DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
1. Previous objection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims recite the limitation “selecting the physical component i for which it has been determined that the physical component i is unsound,” but said limitation is not supported in the original disclosure. Specifically, lines 21-26 on page 11 discloses determining the soundness or unsoundness of the components and implementing an in-depth inspection of the unsound components, but the original disclosure does not further disclose any selecting of the unsound component.
Previous rejection is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 06/25/2026.
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.
5. Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to two of the four statutory classes, method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “extracting from each measurement signal a sequence of signal portions ai, n, where i is a second natural integer ranging from 1 to P and designates a different one of the P physical components, wherein n is a third natural integer and designates a position of the nth signal portion ai,n of the measurement signal of the ith of the P physical components in the sequence, for each physical component i computing, for each of P-1 pairs associating the signal portions ai,n of the physical component and another one ai,n of the signal portions of another one of the P physical components having one and the same position n in their respective sequence for the pair, a distance dtwn (ai,n, aj,n) computed using dynamic time warping between signal portions ai,n of the pair and the signal portion aj,n of the pair, wherein j is a fourth natural integer, which ranges from 1 to P, designates the other one of the P physical components and is different from i for each physical component i and for each position of the nth signal portion, determining at least one statistical indicator based on the distance dtwn (ai,n, aj,n) for each physical component I for each of the P-1 pairs associating the signal portion ai,n of the physical component i and the other signal portions aj,n of the other physical components j having the same position n in their respective sequence for the pair, for each physical component i, making a comparison of the at least one statistical indicator of the physical component I for the position n to the statistical indicators of the other physical components j for the same position, determining by the computer as a function of the comparison, the soundness or unsoundness of the physical component, and selecting the physical component I for which it has been determined that the physical component i is sound,” are abstract ideas, as they involve a combination of mental process and usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite capturing P measurement signals by a probe at the P physical components, and “computer and non-transitory medium,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality and general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of the probe or computer and does not improve other technology. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the soundness or unsoundness of the component. However, improved or new abstract ideas, are nonetheless abstract ideas, and are not eligible. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite capturing P measurement signals by a probe at the P physical components, and “computer and non-transitory medium,” but said limitation is merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality and general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuduki, US-PGPUB 2022/0276130 (hereinafter Tsuduki) in view of Niculescu-Mizil et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0103768 (hereinafter Nicu)
Regarding Claims 1 and 10. Tsuduki discloses a non-destructive testing of P physical components being similar, wherein P is a first natural integer greater than 10, (Abstract; Figs. 1-10), comprising:
capturing P measurement signals by a probe at the P physical components, each of the P measurement signals corresponding to a predetermined different one of the P physical components (Paragraph [0035], sensors for a plurality of equipment, where although Tsuduki does not explicitly disclose P being greater than 10, absent criticality, it would have been obvious to have greater than 10 as there are many components in a facility, such as in large scale industrial plants as disclosed in Paragraph [0031])
extracting by a computer from each measurement signal a sequence of signal portions ai, n, where i is a second natural integer ranging from 1 to P and designates a different one of the P physical components, wherein n is a third natural integer and designates a position of the nth signal portion ai,n of the measurement signal of the ith of the P physical components in the sequence (Paragraphs [0040]-[0045])
for each physical component i computing by the computer, for each of P-1 pairs associating the signal portions ai,n of the physical component and another one ai,n of the signal portions of another one of the P physical components having one and the same position n in their respective sequence for the pair, a distance dtwn (ai,n, aj,n) computed using dynamic time warping between signal portions ai,n of the pair and the signal portion aj,n of the pair, wherein j is a fourth natural integer, which ranges from 1 to P, designates the other one of the P physical components and is different from i (Paragraph [0179]-[0180], DTW, or dynamic time warping; Paragraph [0114]),
for each physical component i and for each position of the nth signal portion, determining by the computer at least one statistical indicator based on the distance dtwn (ai,n, aj,n) for each physical component i for each of the P-1 pairs associating the signal portion ai,n of the physical component i and the other signal portions aj,n of the other physical components j having the same position n in their respective sequence for the pair (Paragraphs [0181]-[0189], statistical processing on data processed by DTW)
for each physical component i, making by the computer a comparison of the at least one statistical indicator of the physical component i for the position n to the statistical indicators of the other physical components j for the same position, determining by the computer as a function of the comparison, the soundness or unsoundness of the physical component (Paragraph [0188], quality of the state of the facility),
Tsuduki does not disclose selecting by the computer the physical component i for which it has been determined that the physical component i is unsound.
Nicu discloses selecting by the computer the physical component i for which it has been determined that the physical component i is sound for corrective action (Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0003]-[0005], [0008])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Nicu in Tsuduki and select by the computer the physical component i for which it has been determined that the physical component i is unsound, so as to take appropriate corrective action.
Regarding Claims 4 and 11. Tsuduki discloses a statistical indicator is a central tendency indicator, the mean (Paragraph [0185], average).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14. Tsuduki discloses the at least one statistical indicator is a dispersion indicator measuring the variability of the distances, a variance (Paragraph [0185], variance)
Regarding Claim 6. Tsuduki discloses at least two statistical indicators are determined by the computer, the at least two statistical indicators, comprising a central tendency indicator and a dispersion indicator (Paragraph [0185], variance and average)
Regarding Claim 7. Tsuduki discloses the comparison of the at least one statistical indicator of the component I for the position n to the statistical indicators of the other physical components j for the same position n comprises determining, by the computer, of a difference between the at least one statistical indicator of the physical component j for the same position n, which is nearer to the at least one statistical indicator of the physical component i for the position n (Paragraphs [0184]-[0185], differences as compared to the limits set by good component)
Regarding Claim 9. Tsuduki discloses each signal portion corresponds to a measurement distance at least equivalent to a typical size of sought defect (Paragraphs [0185]-[0188]). Note: the claims do not specify the typical size.)
Regarding Claim 14. Tsuduki discloses the dispersion indicator comprises a standard deviation (Paragraph [0184])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuduki, US-PGPUB 2022/0276130 in view of Nicu, US-PGPUB 2021/0103768 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Weekley et al., US Pat no. 6,735,550 (hereinafter Weekley)
Regarding Claim 2. The modified Tsuduki does not explicitly disclose two signal portions that follow one another in a sequence obtained from one and the same measurement signal partially overlap.
Weekely discloses two signal portions that follow one another in a sequence obtained from one and the same measurement signal partially overlap (Figs. 3-4; Col. 2, lines 34-51)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to combine the teaching of the modified Tsuduki and Weekely and properly determine the soundness or unsoundness of the component, even in cases when the two signal portions that follow one another in a sequence obtained from one and the same measurement signal partially overlap.
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuduki, US-PGPUB 2022/0276130 in view of Nicu, US-PGPUB 2021/0103768 as applied to Claim 1 and further in view of Chen et al., US-PGPUB 2003/0186663 (hereinafter Chen) and alternately in view of Clifton et al., US-PGPUB 2014/0149325 (hereinafter Clifton)
Regarding Claim 8. Tsuduki discloses statistical process on data processed by DTW (Paragraphs [0181]-[0189])
The modified Tsuduki does not disclose comparison of the at least one statistical indicator the physical component i for the position n to indicator pairs of other physical components comprises a statistical modelling, by the computer, of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of at least two statistical indicators for each physical component I and for each position of the nth signal portion.
Chen discloses comparison of the at least one statistical indicator the physical component i for the position n to indicator pairs of other physical components comprises a statistical modelling, by the computer, of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of at least two statistical indicators for each physical component i and for each position of the nth signal portion (Paragraph [0027]), including sensors system used for various applications, such as in maintenance (Paragraph [0003]; Fig. 2; Paragraphs [0007]-[0009])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordindary skill in the art to use the teaching of Chen in the modified Tsuduki and perform comparison of the at least one statistical indicator the physical component i for the position n to indicator pairs of other physical components comprises a statistical modelling, by the computer, of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of at least two statistical indicators for each physical component i and for each position of the nth signal portion, so as to accurately determine the soundness or unsoundness of the component with minimized noise.
Alternately in view of Clifton
The modified Tsuduki does not disclose comparison of the at least one statistical indicator the physical component i for the position n to indicator pairs of other physical components comprises a statistical modelling, by the computer, of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of at least two statistical indicators for each physical component I and for each position of the nth signal portion.
Clifton discloses comparison of the indicator pair of one component to indicator pairs of other components comprises a statistical modelling of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of two statistical indicators of said component (Paragraphs [0002]; Paragraphs [0020]-[0023]; Figs. 4-7, 10)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordindary skill in the art to use the teaching of Clifton in the modified Tsuduki and perform comparison of the at least one statistical indicator the physical component i for the position n to indicator pairs of other physical components comprises a statistical modelling, by the computer, of a probability density of the values taken by the pair of at least two statistical indicators for each physical component I and for each position of the nth signal portion, so as to accurately determine the soundness or unsoundness of the component.
11. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuduki, US-PGPUB 2022/0276130 in view of Nicu, US-PGPUB 2021/0103768 as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Han et al., US-PGPUB 2020/0112577 (hereinafter Han)
Regarding Claim 12. The modified Tsuduki does not discloses the central tendency indicator comprises a median.
Han discloses detecting anomalies, including dynamic time warping distance and the central tendency indicator comprises a median (Paragraph [0026]; Abstract; Paragraphs [0002]-[0005])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Han in the modified Tsuduki and have the central tendency indicator comprises a median, so as to perform proper maintenance and quality control.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. For the 101 rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as shown below.
The Section 101 provides that anyone who “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. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should not extend to claims that monopolize “the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk vs Benson, 409 US 63, 67, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Edd. 2d 273 [175 USPQ 673] (1972)). Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The 101 subject matter eligibility analysis begins with the claimed language (see Synopsis vs Mentor Graphics, 120 USPQ2d 1473 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Id., at 1481 “The 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”), followed by identifying the focus or underlying invention (see Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 [103 USPQ2d 1425] (Fed. Cir. 2012), Id., at 1431-1432, “Subsequently, however, we explained in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc. that we look not just to the type of claim but also “to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 [99 USPQ2d 1690] (Fed. Cir. 2011). Looking at the claims in the instant application, the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of “determining the soundness or unsoundness of the physical component.”
Here, note that the Supreme Court has emphatically rejected the idea that claims become patent eligible simply because they disclose a specific solution to a particular problem (Supreme Court, Alice Corp v CLS Bank Int’l, 110 USPQ 2d 1976 at 1985; DDR Holding, 773 F.3d at 1265)). In other words, even if the claims had recited specific abstract ideas for “determining the soundness or unsoundness of the physical component” would not have made the claims eligible under 35 USC 101.
Additionally, note that the novelty of the abstract idea itself, also does not help in overcoming the 101 rejection (see Flook, In Gottschalk vs Benson, Id., at 195, “we held that the discovery of a novel and useful mathematical formula may not be patented,” Indeed, the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all.”). This means that any novelty or non-conventionality in the abstract idea of “determining the soundness or unsoundness of the physical component” will not be a determining factor. New abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty.”).
Having said that, the subject matter eligibility analysis continues with the examination of the additional elements with respect to the practical application and significantly more criteria. Looking at the claimed invention, the claims additionally recite
additional elements as shown above,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity, recited at high level of generality and general-purpose computer for processing the collected data that are also well-understood, routine and conventional. Furthermore, nothing in the claims, understood in light of the original disclosure, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional probe and general-purpose computer for collecting data, analyzing and obtaining the desired information (unlike Thales 85- F.3d 1343, 121 USPQ2d 1898 (2017), Id., at 1898 where the inertial sensors are used in non-conventional manner for measuring position and orientation).
Furthermore, the claims do not improve the functioning of any machines. The claims in the instant application with the probe and computer, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in said probe and computer as tools (as in Enfish), or focused on a specific asserted improvement in “determining the soundness or unsoundness of the physical component, in non-abstract way (or improvement in computer animation in non-abstract way, without animators able to do to same, as in McRo), but on certain independently abstract ideas that use those sensors and processing device, etc as tools. In other words, the Applicant is basically claiming the algorithm itself.
Furthermore, the claims also do not improve any technology. At most, the claims are improvement in the abstract idea of “determining the soundness or unsoundness of the physical component”. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still an abstract idea and not eligible.
For the reasons given above, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application and the additional elements do not amount significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite the abstract idea of “determining the soundness or unsoundness of the physical component”, without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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 HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights