reciting as executing the interpolating, determining and filtering means, however the processing unit is not executing the functions claimed and no sufficient structure for the recited “interpolating means ”, “determining means”, “filtering means”, recited by respective claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and “sensing means” recited by claims 7, 12, 15-16 and submits that no corresponding structure have been found on the original disclosure of the invention for the claimed means. Therefore the claims stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections applicant argues that as amended claims 1 and 3 implements the alleged abstract idea into a practical application (see penultimate paragraph of page 7 of the remarks) and submits that improvements to a technology or technical field under step 2A specifically in the wireless sensing technology (See last paragraph of page 7 of the remarks) by “determining intermediate samples… being centered between two consecutive samples… by averaging the values of the two consecutive samples… and then determining an intermediate set of samples and the intermediate samples” (see first paragraph of page 8 of the remarks) and by filtering the intermediate set of samples (see penultimate paragraph of page 8 of the remarks). Applicant further submits that as amended the claims integrates the specific steps into a practical application (see last paragraph of page 8 of the remarks).
Applicant have presented similar arguments with respect to claims 3.
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that as discussed above claims 1 and 3 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and that the claims recite concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for determining intermediate samples, each intermediate sample being centered between two consecutive samples and the value of each intermediate sample is determined by interpolating the values of the two consecutive samples, the samples being samples of the continuous signal at a predetermined sampling frequency, determining an intermediate set of samples comprising the samples and the intermediate samples, filtering the intermediate set of samples to determine one final value from an odd number of consecutive samples of the intermediate set of samples by decimating the intermediate set by the float number and to remove frequencies below a first cut-off frequency equal to the predetermined sampling frequency divided by two within a predetermined tuning value, the float number being equal to the odd number of consecutive samples divided by two.
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, prong 2 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recitation of a processing unit amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “receiving… the continuous signal comprising a plurality of consecutive samples”, is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. transmitting the final set of samples to a gateway) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “processing unit”, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Furthermore, the additional claim limitations recited by the instant application claims do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to any other technology or technical field, applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine or adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use as discussed above.
Therefore, claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant argues that claim 17, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by monitoring the performance of an actual rotating shaft and that the sensor is not merely recited at a high level of generality but a sensor specifically configured to measure the vibrations of the shaft at a “predetermined sampling frequency being equal at least to twice the rotating frequency of the shaft” (see penultimate and last paragraphs of page 9 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that the additional elements discussed by the applicant is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, since no particular sensor device is recited for gathering the vibration signals such that it amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself or by improving the technology. The argued limitations discussed by the applicant generally links the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. testing shaft) and not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Discussion of Relevant Prior art
The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barratt US2017/0250675A1 (hereinafter Barratt) discloses, a method for decimating samples of a continuous signal by a float number (see abstract, wherein intermediate sample points between adjacent neighboring sampling points is disclosed), the method comprising: determining intermediate samples, each intermediate sample being centered between two consecutive samples and the value of each intermediate sample is determined by interpolating the values of the two consecutive samples (see abstract, para. 0003-0010, wherein intermediate sample points between adjacent neighboring sampling points is disclosed).
Hedin US 8812265 discloses an analysis system a first sensor adapted to generate an analogue electric measurement signal dependent on mechanical vibrations emanating from rotation of machine part rotating with a variable speed, a first decimator that performs a decimation of the digital measurement data signal so as to achieve a first digital signal having a first reduced sampling frequency such that the first reduced sampling frequency is reduced by an integer factor as compared to the initial sampling frequency; a second decimator that generates a second digital signal, having a second reduced sampling frequency, in response to said first digital signal; and an evaluator that performs a condition analysis function of analyzing the condition of the machine dependent on said second digital signal, wherein said first decimator has a port for receiving said integer factor, wherein said integer factor is settable in dependence on a detected variable speed of rotation, wherein said second decimator is a fractional decimator having a first input for receiving said first digital signal as a sequence of data value and a Finite Impulse Response filter having filter values, wherein said fractional decimator is adapted to generate said second digital signal in response to said first digital signal, said signal indicative of said detected variable speed of rotation, and said signal indicative of an output sample rate setting signal (see claim 1).
Wang et al. US20070192390A1 discloses a digital domain sampling rate converter includes an anti-aliasing filter and a decimator (see abstract, para. 0005, 39, 41-44)
Mou US Patent 5,956,666 discloses signal processing in a computer system and, in particular, and efficient mechanism for interpolating and decimating discrete samples of an analog signal (abstract, col. 1, ll. 5-60).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 A 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights