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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
This FINAL action is in response to amendment filed on 02/09/2026.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 9-13 is/are original.
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are new.
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 15 is 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.
The subject matter is: “wherein triggering the alert causes at least one of: (i) scheduling a maintenance operation, (ii) recording a fault condition in a maintenance log, or (iii) modifying operation of the mechanical system or vehicle.”
Examiner asserts that these limitations cannot reasonably be mapped to the closest disclosed matter of the specification. The closest disclosed matter of the specification is [0008] “Irrespective of the mechanical system that is being monitored, such a monitoring system can measure and record operational data of the mechanical system, in particular data of a vibratory nature”.
The specification further states in paragraph [0013], “document CN102963533 discloses a monitoring system. This monitoring system comprises an onboard system for identifying a risk in real time and generating an alert, and a ground-based remote system capable of downloading and analyzing the data acquired in flight in order to plan the necessary maintenance operations” and in paragraph [0029], “The initial phase may therefore be a learning period that can be used to define the threshold variation model for each health indicator CI of the mechanical system. This initial phase is carried out following the first use of the vehicle or indeed following a major maintenance operation, for example after replacing the mechanical system”.
Examiner asserts that recording operational/vibrational data of the mechanical system does not provide adequate support for recording a fault condition in a maintenance log. Additionally, the reference to the planning of maintenance operations of CN102963533 does not provide support for the instant invention scheduling a maintenance operation in response to the threshold variation model threshold level determination. Finally, while the specification does mention recording initial values after performance of a major maintenance operation, this cannot be interpreted as triggering an alert being considered as scheduling of a maintenance operation or modification of vehicle or mechanical system operations.
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 inventions are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, as determined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Test
detailed below.
Step 1
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1, 17, and 19 are directed towards methods and a system, respectively. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 17 and the corresponding dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step
2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those shown in bold below.
A method for monitoring the health of a mechanical system equipping a vehicle, the mechanical system comprising at least one moving member and at least one vibration sensor emitting a vibration signal, the mechanical system or the vehicle comprising at least one context sensor emitting a context signal relating to at least one context parameter, the context parameter(s) being chosen from a list comprising at least one or several functional parameters of the mechanical system, one or several navigation parameters of the vehicle and one or several atmospheric parameters, the method consisting of an initial phase of defining a threshold variation model as a function of the context parameter(s) followed by a phase of operational monitoring of the mechanical system, the initial phase comprising the following steps:
taking measurements of successive initial vibration values from the vibration sensor(s) and successive initial context values from the context sensor(s);
determining, with a calculator, several initial health values of at least one health indicator CI relating to the mechanical system as a function of the initial vibration values, each initial health value being associated with one of the initial context values of the context parameter(s); and
defining, for each health indicator CI, a threshold variation model, the threshold variation model being defined as a function of the initial health values of the health indicator CI and the initial context values of the context parameter(s), by partitioning a domain formed by the initial context values of the context parameter(s) into several ranges of initial context values for which a threshold relating to the health indicator CI is statistically constant over each range of initial context values, each range being associated with several of the initial context values, and by determining values of the threshold with the method using regressions on parameters of quantile distributions conditioned on context parameter(s) and domain decompositions of the context parameter(s) using at least one decision tree,
the operational monitoring phase comprising the following steps during the operation of the mechanical system:
taking measurements of successive operational vibration values from the vibration sensor(s) and successive operational context values from the context sensor(s);
determining, with the calculator, an operational health value of at least one health indicator CI as a function of the operational vibration values, the operational health value of at least one health indicator CI being associated with one of the operational context values relating to one or several context parameters;
determining the threshold specific to the operational health value of the health indicator(s) CI using the threshold variation model and the associated operational context value(s); and
triggering an alert signaling a risk of presence of a fault in the mechanical system if the operational health value of the health indicator(s) CI is greater than the determined threshold.
These limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as a mathematical calculation or a mental concept. For example, “determining, several initial health values of at least one health indicator CI relating to the mechanical system as a function of the initial vibration values, each initial health value being associated with one of the initial context values of the context parameter(s); and defining, for each health indicator CI, a threshold variation model, the threshold variation model being defined as a function of the initial health values of the health indicator CI and the initial context values of the context parameter(s), by partitioning a domain formed by the initial context values of the context parameter(s) into several ranges of initial context values for which a threshold relating to the health indicator CI is statistically constant over each range of initial context values, each range being associated with several of the initial context values, and by determining values of the threshold with the method using regressions on parameters of quantile distributions conditioned on context parameter(s) and domain decompositions of the context parameter(s) using at least one decision tree, determining, an operational health value of at least one health indicator CI as a function of the operational vibration values, the operational health value of at least one health indicator CI being associated with one of the operational context values relating to one or several context parameters; determining the threshold specific to the operational health value of the health indicator(s) CI using the threshold variation model and the associated operational context value(s)” may be interpreted as mathematical formulas, calculations, and/or correlations which amount to no more than mathematical operations. As noted in § 2106.04(a)(2), a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673). See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 218, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (describing Flook as holding "that a mathematical formula for computing ‘alarm limits’ in a catalytic conversion process was also a patent-ineligible abstract idea.") The mere recitation of generic computing components does not take the claim out of the abstract idea grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
If the claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A, Prong 2. In Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Regarding Prong 2, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
Claim 1 recites additional elements including those underlined below.
A method for monitoring the health of a mechanical system equipping a vehicle, the mechanical system comprising at least one moving member and at least one vibration sensor emitting a vibration signal, the mechanical system or the vehicle comprising at least one context sensor emitting a context signal relating to at least one context parameter, the context parameter(s) being chosen from a list comprising at least one or several functional parameters of the mechanical system, one or several navigation parameters of the vehicle and one or several atmospheric parameters, the method consisting of an initial phase of defining a threshold variation model as a function of the context parameter(s) followed by a phase of operational monitoring of the mechanical system, the initial phase comprising the following steps:
taking measurements of successive initial vibration values from the vibration sensor(s) and successive initial context values from the context sensor(s);
determining, with a calculator, several initial health values of at least one health indicator CI relating to the mechanical system as a function of the initial vibration values, each initial health value being associated with one of the initial context values of the context parameter(s); and
defining, for each health indicator CI, a threshold variation model, the threshold variation model being defined as a function of the initial health values of the health indicator CI and the initial context values of the context parameter(s), by partitioning a domain formed by the initial context values of the context parameter(s) into several ranges of initial context values for which a threshold relating to the health indicator CI is statistically constant over each range of initial context values, each range being associated with several of the initial context values, and by determining values of the threshold with the method using regressions on parameters of quantile distributions conditioned on context parameter(s) and domain decompositions of the context parameter(s) using at least one decision tree,
the operational monitoring phase comprising the following steps during the operation of the mechanical system:
taking measurements of successive operational vibration values from the vibration sensor(s) and successive operational context values from the context sensor(s);
determining, with the calculator, an operational health value of at least one health indicator CI as a function of the operational vibration values, the operational health value of at least one health indicator CI being associated with one of the operational context values relating to one or several context parameters;
determining the threshold specific to the operational health value of the health indicator(s) CI using the threshold variation model and the associated operational context value(s); and
triggering an alert signaling a risk of presence of a fault in the mechanical system if the operational health value of the health indicator(s) CI is greater than the determined threshold.
The recitation of “for monitoring the health of a mechanical system equipping a vehicle” in the preamble amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, the recitations of “taking measurements of successive initial vibration values from the vibration sensor(s) and successive initial context values from the context sensor(s); and taking measurements of successive operational vibration values from the vibration sensor(s) and successive operational context values from the context sensor(s)” amount to mere data receiving, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the recitation of “triggering an alert signaling a risk of presence of a fault in the mechanical system if the operational health value of the health indicator(s) CI is greater than the determined threshold” amounts to sending or displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The recitation of “with the calculator” amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
Step 2B
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong 2, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether it provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the additional elements of “with the calculator” amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, “for monitoring the health of a mechanical system equipping a vehicle” amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
As discussed above, “taking measurements of successive initial vibration values from the vibration sensor(s) and successive initial context values from the context sensor(s); and taking measurements of successive operational vibration values from the vibration sensor(s) and successive operational context values from the context sensor(s)” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, “triggering an alert signaling a risk of presence of a fault in the mechanical system if the operational health value of the health indicator(s) CI is greater than the determined threshold” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data (i.e., emitting an alert) is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-16, 18, and 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the various limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine, and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (i.e., further characterizing the mathematical operations). Therefore, dependent claims 2-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
It is noted that newly added claim 15 recites “wherein triggering the alert causes at least one of… (iii) modifying operation of the mechanical system or vehicle”. If this modification of the mechanical system or vehicle step was supported by the instant specification and was included in the independent claims, then the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 may be overcome. Such a modification of the vehicle in response to the other steps of the method can be seen as a practical application of a judicial exception. However, as recited as one of three options, the third option on its own does not overcome the rejection. Additionally, as described above, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the claim introduces new matter not disclosed in the original application files, and such cannot be patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/09/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's amendments overcome the objections to claims 1, 5, 7, and 8.
Regarding the amendment of claim 8, the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claim 8 for being directed to a nonstatutory category has been removed due to the amendment.
Regarding the arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of claims 1-13, the applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) applicant argues, " Contrary to the Patent Office's analysis, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims solve a concrete technical problem in mechanical system monitoring… Here, as described in paragraphs [0030]-[0031] of the specification, the claimed method improves mechanical system monitoring technology itself by dynamically adapting fault detection thresholds based on operating context, thereby reducing false alarms and improving system reliability and availability… the use of mathematical techniques does not render a claim abstract when those techniques are applied in a process that monitors or controls a physical system." (from remarks pages 12-13)
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Diamond v. Diehr, sensors are used to monitor conditions in order to enact a change in the physical system at the appropriate time. The judicial exception was practically applied by opening molds at a specific time based on the monitored temperatures, solving “under- and over-curing problems” (MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). The under- and over-curing problems would not have been solved if the mold had not been automatically opened when the sensed temperatures necessitated such physical action. In contrast, the instant application performs a variety of steps in sensing, determining, and comparing values, ultimately resulting in triggering an alert signal. This triggering of an alert signal, unless further limited by subsequent specification-supported amendment, is considered an extra-solution step of sending information.
(B) applicant argues, “The Office Action indicates on page 9 that the expression, "for monitoring the health of a mechanical system equipping a vehicle" in the preamble, amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application… The Federal Circuit has held that claims employing mathematical calculations based on data obtained from physical sensors and used to improve operation of a real-world system are patent-eligible… Like the claims in Thales, the present claims rely on vibration and context sensor data to improve monitoring and fault detection in a mechanical system, and are therefore not directed to an abstract idea." (from remarks pages 13-14)
As to point (B), Examiner respectfully disagrees. While in some cases there can be patent-eligible claims regarding mathematical calculations from sensors, Examiner argues that the sensors claimed in the instant application differ from those in Thales to an extent that the conclusions drawn from the Federal Circuit response are not applicable to the instant application. For instance, the particular configuration of the sensors claimed in Thales combined with the particular method of using the data collected therefrom provided enough to overcome a subject matter eligibility rejection by reciting a technological solution. However, the instant application claims no such sensor configuration that proved important in the Thales decision and as such is not analogous.
(C) applicant argues, “The Office Action further indicates on pages 9-10 that the expression… Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization oversimplifies the claimed process… The Office Action characterizes the recited measurement steps as mere data collection… Here, the vibration and context measurements are essential to defining and applying the threshold variation model and cannot be divorced from the technical improvement achieved by the claimed method.” (from remarks page 14)
As to point (C), Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Examiner recognizes that the data gathered by the sensors are subsequently used in another step of the method, this acknowledgment alone does not render the claims subject-matter eligible. The step of the process which uses the data previously gathered is considered to be a judicial exception in the form of mathematical operations. As such, even though the process of defining the threshold variation model has a level of complexity, each of its steps are considered to be mathematical operations which are not viewed to solve a technological problem by ultimately sending data through an alert, as mentioned above.
(D) applicant argues, “Furthermore, the Office Action indicates in page 10 that the recitation of "triggering an alert signaling a risk of presence of a fault in the mechanical system if the operational health value of the health indicator(s) CI is greater than the determined threshold" amounts to sending or displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity… The Federal Circuit has further recognized that detecting abnormal conditions from sensor data and generating alerts can constitute patent-eligible subject matter… Therefore, claims 1-13 are directed to a technically sophisticated health monitoring method that solves concrete problems in safety-critical mechanical systems. The invention is not a mere abstract mathematical application, but instead integrates any judicial exception into a practical application that imposes meaningful limits on the practice of any underlying abstract concept." (from remarks pages 14-15)
As to point (D), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that, as detailed above in rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the alert triggering as claimed (or as described in the specification), does not provide description that allows the step to be interpreted as a significant step. The plain meaning of triggering an alert encompasses steps such as making a sound or displaying a message, which are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner acknowledges that newly added claim 15 may seek to limit the scope of the alert in an attempt to overcome the subject matter eligibility problems. If Applicant is able to provide support from the specification for the alert step causing “modifying operation of the mechanical system or vehicle” (in order to overcome the 112(a) rejection for amending to claim new matter previously undisclosed in instant application) and is willing to incorporate such an active vehicle/mechanical system modification step into the independent claim, then it is possible that the claim could be found to contain eligible subject matter. Modifying the vehicle or the mechanical system is seen as a practical application of the judicial exception and as such could overcome the rejection. However, as claimed in an alternative form, the option (iii) of claim 15 does not overcome the rejection. Additionally, it is imperative that support for such an amendment is shown in the specification.
(E) Applicant mentions new claims 14-20.
As to point (E), Examiner notes that no prior art rejections are made for claims 14-20. However, each of the new claims is rejected for ineligible subject matter as mentioned above and as such are not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230114485 A1 Tucker; Brian Edward et al.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLE ROSE KNUDSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1742. The examiner can normally be reached 1000-1700 ET 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ELLE ROSE KNUDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/5/26