DETAILED ACTION N otice 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. This action is responsive to communication filed on 12/22/2023. Claims 1-6 are pending. Claim Objections Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term POV is an acronym, which can mean different things and/or change in meaning over time; hence, it would be desirable to write out the actual words to which the acronym refers. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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: “ a vibration data acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of pieces of vibration data in a predetermined time period during which an opening degree of the wastegate valve varies, the vibration data indicating vibration generated in the wastegate valve; a POA data acquisition unit for acquiring each POA value in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data; and a vibration noise evaluation unit for evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values. in claim 6 . 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 § 112 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. Claim 6 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 claim 6 , the limitations “ a vibration data acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of pieces of vibration data in a predetermined time period during which an opening degree of the wastegate valve varies, the vibration data indicating vibration generated in the wastegate valve ; a POA data acquisition unit for acquiring each POA value in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data ; and a vibration noise evaluation unit for evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA 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. T here is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function because at least one of the following applies:(i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and/ or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. Therefore the limitations as discussed above, lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , first paragraph, as inadequate support for the claimed limitation in the original disclosure of the invention to perform the claimed functions interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). Furthermore an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of p erforming a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient d isclosure to show possession of the invention. See also MPEP § 2181 . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 6 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 claim 6 , the limitations “ a vibration data acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of pieces of vibration data in a predetermined time period during which an opening degree of the wastegate valve varies, the vibration data indicating vibration generated in the wastegate valve ; a POA data acquisition unit for acquiring each POA value in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data ; and a vibration noise evaluation unit for evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA 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. T here is insufficient disclosure of the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function because at least one of the following applies:(i) the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, (ii) the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and/ or (iii) no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. 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. For examination on the merits the claims will be interpreted as best understood in light of the 35 USC 11 2 (a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejections above. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea FILLIN "Identify whether the claim(s) are directed to a law of nature; a natural phenomenon; or an abstract idea." \* MERGEFORMAT without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106. Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 , belongs to a statutory category namely a method. Like wise claims 6 , belongs to a statutory category, namely it is a device. Under Step 2A, prong 1 : This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The claim(s) 1 and 6 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA value in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values. The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers. Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea. Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device (claims 1 and 6); in particular claim 1 does not recite any particular device to perform the abstract idea and claims 6, recites the “sound quality evaluation device” , which, amounts to the recitation of a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea; the recitation of “ acquiring a plurality of pieces of vibration data in a predetermined time period during which an opening degree of the wastegate valve varies, the vibration data indicating vibration generated in the wastegate valve” , is mere gathering recited at high level of generality generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use “ wastegate valve evaluation ” and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application. Under Step 2B , the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer “sound quality evaluation device” , recited by claims 6 , used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Dependent claims 2-5 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1. Dependent claims 2-5 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and/or concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea i.e., “wherein in the POA data acquisition step, the POA value for a time period excluding a time at which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 0% and a time at which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 100% is acquired” ( claim 2 ), “wherein in the POA data acquisition step, the POA value for a time period during which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 25% to 62.5% is acquired” ( claim 3 ), “ wherein in the vibration noise evaluation step, the vibration noise is evaluated, based on a value obtained by performing statistical processing on the plurality of POA values ” ( claim 4 ); “wherein the vibration noise evaluation step includes for each of a plurality of sections obtained by equally dividing a range from a lower limit value to an upper limit value, a ratio acquisition step of acquiring a ratio of the number of the POA values included in the section to a total number of the plurality of POA values acquired in the POA data acquisition step, a multiplication value acquisition step of acquiring a multiplication value obtained by multiplying a representative value of the section and the ratio in the section, for each of the plurality of sections, a total sum acquisition step of acquiring a total sum of the acquired respective multiplication values, and an evaluation step of evaluating the vibration noise, based on the acquired total sum” ( claim 5 ), and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application in claims 2-5 because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device (i.e. claims 1-5) and to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, generally liking the abstract idea to a field of use and the limitations merely add further details as to the type of data, the means of collecting data being received/input/stored and used with the mental process and/or math steps recited in the independent claims, also further calculations and math, so they are properly viewed as part of the recited abstract idea; and the results are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application. The claim(s) claims 2-5 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only additional elements are mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself. Therefore claims 1 -6 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim (s) 1 -3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luehrsen et al. US20150337719A1 (hereinafter Luehrsen ) in view of Yuuki et al. US2020/0325835 (hereinafter Yuuki) . Regarding claim 1 , Luehrsen disclose a sound quality evaluation method for a wastegate valve ( see abstract, para. 0003, 0010-0012, 0037, wherein wastegate valve and evaluation of a rattle/sound is disclosed ) , comprising: a vibration data acquisition step of acquiring a plurality of pieces of vibration data in a predetermined time period during which an opening degree of the wastegate valve varies, the vibration data indicating vibration generated in the wastegate valve ( see para. 0049, wherein a vibration in wastegate assembly is measured; 0037, 0056, wherein the evaluation takes place when a lift of the valve varies, therefore the opening/degree is variating ) ; a data acquisition step of acquiring each value in a frequency band from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data ( see para. 0010-0012, 0037, 0049-0050, wherein rattle frequency is determined ); a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the values (see para. 0010-0012, 0037, rattle evaluation is disclos ed, wherein an overlay frequency is determined based on a rattle frequency ). However, Luehrsen do not expressly or explicitly disclose a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA va lue in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values (emphasis added) . Yuki disclose a POA data acquisition step a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA value in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration /oscillation data (see para. 0011 , 0014-0016, 0074-0075, 0097 -0100, wherein POA value is calculated; 0069, 0097-0100, wherein the frequency scale is in the physical unit of kHz, meeting the frequency band of 0.5khz as claimed ) ; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values ( see para. 0097-0100, wherein knocking determination is disclosed and wherein frequency spectrum obtained from oscillation waveform based on POA values calculated from frequency domain expression of waveform portion ) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Yuuki as discussed above to configure the system of Lu eh rsen with a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA va lue in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of accurately an precisely evaluating the occurrence of knocking/sound/noise in the mechanical system being evaluated, in order to detect knocking/sound/noise of a mechanical system being evaluated with higher accuracy (see para. 0011). Regarding claim 2 , the combination of Lu eh rsen and Yuuki disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 1. Lu eh rsen further disclose wherein in the data acquisition step, the value is acquired excluding a time at which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 0% and a time at which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 100% is acquired. ( see Fig. 5, para. 0037, 0049, wherein in an example the subset includes ranging from 70% of minimum lift to 90% of minimum lift , therefore the acquisition of the value for a time period excluding time the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 0% and a time in which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 100% is implied). Although it is implied that the time acquisition of the value for a time period excluding time the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 0% and a time in which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 100% is implied by Lu eh rsen (see para. 0037, 0049; Fig. 5), Lu eh rsen do not specifically disclose excluding time the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 0% and a time in which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 100% and that the value specifically is POA value. E xaminer contends that choosing a particular time range data for evaluating the data set (i.e. excluding a time at which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 0% and a time at which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 100% is acquired ), would be matter of engineering design choice for that system in particular. Therefore it would have been obvious to exclude a time at which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 0% and a time at which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 100% is acquired in order to achieve/obtain results within a desired accuracy by removal of undesired outliers at the beginning and at the end of the process in order to obtain precise data results. Yuki disclose a POA data acquisition step a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA value in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration /oscillation data (see para. 0011 , 0014-0016, 0069, 0074-0075, 0097-0100, wherein POA value is calculated; ) ; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values ( see para. 0097-0100, wherein knocking determination is disclosed and wherein frequency spectrum obtained from oscillation waveform based on POA values calculated from frequency domain expression of waveform portion ) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Yuuki as discussed above to configure the system of Lu eh rsen with a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA va lue as taught by Yuuki for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of accurately an precisely evaluating the occurrence of knocking/sound/noise in the mechanical system being evaluated, in order to detect knocking/sound/noise of a mechanical system being evaluated with higher accuracy (see para. 0011). Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Luehrsen and Yuuki disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 2. Lue h rsen further disclose wherein in the data acquisition step, the value is acquired for a time period during the opening degree of the wastegate ( see Fig. 5, para. 0037, 0049, wherein in an example the subset includes ranging from 70% of minimum lift to 90% of minimum lift , therefore the acquisition of the value for a time period where there is an opening degree of the waste valve is implied ). Although it is implied by Lue h rsen that the time acquisition of the value for a time period during the opening degree of the wastegate valve. However, Lue h rsen do not expressly or explicitly disclose the opening of the wastegate valve is 25% to 62.5%, and that the value specifically is POA value. Examiner contends that choosing a particular time range data for acquiring a the data set (i.e. for a time period during the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 25% to 62.5%. ), would be matter of engineering design choice for that system in particular. Therefore it would have been obvious to acquire a value for a time period during which the opening degree of the wastegate valve is 25% to 62.5% in order to achieve/obtain results within a desired time frame with the desired accuracy by removal of undesired outliers at the beginning and at the end of the process in order to obtain precise data results. Yuki disclose a POA data acquisition step a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA value in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration /oscillation data (see para. 0011 , 0014-0016 , 0069 , 0074-0075, 0097-0100, wherein POA value is calculated ) ; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values ( see para. 0097-0100, wherein knocking determination is disclosed and wherein frequency spectrum obtained from oscillation waveform based on POA values calculated from frequency domain expression of waveform portion ) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Yuuki as discussed above to configure the system of Lue h rsen with a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA va lue as taught by Yuuki for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of accurately an precisely evaluating the occurrence of knocking/sound/noise in the mechanical system being evaluated, in order to detect knocking/sound/noise of a mechanical system being evaluated with higher accuracy (see para. 0011). Regarding claim 6 , Luehrsen disclose a sound quality evaluation device for a wastegate valve ( see Fig. 1, abstract, para. 0003, 0010-0012, 0037, wherein wastegate valve and evaluation of a rattle/sound is disclosed ) , comprising: a vibration data acquisition unit for acquiring a plurality of pieces of vibration data in a predetermined time period during which an opening degree of the wastegate valve varies, the vibration data indicating vibration generated in the wastegate valve ( see para. 0049, wherein a vibration in wastegate assembly is measured by a sensor ; 0037, 0056, wherein the evaluation takes place when a lift of the valve varies, therefore the opening/degree is variating ) ; a data acquisition unit for acquiring each value in a frequency band from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data ( see para. 0010-0012, 0022, 0037, 0049-0050, wherein rattle frequency is determined , wherein a controller is disclosed to perform the method steps, Fig. 1 ); a vibration noise evaluation unit for evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the values (see para. 0010-0012, 0022-0023, 0037, rattle evaluation is disclos ed, wherein an overlay frequency is determined based on a rattle frequency , wherein a controller is disclosed to perform the method steps, Fig. 1 ). However, Luehrsen do not expressly or explicitly disclose a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA va lue in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values (emphasis added). Yuki disclose a POA data acquisition step a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA value in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration /oscillation data (see para. 0011 , 0014-0016, 0074-0075, 0097-0100, wherein POA value is calculated; 0069, 0097-0100, wherein the frequency scale is in the physical unit of kHz, meeting the frequency band of 0.5khz as claimed ) ; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values ( see para. 0097-0100, wherein knocking determination is disclosed and wherein frequency spectrum obtained from oscillation waveform based on POA values calculated from frequency domain expression of waveform portion ) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Yuuki as discussed above to configure the system of Lu eh rsen with a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA va lue in a predetermined frequency band of 0.5 kHz or higher from each of a plurality of frequency spectra obtained by performing a frequency analysis on each of the plurality of pieces of vibration data; and a vibration noise evaluation step of evaluating a vibration noise generated in the wastegate valve, based on a plurality of the POA values for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of accurately an precisely evaluating the occurrence of knocking/sound/noise in the mechanical system being evaluated, in order to detect knocking/sound/noise of a mechanical system being evaluated with higher accuracy (see para. 0011). Claim (s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luehrsen et al. US20150337719A1 (hereinafter Luehrsen ) in view of Yuuki et al. US2020/0325835 (hereinafter Yuuki) in further view of Rivellini US20160370254A1 (hereinafter Rivellini ) . Regarding claim 4 , the combination of Lu e hrsen and Yuuki disclose the materials discussed with respect to claim 1. However Lu e hrsen do not expressly or explicitly disclose that the vibration noise is evaluated, based on a value obtained by performing statistical processing on the POA values. Yuuki disclose the vibration/oscillation noise is evaluated, based on a value obtained by performing processing on the plurality of POA values ( see para. 0011 , 0014-0016, 0069, 0074-0075, 0097-0100, wherein POA value is calculated; see para. 0097-0100, wherein knocking determination is disclosed and wherein frequency spectrum obtained from oscillation waveform based on POA values calculated from frequency domain expression of waveform portion). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the teachings of Yuuki as discussed above to configure the system of Lu e hrsen with a POA data acquisition step of acquiring each POA va lue as taught by Yuuki for the benefit of providing an enhanced system capable of accurately an precisely evaluating the occurrence of knocking/sound/noise in the mechanical system being evaluated, in order to detect knocking/sound/noise of a mechanical system being evaluated with higher accuracy (see para. 0011). Although Yuuki further disclose a reference time window and a band-pass filter are used to extract a waveform signal of a reference frequency from the above measurement data, the second calculation value is obtained by integration, and a reference average value is obtained from moving average over a plurality of combustion cycles and dividing a calculation value to obtain a S/N ratio, which is weighted by a weigh coefficient and moving average is obtained over a plurality of combustion cycle in order to determine a presence or absence of knocking. (see para. 0004, wherein a reference average value is obtained from moving average). However the combination of Yuuki do not specifically disclose the vibration noise is evaluated, based on a value obtained by performing statistical processing on the plurality of POA values. Examiner contends that the use of statistical processing on data when evaluating valve noise condition is a well know activity in the art and Rivellini is evidence of the fact. Rivellini disclose a valve diagnostics system measuring a vibration signal by a knock sensor, for monitoring a valve timing (see abstract). Rivellini further disclose the vibration noise is evaluated, based on a value obtained by performing statistical processing on the plurality of POA values ( see para. 0019, 0034, 0036 , 0041 , Fig. 5, wherein statistical quartiles suitable for expressing median values and deviations from the median is disclosed ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the system of Lu e hrsen as modified by Yuuki for the evaluating the vibration noise, based on a value obtained by performing statistical processing on the plurality of POA values for the benefit of optimizing the detection of valve life and valve structure failure and allowing for detection pattern representative of certain valve conditions and improving valve diagnostics (see para. 0002, 0034). Reasons for O vercoming the Prior Art Regarding claim 5 , currently rejected under 35 USC 101, the closest prior art of made of record either in singularly or in combination fails to teach, disclose or suggest the features set forth by dependent claim 5, without the use of impermissible hindsight. Conclusion The prior art made of record cited in form PTOL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1520 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday . 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 Shelby A Turner can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/ Examiner Art Unit 2857 /SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857