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 .
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 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. (PBA)
DETAILED ACTION
Claims status
Claims 1-20 are pending as the applicant filed on 03/04/2024.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05. Although the prior art discloses several unclaimed, some claimed limitation. The closest Prior Art of record are considered to be defined by:
CAO, CN 120508124 A, Date Published: 2025-08-19, CPC G 05 D 1/686 described an unmanned aerial vehicle accurate track tracking control device, wherein it comprises: a data fusion module for obtaining the GPS track data and the flight state information of the unmanned aerial vehicle, performing data fusion processing on the GPS track data and the flight state information to generate fusion state data, performing phase space reconstruction on the fusion state data to form a track-state phase space model; a track analysis module for performing dynamic track analysis to the track-state phase space model to obtain the phase track characteristic parameter, performing attractor identification process based on the phase track characteristic parameter to determine the dynamic attractor characteristic tracked by the track; a potential field construction module for performing phase space topology analysis according to the dynamic attractor feature to identify the attraction sub-central position and the topology odd point position, and generating a composite potential field intensity distribution based on the attraction sub-central position and the topology odd point position; a gradient modulation module for performing gradient calculation and direction analysis to the composite potential field intensity distribution to obtain the potential field gradient information, and performing self-adaptive modulation to the potential field gradient information based on the relative relationship between the current position and the suction sub-central position to obtain the modulation gradient information; a control generation module for constructing a local coordinate system based on the modulation gradient information and the topology odd point position, performing vector decomposition and selective enhancement processing on the modulation gradient information in the local coordinate system to generate a tracking adjustment parameter, and generating a tracking control instruction based on the tracking adjustment parameter; a signal output module for modulating and outputting the control signal according to the tracking control instruction, outputting the modulated flight control signal and outputting the modulated flight control signal to the flight control system so as to accurately track and control the preset route by the unmanned aerial vehicle.
DUPUY, WO 2024261307 A1, Date Published: 2024-12-26, CPC A61K 35/17 described an isolated regulatory B cell (Breg)-derived extracellular vesicle wherein said extracellular vesicle comprises Galectin-3. 2. An isolated regulatory B cell (Breg)-derived extracellular vesicle obtained or obtainable by a method comprising: a) culturing B cells in a culture medium with a stimulation cocktail until Breg cells are induced and Breg-derived extracellular vesicles are produced in the culture medium, and b) collecting said Breg-derived extracellular vesicle in the culture medium, wherein said stimulation cocktail comprises soluble human CD40L, class B CpG oligodeoxynucleotide, anti-human IgG/IgM/IgA polyclonal antibodies human.
Soukhostavets, US 20250278078 A1, Date Published: 2025-09-04, CPC G05B 19/41875 described a method of assessing the quality of a manufactured component comprising the steps of: manufacturing a component and generating data at each of a plurality of locations on the component; and passing the generated data to a machine learning branch wherein the generated data is compared to training data at each of the plurality of locations and across a plurality of folds using K-fold validation to determine whether the component is of a functionally tolerant dimension at each of the plurality of sections.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a method of assessing the quality of a manufactured component comprising the steps of: manufacturing a component and generating data at each of a plurality of locations on the component appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (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), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of passing the generated data to a testing branch which performs tests on the generated data at each of the plurality of locations, and reaches a conclusion as to whether the component is functionally tolerant at each of the plurality of locations; also passing the generated data to a machine learning branch wherein the generated data is compared to training data at each of the plurality of locations to determine whether the component is of a functionally tolerant dimension at each of the plurality of locations are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of accepting the manufactured component should both the testing branch and the machine learning branch determine the component is of functionally tolerant dimensions at the plurality of locations, and rejecting the component if either of the testing branch or the machine learning branch determines the component fails to be functionally tolerant dimensions, respectively, at the plurality of sections appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 1 not eligible.
Claim 11, Step 1 the claim is a process (or machine) (Yes),
Step 2A Prong One, does the claim recite an abstract idea? current claim related to a system for component assessment comprising: processing circuitry operable to assess the quality of a manufactured component by receiving generated data from a component at each of a plurality of locations through the component appears is an abstract idea of mental process (MPEP 2106.04(a)) or data gathering equivalent to mathematical concept or mathematical manipulation function (MPEP 2106.04 (a) (2) (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), (OR Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes) Step 2A Prong One: Yes.
Step 2A Prong Two, is the claim directed to an abstract idea? In other words, does claim recite additional elements that integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application? the additional elements of also operable to provide the generated data to a testing branch which performs tests on the generated data at each of the plurality of locations, and reaches a conclusion as to whether the component is functionally tolerant at each of the plurality of locations;
also operable to provide the generated data to a machine learning branch wherein the generated data is compared to training data at each of the plurality of locations to determine whether the component is a functionally tolerant dimension at each of the plurality of locations are recited at a high level of generality and merely amount to a particular field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) and/or insignificant post-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), this does not integrate the Judicial Exception into a practical application,
Step 2A Prong Two: NO.
Step 2B, Does the claim recite additional element that amount to significantly more than the Judicial exception? the additional elements of operable to make a decision to accept the component should both the testing branch and the machine learning branch determine the component is within functionally tolerant dimensions at the plurality of locations and rejecting the component if either the testing branch or the machine learning branch determines the component is not within functionally tolerant dimensions at the plurality of locations appears to be field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or merely amounts to insignificant extra-solution output of the results (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Step 2B: No. claim 11 not eligible.
Claim 2, 12 related to wherein the component includes an airfoil, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 2, 12 not eligible.
Claim 3, 13 related to wherein the generated data includes curvature and dimensional measurement, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 3, 13 not eligible.
Claim 4, 14 related to wherein the locations are cross-sections, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 4, 14 not eligible.
Claim 5, 15 related to wherein the component is an integrally bladed rotor, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 5, 15 not eligible.
Claim 6, 16 related to wherein functionally tolerant components are identified which have dimensions outside of a nominal tolerance range, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 6, 16 not eligible.
Claim 7, 17 related to wherein the machine learning branch utilizes a K-fold validation with plural folds at each of the plurality of sections, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 7, 17 not eligible.
Claim 8, related to wherein the plural folds are provided with training data from prior assessments, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 8 not eligible.
Claim 18, related to wherein the plural folds are provided with training data from prior assessments, and test data for at least one of the plural folds, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 18 not eligible.
Claim 9, related to wherein each of the plural folds receive training data from a common part, and the training data across the plural folds is all distinct, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 9 not eligible.
Claim 19, related to wherein each of the plural folds receive training data from a common part, and the training data across the plural folds is distinct, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 19 not eligible.
Claim 10, 20 related to wherein an evaluation is reached as to a percentage chance that the component is acceptable and a percentage chance that the component is rejectable at each of the location, it appears recite further data characterization and mathematical concepts that are part of the abstract idea, claim 10, 20 not eligible.
Contact information
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tung Lau whose telephone number is (571)272-2274, email is Tungs.lau@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday 7:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, TURNER SHELBY, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272- 1000.
/TUNG S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Technology Center 2800
May 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights