DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Election/Restrictions
2. Per Applicants’ response received 07/17/2026, a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute Species I, claims 1-2 and 4-16. Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicants’ arguments about the traversal have been considered by the Examiner. However, the Examiner’s position is that, as discussed in detail in previous Office action, the instant application contains claims directed to patentably distinct species of the claimed invention. The species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record. According MPEP (see MPEP 806.04(b)), where there is no disclosure of relationship between species, they are independent inventions and election of one invention following a requirement for restriction is mandatory even though application disagrees with the examiner. Since the species are directed to independent inventions, restriction is proper pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 121, and it is not necessary to show a separate status in the art or separate classification (MPEP 808.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper in view of the action on 05/18/2026 and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
4. Claims 1-2 and 4-16 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 significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 are directed to an abstract idea of determining the cyclostationarity of a vibration signal relating to a mechanical system.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
690
595
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
764
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been underlined above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The underlined portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
Method
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the underlined portion listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the limitations (a), (b), and (d) encompasses mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers (see Specification, US 20240255380 A1, e.g., para. [0046]-[0047], [0051], [0064]-[0078], [0181]-[0182]), which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation and evaluation, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
Under its BRI, the limitation (c) encompasses mental processes, i.e., data analysis, evaluation, judgement and/or concepts that can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
The limitations (a), (b), (c) and (d) therefore encompass a series of mathematical and/or mental steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
The “calculator” is recited at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, it encompasses a general-purpose computer. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself. Thus, the recitation of such generic computer component of a general-purpose computer and/or the mere instructions to apply a judicial exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Nothing in the underlined portion of claim 1 precludes the limitations (a), (b), (c) and (d) from practically being performed in the mind using mental steps/critical thinking and/or with the aid of a generic computer. As such, the underlined portion of instant claim 1 falls within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Claim 1 recites a mechanical system, wherein the mechanical system comprising at least one rotating member that rotates about a rotation axis, at least one vibration sensor transmitting the temporal vibration signal, an angular sensor transmitting a temporal angular signal that varies as a function of an angular position of the rotating member about the rotation axis. Under the BRI, these additional limitations encompass merely a system adapted for gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea identified above in 2A - Prong 1. According to MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). As such, it represents an extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Further, both the at least one vibration sensor transmitting the temporal vibration signal and the angular sensor transmitting a temporal angular signal are recited in a generic manner but without providing technical details of how these sensors are arranged/configured in certain particular manner to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by performing the data transmission functions. Moreover, said “transmitting” could just as easily relate to the acquisition of the data from, e.g., look-up tables as opposed to the generation of actual measurement data in real-time. Hence, claim 1 would monopolize the judicial exception across a wide range of applications.
As to the limitation of at least one rotating member that rotates about a rotation axis, under the BRI, it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In general, the claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (math + metal) of determining the cyclostationarity of a vibration signal relating to a mechanical system. The claim does not recite any additional element that is qualified for “significantly more” or reflects an “inventive concept”. The recited additional limitations of the mechanical system, comprising at least one rotating member that rotates about a rotation axis, sensors for transmitting data and a general-purpose calculator/computer, are all well-understood and/or conventional but do not provide any inventive concepts or reflect a qualified improvement, see MPEP 2106.05. See also the prior art of record as set forth in section 6 below in this Office action.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-11 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claim 5 recites: the mechanical system comprising at least one rotating member that rotates about a rotation axis, at least one vibration sensor, an angular sensor, and a calculator. Under the BRI, the additional limitations encompass insignificant extra-solution activities for gathering the data/information necessary for performing the identified abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Claim 5 further recites the following steps of the claimed arrangement method:
PNG
media_image3.png
717
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Under Step 2A of the Alice framework, each of limitations (e), (f) and (g) encompasses insignificant extra-solution activities of high level data gathering, without explicit description of how the data is obtained from the at least one rotating member or the rotation axis by using a specific vibration sensor and/or an angular sensor configured particularly for said mechanical system. It is held that just what the data represents mere data characterization does no more than specify the field of use. The limitation (h), under its BRI, reads on mathematical concepts which also encompasses mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The limitation (i), under its BRI, recites an insignificant extra-solution activity of validating (i.e., conforming/checking whether) the position and orientation of the vibration sensor (are arranged as desired), which encompasses a combination of math concepts and mental steps that can be performed in the human mind or by a human with the aid of pen and paper. Further, under Step 2B of the Alice framework, it is deemed that none of the additional limitations recited in claim 5 reflects an “inventive concept”. In particular, a mechanical system comprising at least one rotating member that rotates about a rotation axis, at least one vibration sensor, an angular sensor, and a calculator, and mounting vibration sensors on the mechanical system at desired position/orientation are all "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception does not amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself.
The dependent claims 6-8 inherit attributes of the claim 5, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These claims merely extend (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount to "significant more" because they merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed for claim 5 above.
Claims 12-16 are directed to products defined in terms of the process of claim 1. Under the BRI to the claims, it is deemed that none of the additional limitations/elements recited in claims 12-16 amounts to “significantly more” or reflects an “inventive concept” under the 2019 PEG. Claims 12-16 are therefore treated as ineligible subject matter for the same reason for claim 1 as set forth above.
Examiner’s Note
5. While there are related references that discuss various techniques of determining cyclostationarity of a vibration signal relating to a mechanical system, the prior art of record do not specifically provide teachings for method/system/device including the following limitations:
PNG
media_image4.png
897
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
214
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
6. The closest prior art reference MARIO (WO 2015086959 A1, machine translation) discloses a method for determining the cyclostationarity of a vibration signal relating to a mechanical system (para. 0009-0010), the mechanical system comprising at least one rotating member that rotates about a rotation axis (para. 0027), at least one vibration sensor transmitting the temporal vibration signal s(t) (para. 0030, 0035), an angular sensor (para. 0035) transmitting a temporal angular signal θ(t) that varies as a function of an angular position of the rotating member about the rotation axis (para. 0038-0039), and a calculator (para. 0020, 0022, 0029), the method comprising the following steps: transforming the temporal vibration signal s(t) into an angular vibration signal s(θ), using the calculator, as a function of the temporal angular signal θ(t) (para. 0038-0039). MARIO, however, does not teach: using the calculator to calculate a normalized cyclostationarity indicator I.sub.α using a statistical hypothesis test and as a function of the angular vibration signal s(θ); and determining that the angular vibration signal s(θ) is cyclostationary when the cyclostationarity indicator I.sub.α is greater than or equal to a predetermined cyclostationarity threshold, the predetermined cyclostationarity threshold being between 0 and 1, for which the method is intended to determine cyclostationarity of order 1, and the statistical hypothesis test is a Student's test that includes the limitations as specified in claim 1.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is also considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Antoni et al., Cyclostationary modelling of rotating machine vibration signals, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 18 (2004) 1285–1314
MCCORMICK et al., CYCLOSTATIONARITY IN ROTATING MACHINE VIBRATIONS, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing (1998) 12(2), 225-242
Sun et al., Cyclostationary modeling for local fault diagnosis of planetary gear vibration signals, Journal of Sound and Vibration 471 (2020) 115175
US 20150160101 A1 -- Method And System For Testing Operational Integrity Of A Drilling Rig
Contact Information
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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 on (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.
/X.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights