CTNF 18/527,545 CTNF 96401 DETAILED 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/04/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 13 lines 4-6: “ a first determining means configured to determine momentary life rating values from values of at least one parameter representative of the condition of use of the bearing in the machine and the rating life model ,”. Claim 13 lines 7-8: " a second determining means configured to determine the updated statistical life value from the momentary life rating values ". Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Three-Prong test for: “ a first determining means configured to determine momentary life rating values from values of at least one parameter representative of the condition of use of the bearing in the machine and the rating life model ,” Prong (A) (As above) Yes; “a first determining means” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning. Prong (B) (As above) Yes; “configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language. Prong (C) (As above) Yes; It is unclear how to “determine momentary life rating values” Conclusion: The limitation of: “first determining means” for claim 13 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Three-Prong test for: “ a second determining means configured to determine the updated statistical life value from the momentary life rating values ” Prong (A) (As above) Yes; “a second determining means” is a nonce with no specific structural meaning. Prong (B) (As above) Yes; “configured to” is a linking word or phrase connecting the nonce to functional language. Prong (C) (As above) Yes; It is unclear how to “determine the updated statistical life” Conclusion: The limitation of: “second determining means” for claim 13 and its dependents is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f). Note : the initially filed specification (filed 12/04/2023) was searched for an interpretation of: “a first determining means configured to determine momentary life rating values from values of at least one parameter representative of the condition of use of the bearing in the machine and the rating life model,” “a second determining means configured to determine the updated statistical life value from the momentary life rating values” There is not sufficient description to distinguish between the possibility of at least 1) conventional field of use elements of computing elements (see MPEP 2106.05(h) ) 2) mathematical concepts (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) ) and mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) ) For the purposes of examination: Therefore, these “determining means” are interpreted as no more than ‘code/programming for performing the judicial exception abstract idea groupings of either ‘mathematical concepts’ or ‘mental processes’’. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding “Failure to particularly point out & distinctly claim [indefinite]”: Claims 1 & 13 in lines 3-4 and line 5 (respectively) recites the limitation "at least one parameter representative of the condition[s] of use of the bearing in the machine". It is unclear what this parameter is or how it is obtained. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement the claimed subject matter because they would not know how to determine “momentary life rating values” or an “updated statistical life value”. Claims 1 & 13 in lines 3-4 and line 5 (respectively) recites the limitation "and from a rating life model of the bearing". It is unclear what this model is or how it is obtained. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement the claimed subject matter because they would not know how to determine “momentary life rating values” or an “updated statistical life value”. Claim 14 in line 1 recites the limitation "A wind turbine comprising a bearing and a device according to claim 13". It is unclear if 1) the wind turbine has within it the device/machine of “a bearing in a machine” or 2) if the wind turbine is the device/machine of “a bearing in a machine”. For the purposes of examination (and because it is the simplest interpretation) it is assumed that the device/machine is a wind turbine. Regarding “Lack of antecedent basis in the claims”: Claims 2-12 in line 1 (for each claim) recites the limitation "The method according to claim 1[3][2][8][4][10][11]". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are multiple elements within claim 1 which could be referred to as “the method according to claim 1[3][2][8][4][10][11]”. Examples include: “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine”, “determining momentary life rating values”, & “determining the updated statistical life value”. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “the method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine according to claim 1[3][2][8][4][10][11]”. Claims 14 in line 1 recites the limitation " a bearing … according to claim 13". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is an instance of “a bearing” in the parent claim 13. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “ the bearing according to claim 13”. Claims 14 in line 1 recites the limitation " a device according to claim 13". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is an instance of “A device” in the parent claim 13. There would be sufficient antecedent basis for “ the device according to claim 13”. Note : the first instance of an element should be in the form “a [unique descriptive terminology]” and successive references to that element should be in the form “the [unique descriptive terminology]” where [unique descriptive terminology] is the same throughout the claims. This is necessary because similarly phrased elements can be patentably distinct. Regarding “Claim Limitation Interpreted under 112(f) or pre-AIA 112, 6 th Para., but Disclosure of Structure, Material, or Acts for Performing Function Recited in a Claim Lacking, Insufficient, or Not Clearly Linked”: Claim limitations “ a first determining means configured to determine momentary life rating values from values of at least one parameter representative of the condition of use of the bearing in the machine and the rating life model” “and a second determining means configured to determine the updated statistical life value from the momentary life rating values” 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. 07-34-23 The initially filed written specification discloses no more than that the "determining means" makes determinations. However, 'determinations' could be described as being done by either code/programming or computing elements. The Drawings Fig. 1-8: "first determining means" & Fig. 1-9: "second determining means" show block diagrams which could either depict code/programming or computing elements. 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. Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’: Claims 2-12, & 14 are ‘rejected as indefinite for the same reason(s) as the listed rejected claim(s)’ (independent parent claims 1 & 13). 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1-14 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. Regarding “Description requirement”: Claims 1 & 13 in lines 3-4 and line 5 (respectively) recites the limitation "at least one parameter representative of the condition[s] of use of the bearing in the machine". Drawings Fig. 1-6 shows a “sensor”, but it is not clear what type of sensor is used or how it is gathering data. Claims 1 & 13 in lines 3-4 and line 5 (respectively) recites the limitation "and from a rating life model of the bearing". Para 0036 states “As an example for the MODEL, the basic rating life model, defined in ISO 281”. Para 0039 states “The rating life model MODEL may for example comprise a stress-based Generalized Bearing Life Model (GBLM) or an Advanced Fatigue Calculation Model (AFC).”. It is not clear which model is intended to be applied and in which scenarios. The models themselves are apparently not the inventive concept and are imported from other references or inventions. Regarding ‘rejected for inheriting the rejected limitations of a parent claim without rectifying the issue(s) for which the parent claim was rejected’: Claims 2-12, & 14 are ‘rejected for the same reason(s) as the listed rejected claim(s)’ (independent parent claims 1 & 13). 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. PNG media_image1.png 930 645 media_image1.png Greyscale [AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect] PNG media_image2.png 681 881 media_image2.png Greyscale Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) & 2106.04(II)(A) , respectively. 07-05 Claims 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because: Claim 1: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories. Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: “ determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” “ determining momentary life rating values from values of at least one parameter representative of the conditions of use of the bearing in the machine and from a rating life model of the bearing,” “and determining the updated statistical life value from the momentary life rating values .” Explanation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I): “The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.” & “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III): “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.” & “Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” Analysis: Limitations listed above are directed towards “determining” based on “values”, “parameters”, or “models”. Conclusion: Therefore, the claim recites limitations within the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim recites the additional element of: “bearing in a machine”. Explanation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” Analysis: This additional element amounts to no more than limiting the use of the idea to a technological environment or field of use corresponding to at least the CPC symbol G01M 13/04: [Testing of machine parts] Bearings. Conclusion: The claim would monopolize the judicial exception(s) over the field of use and would not integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim recites the additional element of: “bearing in a machine”. Explanation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” & “Appropriate forms of support include one or more of the following: (a) A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);” Analysis: In the Applicant’s application’s Background section it is stated that “Rating life calculation of a bearing is generally based on assumed or estimated application conditions and load cycles.”. This establishes that ‘bearings’ and “rating life calculation” thereof is well known and conventional in the art. Conclusion: Therefore, limitations directed towards inclusion of ‘bearings’ do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 2: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. Claim 2 additionally recites: “further comprising determining an operation life indicator equal to the first reference updated statistical life value divided by a first reference updated statistical life value to determine the extent of bearing damage.” Explanation: This limitation is further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 3: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. Claim 3 additionally recites: “wherein the values of the at least one parameter are represented by a temporal continuous signal,” “ determining a discrete value for each sampling interval of each sampled temporal continuous signal,” “and for each sampling interval, determining the momentary life rating value from the discrete value of the said sampling interval of each sampled temporal continuous signal and the rating life model .” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; Claim 3 additionally recites: “ sampling each temporal continuous signal , each sampled temporal continuous signal being defined by a series of successive sampling intervals ,” Explanation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.05(g): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” & “data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. When determining whether an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity, examiners may consider the following: … (3) Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting,” Analysis: It is necessary for the judicial exception(s) to make use of data relating to the field of use of CPC symbol G01M 13/04: [Testing of machine parts] Bearings. Therefore the judicial exception necessarily implies the extra solution activity of data gathering. Conclusion: Therefore the additional elements or limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; Claim 3 additionally recites: “ sampling each temporal continuous signal , each sampled temporal continuous signal being defined by a series of successive sampling intervals ,” Explanation: Rule: See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I): “2. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” & “Appropriate forms of support include one or more of the following: … (c) A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);” Analysis: References: US 11921005 B2 “System, Apparatus And Method For Estimating Remaining Useful Life Of A Bearing” (Nair) in Fig. 3-315: “vibration sensor” & Fig. 4A graph of forces vs time. US 20120330580 A1 “System and Method for Determining a Bearing State” (Fruh) in Fig. 2-20: “Sensor Unit” The limitation is not significantly more than data gathering over a time period. The references disclose gathering data for the purposes of evaluating a bearing. Conclusion: Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 4: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1. Claim 4 additionally recites: “wherein if the sampling intervals of the series of successive sampling intervals of each sample temporal continuous signal have not the same length , the method further comprises weighting each momentary life rating value according to the length of the sampling interval associated to the said momentary life rating value .” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 5: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. Claim 5 additionally recites: “further comprising: determining a first sub updated statistical life value , the first sub updated statistical life value being equal to the updated statistical life value determined over a first temporal interval having a predetermined length,” “and comparing the first sub updated statistical life value to a second reference updated statistical life to determine the relative degree of accumulated damage of the bearing.” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 6: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. Claim 6 additionally recites: “further comprising: determining a first sub updated statistical life value , the first sub updated statistical life value being equal to the updated statistical life value determined over a first temporal interval having a predetermined length,” “ determining at least a second sub updated statistical life value , the second sub updated statistical life value being equal to the updated statistical life value determined over a second temporal interval having the predetermined length, the second temporal interval being subsequent to the first temporal interval,” “and comparing the first sub updated statistical life value and the second sub updated statistical life value to determine the relative degree of accumulated damage of the bearing.” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 7: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1. Claim 7 additionally recites: “wherein if at least one momentary life rating value determined from values of the parameter and the rating life model is outside of its domain of applicability, the bearing is considered defective.” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 8: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1. Claim 8 additionally recites: “wherein the values of the at least one parameter are represented by a temporal continuous signal ,” “ determining a discrete value for each sampling interval of each sampled temporal continuous signal,” “and for each sampling interval, determining the momentary life rating value from the discrete value of the said sampling interval of each sampled temporal continuous signal and the rating life model .” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; Claim 8 additionally recites: “and wherein determining momentary life rating values comprises: sampling each temporal continuous signal , each sampled temporal continuous signal being defined by a series of successive sampling intervals ,” Explanation: This element/limitation is further directed towards necessary data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g) ). Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 9: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 2 and thereby from claim 1. Claim 9 additionally recites: “wherein if the sampling intervals of the series of successive sampling intervals of each sample temporal continuous signal have not the same length, the method further comprises weighting each momentary life rating value according to the length of the sampling interval associated to the said momentary life rating value .” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 10: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1. Claim 10 additionally recites: “further comprising: determining a first sub updated statistical life value , the first sub updated statistical life value being equal to the updated statistical life value determined over a first temporal interval having a predetermined length,” “and comparing the first sub updated statistical life value to a second reference updated statistical life to determine the relative degree of accumulated damage of the bearing.” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 11: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 10 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 10 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1. Claim 11 additionally recites: “further comprising: determining a first sub updated statistical life value , the first sub updated statistical life value being equal to the updated statistical life value determined over a first temporal interval having a predetermined length,” “ determining at least a second sub updated statistical life value , the second sub updated statistical life value being equal to the updated statistical life value determined over a second temporal interval having the predetermined length, the second temporal interval being subsequent to the first temporal interval,” “and comparing the first sub updated statistical life value and the second sub updated statistical life value to determine the relative degree of accumulated damage of the bearing.” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Claim 12: Step Analysis Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes; The claim is directed towards “A method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing in a machine” which is a process and one of the four statutory categories (as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 10 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1). Revised Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes; The claim recites: The judicial exception(s) as inherited claim 11 and thereby from claim 10 and thereby from claim 4 and thereby from claim 3 and thereby from claim 1. Claim 12 additionally recites: “wherein if at least one momentary life rating value determined from values of the parameter and the rating life model is outside of its domain of applicability, the bearing is considered defective.” Explanation: These limitations are further directed to the abstract idea groupings of ‘mental processes’ or ‘mathematical concepts’. Revised Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No; The claim does not recite additional elements. Conclusion: Therefore, “claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”. Regarding claims 13-14 , these claims are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-12. Note: “wind turbine” corresponds to at least the field of art corresponding to CPC symbol F03D17/032: {Monitoring or testing of wind motors,} {characterised by the component being monitored or tested} {Bearings} 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10474772 B2 (Bolander) in view of US 11921005 B2 (Nair) . Regarding claim 1 , Bolander teaches a method for determining updated statistical life value of a bearing (Fig. 8-808: “a ball bearing machine”) in a machine (column 3 lines 8-10: “Such mechanical machines may be, for example, wind turbines generating electricity,”, machine/(“wind turbines”)), the method comprising: determining momentary life rating values (Fig. 2-126: “stress time history for each node/element”, life rating values/(“stress time history”)) … of the bearing in the machine and from a rating life model (Fig. 2-112: “simulated microstructure”, model/(“simulated microstructure”)) of the bearing, and determining the updated statistical life value (Fig. 2-130: “calculate damage in F.E. Solution, Modify F.E. Mesh for New/Updated Crack Network”, updated statistical life value/(“Updated Crack Network”)) from the momentary life rating values (column 4 lines 54-56: “FIG. 2 is a flow chart of a method 200 or process for simulating surface fatigue life of a mechanical component or object such as a power transmission component”). Bolander does not as explicitly teach from values of at least one parameter representative of the conditions of use. Nair teaches from values of at least one parameter representative of the conditions of use (Fig. 1-125: “sensing unit”, column 4 lines 60-61: “The edge device 115 provides the sensor data in real-time to the apparatus 110”, parameter representative of conditions/(data from the sensor)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Bolander with the teachings of Nair. One would have added to the “Method and System for Predicting Surface Contact Fatigue Life” or Bolander the “System, Apparatus and Method for Estimating Remaining Useful Life of a Bearing” of Nair. The motivation would have been that the reference of Bolander logically requires data from a sensor to predict fatigue life and the reference of Nair discloses a sensor used for gathering data about the fatigue life of a bearing (see Nair Fig. 1-125: “sensing unit”). Regarding claim 2 , Bolander in view of Nair teaches the method according to claim 1, Bolander further teaches further comprising determining an operation life indicator (Fig. 2-142: “numbers of cycles to failure”, operation life indicator/(“cycles to failure”)) equal to the first reference updated statistical life value divided by a first reference updated statistical life value to determine the extent of bearing damage (Fig. 2-142: “Output Number of Cycles to Failure”, system determines an estimated life indicator/(“cycles to failure”) using ). Regarding claim 3 , Bolander in view of Nair teaches the method according to claim 1, Bolander further teaches and for each sampling interval, determining the momentary life rating value from the discrete value of the said sampling interval of each sampled temporal continuous signal and the rating life model (column 4 lines 54-56: “FIG. 2 is a flow chart of a method 200 or process for simulating surface fatigue life of a mechanical component or object such as a power transmission component”). Nair further teaches wherein the values of the at least one parameter are represented by a temporal continuous signal (Fig. 4A Interface Forces vs Time, continuous/(vs time)), and wherein determining momentary life rating values comprises: sampling each temporal continuous signal, each sampled temporal continuous signal being defined by a series of successive sampling intervals (Fig. 4A: Interface Forces vs Time, the continuous time axis is a series of successive sampling intervals), determining a discrete value for each sampling interval of each sampled temporal continuous signal (Fig. 4A: interface forces, discrete value/(measurements of interface forces)) . Regarding claim 4 , Bolander in view of Nair teaches the method according to claim 3, Bolander further teaches the method further comprises weighting each momentary life rating value according to the length of the sampling interval associated to the said momentary life rating value (Fig. 2-114: “”surface pressure time history for load event”, system collects new data and updates the analysis). Nair further teaches wherein if the sampling intervals of the series of successive sampling intervals of each sample temporal continuous signal have not the same length (Fig. 4A: Time axis indicates a continuous signal but the analysis and a continuous time interval is made up of time intervals which are not necessarily the same length), Regarding claim 5 , Bolander in view of Nair teaches the method according to claim 1, Bolander further teaches further comprising: determining a first sub updated statistical life value, the first sub updated statistical life value being equal to the updated statistical life value determined over a first temporal interval having a predetermined length (Fig. 2-122: “read in surface pressure time history (In Time-Steps)”, temporal interval having a predetermined length/(“Time-Steps”), and comparing the first sub updated statistical life value to a second reference updated statistical life to determine the relative degree of accumulated damage of the bearing (Fig. 2-142: “Output Number of Cycles to Failure”, relative degree of accumulated damage/(updated “cycles to failure”)). Regarding claim 6 , Bolander in view of Nair teaches the method according to claim 1, Bolander further teaches further comprising: determining a first sub updated statistical life value (Fig. 2-130: “calculate damage in F.E. Solution, Modify F.E. Mesh for New/Updated Crack Network”, updated statistical life value/(“Updated Crack Network”)), the first sub updated statistical life value being equal to the updated st