DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 August 2026 has been entered.
EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with Amir Tabarrok on 19 August 2026.
The application has been amended as follows:
In the claims:
Claim 22 has been amended as follows:
22. The method as described in claim 1, further comprising tracking a plurality of frequency responses associated with the component to estimate a mass loss associated with the component.
The above change has been made to correct a grammatical issue with the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks, filed 4 August 2026, with respect to claims 1 and 10-12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections of each of said claims for the reasons outlined in the last office action mailed 21 May 2026 have been withdrawn.
In particular, as remarked by Applicant, the instant application includes specific passages (see the as-filed specification ¶ 25, 34, and 47) that note that frequency response is tracked as opposed to amplitude in order to determine the amount of damage to the rotating component and further that amplitude of the frequency response peaks may be irrelevant in determining whether the rotating component is damaged and instead measures a shift in frequency to indicate damage.
Regarding the above, the examiner agrees that Tovar fails to disclose or render obvious to the skilled artisan this feature. In particular, the passages of Tovar relied upon in the last office action mailed 21 May 2026 (i.e. Tovar ¶ 85 and 86), note explicitly that amplitude is utilized and therefore cannot be reasonably considered to be disclosed or rendered obvious by the cited prior art of record.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that Tovar uses amplitude thresholds to determine the presence of a defect but does not disclose or render obvious determining an amount of wear and tear in the claimed fashion. In particular, Applicant remarks that according to the standard definition of “amount” according to Merriam-Webster, presence or absence of a defect is distinct from determining a total number or quantity of defect(s). Applicant further notes that “an amount” of wear and tear, as claimed in claims 1 and 12 is thus not disclosed or rendered obvious to the skilled artisan within this definition of amount as it pertains to the claimed limitation of determining an amount of wear and tear in each of said claims.
Regarding the above, the examiner agrees that with the definition of amount being applied in the manner remarked by Applicant, Tovar fails to disclose or render obvious determining an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component as required by the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Applicant further presented arguments regarding additional 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims dependent upon one of claims 1 or 12 but because the above remarks have been determined to be persuasive and the rejections thereto withdrawn, while the additional remarks have been considered, they are moot because claim 12 is allowable for the reasons noted below in further detail (but see the below 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of each of claims 1-11).
In particular, upon further consideration of the claims, it appears that claims 1-11 are subject to a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection for the reasons indicated in further detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
See the following analysis that follows from MPEP § 2106:
As to claim 1:
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 1 recites the following:
1. A method comprising: acoustically exciting a rotating component; measuring a signal response of the rotating component in response to the acoustic excitation; processing the signal response to determine a difference in a frequency of the signal response relative to a frequency of a baseline signal response; and determining an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component based on the difference in the frequency of the signal response relative to the frequency of the baseline signal response.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
Acoustically exciting a rotating component;
Measuring a signal response of the rotating component in response to the acoustic excitation;
Processing the signal response to determine a different in a frequency of the signal response relative to a frequency of a baseline signal response (the examiner finds that this limitation appears to be drawn to a mathematical concept in accordance with the examples in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Part I, Sec. C); and
Determining an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component based on the difference in the frequency of the signal response relative to the frequency of the baseline signal response (the examiner finds that this limitation is an abstract idea in accordance with MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Part III, Sec. C, regarding mental processes that can be performed on a generic computer)
Step 2A: Prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e. Acoustically exciting a rotating component and measuring a signal response of the rotating component in response to the acoustic excitation) The examiner finds that each of the additional elements fall within extra-solution activity consistent with MPEP 2106.05(g). In particular, it appears that the limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, similar to In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982) regarding testing a system for a response.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As to claims 2-11 and 22: Each of said claims depend ultimately from claim 1 and appear to follow a similar analysis as claim 1 above because none contain any limitations that alter the above analysis in a way such that any/all of said claims are patent subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
A similar analysis follows for claim 12 as outlined below:
As to claim 12:
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 12 recites the following:
12. A system comprising: an acoustic transmitter configured to generate an acoustic signal; a component configured to rotate, wherein the acoustic signal acoustically excites the component during a rotating state or a stationary state; a sensor configured to measure a frequency of a signal response of the component in response to the acoustic excitation; and a processor configured to process the signal response of the component, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine a difference in the frequency of the signal response relative to a frequency of a baseline signal response, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component based on the difference in the frequency of the signal response relative to the frequency of the baseline signal response.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea?
Claim 12 recites:
12. A system comprising:
an acoustic transmitter configured to generate an acoustic signal;
a component configured to rotate, wherein the acoustic signal acoustically excites the component during a rotating state or a stationary state;
a sensor configured to measure a frequency of a signal response of the component in response to the acoustic excitation; and
a processor configured to process the signal response of the component, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine a difference in the frequency of the signal response relative to a frequency of a baseline signal response, and wherein the processor is further configured to determine an amount of wear and tear of the rotating component based on the difference in the frequency of the signal response relative to the frequency of the baseline signal response. (the examiner finds that the underlined elements amount to an abstract idea consistent with MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Sec. III, Part C, regarding claims that require a computer that still recite a mental processes).
Step 2A: Prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application?
The additional elements are those elements in the claim that are not underlined; i.e. an acoustic transmitter configured to generate an acoustic signal, a component configured to rotate, wherein the acoustic signal acoustically excites the component during a rotating state or a stationary state, and a sensor configured to measure a frequency of a signal response of the component in response to the acoustic excitation. These elements are considered to both generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and to add insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) because generation of an acoustic signal, exciting a component with said signal, and a sensor configured to measure a frequency of a signal response to the component in response to the acoustic excitation both are considered to include data gathering in a particular environment (i.e. acoustics) and the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
The examiner finds that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As to claims 13-21: Each of said claims depend ultimately from claim 12 and appear to follow a similar analysis as claim 12 above because none contain any limitations that alter the above analysis in a way such that any/all of said claims are patent subject matter eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
References Cited but not Relied Upon
As to references cited but not relied upon:
Baccar et al. “Wear detection by means of wavelet-based acoustic emission analysis” (hereafter Baccar) discloses acoustically exciting a component (see the paragraph under heading “2.1 Test rig and measurement chain” regarding emitted AE signals which are acoustic emissions emitted toward a sample), measuring a signal response of the component in response to the acoustic excitation (see figs. 9 and 10 as well as the disclosure in the last three paragraphs of Baccar which note that acoustic emission frequency response is measured and is related to abrasive wear and fatigue as disclosed), and processing the signal response (see figs. 9 and 10) and thus appears pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M ROYSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7215. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30 E.S.T..
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/JOHN M ROYSTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights