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. Claim Interpretation 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. 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: 1) signal decomposition module in claim 8 2) signal classification module in claim 8 3) NLM processing module in claim 8 4) preprocessing module in claim 9 . 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. 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- 1 0 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. -- With regards to claim 1 , The claim(s) recite(s) a method for denoising mechanical vibration signals including, 1) processing a real time acquired vibration signal using a generalized variational mode decomposition to acquire multiple intrinsic mode function sub signals; 2) clustering the sub signals and dividing the sub signals into several categories; 3) assigning different Gaussian scale coefficients to the different categories, using a NLM algorithm to filter each sub signal, and summing them to acquire a denoised vibration signal . Each limitation listed above, constitutes an abstract idea, because it merely recites mathematical formulas applied on an algorithm. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the limitations are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there is not “significantly more” recited, outside of the judicial exception, that would integrate the exception into a practical application. The judicial exceptions listed above are not applied in a meaningful way, beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exceptions to a particular technological environment . -- With regards to claim 2 , the claims recites: 1) preprocessing the vibration signals by representing the signals as a time series………. 2) performing Hampel filtering on the time series using a formula…….. 3) filtering the formula, using z(t) as a filtered value……….. 4) determining whether the filtered value is abnormal data 5) replacing the abnormal data with a numerical value acquired through interpolation calculation. Each limitation listed above, constitutes an abstract idea, because it merely recites mathematical formulas applied on an algorithm. -- With regards to claim 3 , the claim recites: 1) clustering the multiple intrinsic mode function sub signals uses a K-means clustering algorithm which 1) determines the number of clusters K……… 2) calculates the Euler distance……….. 3) classifying M intrinsic mode function sub signals into centers of K clusters………. 4) Calculates an average signal of all intrinsic mode function sub signals……… 5) performs iteration by repeating the above steps. As discussed above, these limitations constitute abstract ideas, because they include mathematical formulas applied through algorithms. As well, the claim does not include integration into a practical application, nor do they add “significantly more”. -- With regards to claim 4 , the claim recites: 1) multiple intrinsic mode function sub signals are divided into categories using the K-means clustering algorithm. For the reasons as discussed in claim 1 above, the claimed subject matter does not constitute eligible subject matter, because they recite abstract ideas, in particular mathematical formulas, without reciting practical application, nor “significantly more”. -- With regards to claim 5 , the claim recites: 1) calculating a maximum amplitude value of the intrinsic mode function sub signals for each category…….. 2) sorting the 3 categories in a descending order of the maximum amplitude value………. These limitations do not recite eligible subject matter under the 4 statutory categories, because they recited abstract ideas in the form of algorithms related to mathematical equations. As well, the claims do not recite practical application of the claimed limitations, nor do they recite significantly more. -- With regards to claim 6 , the claim recites: A method of filtering the intrinsic mode function sub signal IMF using a NLM algorithm comprises 1) calculating a weighting coefficient of IMF……. 2) calculating a filtered signal IMFs……….. These limitations do not recite eligible subject matter under the 4 statutory categories, because they recited abstract ideas in the form of algorithms related to mathematical equations. As well, the claims do not recite practical application of the claimed limitations, nor do they recite “ significantly more ” . -- With regards to claim 7 , the claim recites elements of a mathematical formula, which does not constituted eligible subject matter for the reason as discussed in claim 1 above. -- Claim s 8 , 9 , and 10 recite subject matter that substantially correspond s to the subject matter of claim s 1 , 2, and 3, respectively , and therefore are rejected for the reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim s 1 -3 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DARYL C POPE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2959 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 9AM - 5PM M-F . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-3059 . 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. /DARYL C POPE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686