CTNF 18/424,970 CTNF 87626 1-20DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106. Under step 1, claim 1 belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a system claim. Likewise, claim 19 is a method 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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. “mental process and concepts performed in the human mind” which the court has identified as abstract) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 19 are directed to the abstract idea of identify a current operating condition of the turbine engine; select one of the plurality of acoustic signatures in the memory based on the current operating condition; generate comparison results using the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures selected and the acoustic data, and identify that a maintenance condition is present for the gearbox when the comparison results indicate a deviation that is greater than or equal to a preset threshold.. These limitations fall under mental processes (i.e. identifying, selecting and comparing data). 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 receive the acoustic data from the first acoustic sensor and a first acoustic sensor located proximate to a gearbox of a turbine engine, the first acoustic sensor configured to output acoustic data representative of sound emanating from the gearbox; which is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and a processor, a memory and an acoustic sensor, which are conventional or generic equipment which do not add anything significant to the judicial exception because these elements are needed in order to perform the identify a maintenance condition. The claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The data processing and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than e.g., “identify that a maintenance condition is present for the gearbox when the comparison results indicate a deviation that is greater than or equal to a preset threshold.”) 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 identified maintenance condition. 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. Dependent claims 2-18 and 20 merely expand upon the abstract idea further defining the abstract steps of claims 1 and 20 respectively, and therefore stand rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 10-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Unnikrishnan et al. (US 2018/0348303 A1, hereinafter Unni) . Regarding claims 1 and 19 , Unni discloses a turbine engine gearbox monitoring system/method, the system/method comprising: a first acoustic sensor located proximate to a gearbox of a turbine engine, the first acoustic sensor configured to output acoustic data representative of sound emanating from the gearbox (see para. 0021 and 0029); a processor operatively connected to the first acoustic sensor (see para. 0006); and a memory operatively connected to the processor, the memory having stored therein a plurality of acoustic signatures indexed according to an associated operating condition of the turbine engine (see para. 0006), wherein the processor is configured to: receive the acoustic data from the first acoustic sensor (see abstract); identify a current operating condition of the turbine engine (see abstract); select one of the plurality of acoustic signatures in the memory based on the current operating condition (see para. 0062-0063); generate comparison results using the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures selected and the acoustic data (see para. 0023, 0026 and 0033), and identify that a maintenance condition is present for the gearbox when the comparison results indicate a deviation that is greater than or equal to a preset threshold (see para. 0070 and 0075). Regarding claim 2 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first acoustic sensor translates portions of the sound emanating from the gearbox that have a frequency in a range of 25Hz to 250Hz into the acoustic data (see para. 0044, 0046 and 0052, other suitable high pass filters can similarly be used to filter the signal. The system analyzes and translates the sound emanating from the gearbox in order to determine a fault in the system.). Regarding claim 3 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first acoustic sensor translates portions of the sound emanating from the gearbox that have a frequency in a range of 20Hz to 20kHz into the acoustic data (see para. 0044, 0046 and 0052, other suitable high pass filters can similarly be used to filter the signal). Regarding claim 4 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first acoustic sensor translates portions of the sound emanating from the gearbox that have a frequency in a range of 300Hz to 3kHz into the acoustic data (see para. 0044, 0046 and 0052, other suitable high pass filters can similarly be used to filter the signal). Regarding claim 10 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the comparison results indicate the deviation that is greater than or equal to the preset threshold when an average difference between the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures selected and the acoustic data or a transformation thereof is greater than or equal to the preset threshold (see para. 0025-0026). Regarding claim 11 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the comparison results indicate the deviation that is greater than or equal to the preset threshold when a difference between the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures selected and the acoustic data or a transformation thereof at one or more comparison points is greater than or equal to the preset threshold (see para. 0025-0026). Regarding claim 12 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of acoustic signatures includes default acoustic data corresponding to an expected operation of the turbine engine at each associated operating condition (see para. 0023 and 0049). Regarding claim 13 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of acoustic signatures includes previous acoustic data generated by the first acoustic sensor during one or more test operations of the turbine engine performed at each associated operating condition (see para. 0063). Regarding claim 14 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of acoustic signatures includes a steady-state signature, wherein the associated operating condition to which the steady-state signature is indexed includes a steady-state operating condition of the turbine engine which includes a running average of prior acoustic data output from the first acoustic sensor during a current steady-state operation of the turbine engine (see para. 0065-0069). Regarding claim 15 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the preset threshold is at least three decibels (see para. 0023, 0026, 0030, the microphones are configured to sense acoustic signals from the turbine). Regarding claim 17 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the first acoustic sensor is located at a gearbox housing, a gearbox mount, a flex mount, torque cone, or other static or rotating engine structures proximate to the gearbox (see para. 0021). Regarding claim 18 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1 wherein the first acoustic sensor includes a single axis unidirectional microphone or a triple axis multi-directional microphone (see para. 0021 and 0030). 20. The method of claim 19 further comprising: transforming current time domain data corresponding to the sound emanating from the gearbox into current frequency domain data, the acoustic data comprising the current time domain data, wherein the plurality of acoustic signatures include respective frequency domain data generated from outputs of the first acoustic sensor during one or more test operations of the turbine engine; and comparing the current frequency domain data with respective frequency domain data for the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures to generate the comparison results . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unni and further in view of Nowoisky et al. (US 2022/0349318 A1, hereinafter Nowo) . Regarding claim 5, Unni discloses the system of claim 1. However, Unni fails to expressly disclose wherein the plurality of acoustic signatures include respective time domain data output by the first acoustic sensor during one or more test operations of the turbine engine, wherein the acoustic data includes a current time domain data corresponding to the sound emanating from the gearbox, and wherein the processor is further configured compare the current time domain data with the respective time domain data for the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures to generate the comparison results. Nowo discloses wherein the plurality of acoustic signatures include respective time domain data output by the first acoustic sensor during one or more test operations of the turbine engine, wherein the acoustic data includes a current time domain data corresponding to the sound emanating from the gearbox, and wherein the processor is further configured compare the current time domain data with the respective time domain data for the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures to generate the comparison results (see para. 0025, 0153, 0187 and 0188). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unni’s invention as described by Nowo, for the benefit of detecting noise in the system in order to identify faults (see Nowo figs. 9A-9B, time domain data shows failure in bearings). Regarding claims 6 and 20 , Unni discloses the system/method of claims 1 and 19 respectively. However, Unni fails to expressly disclose, wherein the plurality of acoustic signatures include respective frequency domain data generated from outputs of the first acoustic sensor during one or more test operations of the turbine engine, wherein the acoustic data includes a current time domain data corresponding to the sound emanating from the gearbox, and wherein the processor is further configured to transform the current time domain data into current frequency domain data and compare the current frequency domain data with the respective frequency domain data for the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures to generate the comparison results. Nowo discloses wherein the plurality of acoustic signatures include respective frequency domain data generated from outputs of the first acoustic sensor during one or more test operations of the turbine engine, wherein the acoustic data includes a current time domain data corresponding to the sound emanating from the gearbox, and wherein the processor is further configured to transform the current time domain data into current frequency domain data and compare the current frequency domain data with the respective frequency domain data for the one of the plurality of acoustic signatures to generate the comparison results (see para. 0025, 0153, 0187 and 0188). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unni’s invention as described by Nowo, for the benefit of detecting noise in the system in order to identify faults (see Nowo figs. 9A-9B, time domain data shows failure in bearings) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unni and further in view of Bechhoefer et al. (US 2023/0103781 A1, hereinafter Bech) . Regarding claim 16 , Unni discloses the system of claim 1. However, Unni fails to disclose further comprising a temperature sensor located proximate to the gearbox, and wherein the processor is further configured to verify that the maintenance condition is present using temperature data for the gearbox received from the temperature sensor. Bech discloses a temperature sensor located proximate to the gearbox, and wherein the processor is further configured to verify that the maintenance condition is present using temperature data for the gearbox received from the temperature sensor (see para 0019-0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Unni’s invention as described by Bech for the benefit of performing maintenance before the machinery breaks down or as a safety measure. Note: Regarding claim 7 , the prior art does not disclose these features. Claims 8-9 depend from claim 7, and therefore not rejected. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 5 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 6 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 7 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 8 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 9 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 10 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 11 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/424,970 Page 12 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights