CTNF 18/615,104 CTNF 78032 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 17-23, 25-28, 34, 36-38, 45, 47-49, 62, and 96 are 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. 07-34-04 Regarding claim 1, 49, 62, and 96, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Note the explanation given by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences in Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d2031, 2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), as to where broad language "failure rate " is followed by and then narrow language "an average actual failure rate". The Board stated that this can render a claim indefinite by raising a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Note also, for example, the decisions of Ex parte Steigewald, 131 USPQ74 (Bd. App. 1961); Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ38 (Bd. App. 1948); and Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ481 (Bd. App. 1949). The dependent claims 2, 6, 10, 11, 17-23, 25-28, 34, 36-38, 45, 47-49 are rejected as being indefinite since they inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 which depend from. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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, 2, 6, 10, 11, 17-23, 25-28, 34, 36-38, 45, 47-49, 62, and 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 17-23, 25-28, 34, 36-38, 45, 47-48, and 62 are directed to a method, claims 49 and 96 are directed to using a system to perform the method. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Regarding claim 1: A method for generating a prediction model to predict a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings, the method comprising: determining an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine based at least in part on maintenance records for a first plurality of the rotating machine; receiving pressure sensor data relating to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure for a second plurality of the rotating machine, the pressure sensor data having been recorded during at least one of a preoperational period, an operational period and a post-operational period of the second plurality of the rotating machine; determining select characteristics of the rotating machine associated with at least one of the preoperational period, the operational period and the post-operational period based at least in part on the pressure sensor data; and building the prediction model for the rotating machine based at least in part on the average actual failure rate and the select characteristics. Step 2A Prong 1 : “determining an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine based at least in part on maintenance records for a first plurality of the rotating machine” is directed to math because a failure rate requires statistical analysis and probability using the fundamental mathematical concepts. “receiving pressure sensor data relating to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure for a second plurality of the rotating machine, the pressure sensor data having been recorded during at least one of a preoperational period, an operational period and a post-operational period of the second plurality of the rotating machine” is directed to mental step of data gathering. “determining select characteristics of the rotating machine associated with at least one of the preoperational period, the operational period and the post-operational period based at least in part on the pressure sensor data” is directed to mental step of analyzing data. Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “sensor and measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Further, the claim recites the step of “determining an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine based at least in part on maintenance records for a first plurality of the rotating machine” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii). Additional Elements: Step 2A Prong 2 : “A method for generating a prediction model to predict a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “determining an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine based at least in part on maintenance records for a first plurality of the rotating machine” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “receiving pressure sensor data relating to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure for a second plurality of the rotating machine, the pressure sensor data having been recorded during at least one of a preoperational period, an operational period and a post-operational period of the second plurality of the rotating machine” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “determining select characteristics of the rotating machine associated with at least one of the preoperational period, the operational period and the post-operational period based at least in part on the pressure sensor data” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “building the prediction model for the rotating machine based at least in part on the average actual failure rate and the select characteristics” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results. This is similar to electric power : MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A ., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or 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). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application: An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Step 2B : “A method for generating a prediction model to predict a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “determining an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine based at least in part on maintenance records for a first plurality of the rotating machine” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “receiving pressure sensor data relating to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure for a second plurality of the rotating machine, the pressure sensor data having been recorded during at least one of a preoperational period, an operational period and a post-operational period of the second plurality of the rotating machine” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “determining select characteristics of the rotating machine associated with at least one of the preoperational period, the operational period and the post-operational period based at least in part on the pressure sensor data” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). “building the prediction model for the rotating machine based at least in part on the average actual failure rate and the select characteristics” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv). The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 49 is similar to claim 1 but recites a system for generating a prediction model to predict a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings, the system comprising: at least one computing device, comprising: at least one processor and associated memory; and a network interface in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to communicate with a pressure sensor data repository via a communication network; and at least one storage device, comprising: at least one application program storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured; at least one model storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured; and at least one data storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”). On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 49 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 49. Claims 62 cites a method for predicting a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings comprising the steps as in claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 62 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 96 is directed to an abstract idea similar to claim 1. The additional elements (i.e., A system for predicting a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings, the system comprising: at least one computing device, comprising: at least one processor and associated memory; and a network interface in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to communicate with an end item in which the rotating machine is installed via a communication network; and at least one storage device, comprising: at least one application program storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store a sensor data analysis application program and a maintenance prediction application program; at least one model storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store a prediction model for the rotating machine; and at least one data storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine and pressure sensor data associated with the rotating machine ) are recited at a high level of generality, necessary, routine, or conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. When considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See Alice Corp. and 2014 Interim Guidance. Dependent claims 2-13, 15-17, and 19-20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea). Hence the claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 17-23, 25-28, 34, 36-38, 45, 47-49, 62, and 96 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 49, 62, and 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husseiny (US 5,210,704) in view of Wang et al. (US 11,209,810, IDS record) . Regarding claims 1 and 62, Husseiny discloses a method for generating a prediction model to predict a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings (e.g. Col.2, lines 21-39), the method comprising: determining an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine based at least in part on maintenance records for a first plurality of the rotating machine (e.g. Col.1, lines 51-Col.2, lines 7: the failure rate maintains a constant rate for a long period of time); receiving pressure sensor data relating to an inlet pressure and an outlet pressure for a second plurality of the rotating machine (Col.7, lines 59-68: utilizes information available via sensors as operational variables, such as pressure). determining select characteristics of the rotating machine associated with at least one of the preoperational period (col.1, lines 37-62: Based on life tests of typical mechanical equipment, a high rate of failure is observed at the start of life due to the presence of defective components. Excluding such defective lot, the failure rate maintains a constant rate for a long period of time until wear takes place and the failure rate rises at a rapid rate once a defect appears), the operational period and the post-operational period based at least in part on the pressure sensor data (Col.24, lines 6-14: data input and pressure indicator); and building the prediction model for the rotating machine based at least in part on the average actual failure rate and the select characteristics (e.g. Col.1, lines 37-39: Based on life tests of typical mechanical equipment, a high rate of failure is observed at the start of life due to the presence of defective components, Col.24, lines 20-35: The prediction model is capable of providing quantitative prediction of the remaining life after the initiation of a defect in terms of defect size in a bearing or a gear). Wang teach the pressure sensor data having been recorded during at least one of a preoperational period, an operational period and a post-operational period of the second plurality of the rotating machine (e.g. Col.7, lines 17-29: prediction engine 122 identifies the window of time (e.g., number of days, number of flights, or the like) for the initiation period of rotating machines based on noncompliance records 127, which may include historical sensor data captured during historical initiation periods of rotating machines).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate of Wang with the method of Husseiny for the purposes of providing a method and apparatus for predicting noncompliance conditions of rotating machinery in aerial vehicles (Wang , abstract). Regarding claim 49, Wang disclose a system for generating a prediction model to predict a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings (abstract), the system comprising: at least one computing device (Fig.1 and 5), comprising: at least one processor (CPU 502) and associated memory (508); and a network interface (506) in operative communication with the at least one processor (CPU 502) and configured to communicate with a pressure sensor data (534) repository via a communication network (590); and at least one storage device (memory 508), comprising: at least one application program storage device (model 124, 516) in operative communication with the at least one processor (CPU 502) and configured to store a maintenance record analysis application program (127, 532)(e.g. Col.4, lines 25-29: messages are generated based on outputs from the prediction model. This message may allow a user to receive notification of a predicted noncompliance condition so that action may be taken to prevent the noncompliance condition. For example, maintenance may be performed on the rotating machine in order to prevent the noncompliance condition from occurring, Col.6, lines 31-42), a sensor data analysis application program and a model generation application program model (Fig. 1 and 5: model 124 and 516, noncompliance record for maintenance record and sensor data for sensor data analysis); at least one model storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store the prediction model (124) for the rotating machine; and at and at least one data storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store pressure sensor data associated with the rotating machine(Col.6, line 48-Col.7, line 3). Wang fails to disclose an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine. Husseiny teaches determining an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine based at least in part on maintenance records for a first plurality of the rotating machine (e.g. Col.1, lines 51-Col.2, lines 7: the failure rate maintains a constant rate for a long period of time). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate of Husseiny with the system of Wang for the purposes of providing a a prognosis tool to predict incipient failure in rotating mechanical equipment (Husseiny , abstract). Regarding claim 96, Wang discloses a system for predicting a non-compliance condition of a rotating machine with rotary bearings (abstract), the system comprising: at least one computing device (Fig.1 and 5), comprising: at least one processor (CPU 502) and associated memory (508); and a network interface (506) in operative communication with the at least one processor (CPU 502) and configured to communicate with an end item in which the rotating machine is installed via a communication network (590)(see Fig.5). Although Wang is silent on teaching at least one application program storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store a sensor data analysis application program and a maintenance prediction application program and at least one model storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store a prediction model for the rotating machine; and at least one data storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine and pressure sensor data associated with the rotating machine, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to include at least one application program storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store a sensor data analysis application program and a maintenance prediction application program and at least one model storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store a prediction model for the rotating machine; and at least one data storage device in operative communication with the at least one processor and configured to store an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine and pressure sensor data associated with the rotating machine since Wang disclose a system (500) comprising a processor (502) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (508) comprising instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform methods of Embodiments 1-9 (Col.14, lines 14-17) for receiving sensor data ( 128 ) related to a rotating machine of an aerial vehicle ( 410 , 206 ); determining, based on the sensor data, a series of deceleration time values ( 300 ) for the rotating machine ( 208 ); and using the predictive model ( 124 ) to determine whether a noncompliance condition is predicted to occur for the rotating machine based on the series of deceleration time values ( 210 ) (Col.13, lines 13-20). Wang fails to disclose an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine. Husseiny teaches determining an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine based at least in part on maintenance records for a first plurality of the rotating machine (e.g. Col.1, lines 51-Col.2, lines 7: the failure rate maintains a constant rate for a long period of time). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate an average actual failure rate for the rotating machine of Husseiny with the system of Wang for the purposes of providing a a prognosis tool to predict incipient failure in rotating mechanical equipment (Husseiny , abstract). Regarding claim 2, Husseiny disclose the non-compliance condition comprises at least one of a degraded condition (abstract, Col.2, lines 28-39). Regarding claim 8, Husseiny disclose receiving the maintenance records for the first plurality of the rotating machine from a maintenance record repository of a central storage device (Col.12, line 66-Col.13, line 7) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 10-11, 17-18, 22, 23, 25, 28, 34, 36, 38, 39, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husseiny (US 5,210,704) in view of Wang et al. (US 11,209,810) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hays et al. (US 6,330,525) . Regarding claim 10-11, the combination of Husseiny and Wang et al. fail to disclose wherein the pressure sensor data comprises inlet pressure measurements by a first pressure sensor disposed proximate an inlet of the rotating machine and outlet pressure measurements by a second pressure sensor disposed proximate an outlet of the rotating machine wherein at least one of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor are external in relation to the rotating machine. Hays et al. teach wherein the pressure sensor data comprises inlet pressure measurements by a first pressure sensor (32) disposed proximate an inlet (18) of the rotating machine (14) and outlet pressure measurements by a second pressure sensor (26) disposed proximate an outlet (20) of the rotating machine (14) wherein at least one of the first pressure sensor (32) and the second pressure sensor (26) are external in relation to the rotating machine (14) (see Fig. 1, Col.10, lines 56-62, Col.10, line 66-Col.11, line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate he pressure sensor data comprises inlet pressure measurements by a first pressure sensor disposed proximate an inlet of the rotating machine and outlet pressure measurements by a second pressure sensor disposed proximate an outlet of the rotating machine wherein at least one of the first pressure sensor and the second pressure sensor are external in relation to the rotating machine of Hays et al. with the system of Wang in view of Husseiny for the purposes of providing a method for detecting impending motor bearing or pump bearing failures (Hays et al., Col.2, lines 27-28). Regarding claim 17, Hays et al. teach wherein the pressure sensor data comprises temporal information associated with the inlet pressure measurements and the outlet pressure measurements (e.g. Col.26, lines 44-54). Regarding claim 18, Hays et al. teach the pressure sensor data comprises an indicator associating the inlet pressure measurements and the outlet pressure measurements with the preoperational period, the operational period or the post-operational period (e.g. Col.30, lines 20-33). Regarding claim 22, Hays et al. teach receiving the pressure sensor data for the second plurality of the rotating machine from a pressure sensor data repository of a central storage device (see Fig.1). Regarding claim 23, Hays et al. teach determining of the select characteristics comprising: determining first features for the second plurality of the rotating machine based on the pressure sensor data associated with the preoperational period (Fig.1, Col.32, lines 55-Col.33, line 6). Regarding claim 25, Hays et al. teach the determining of the select characteristics comprising: determining second features for the second plurality of the rotating machine based on the pressure sensor data associated with the operational period (Fig.1, Col.32, lines 55-Col.33, line 6). Regarding claim 28, Hays et al. teach determining of the select characteristics further comprising: determining inter-operational features for the second plurality of the rotating machine based on the second features for the second plurality of the rotating machine in relation to patterns identified in one or more groups of operational periods for the second plurality of the rotating machine (Col.32, line 59-Col.33, line 6). Regarding claim 34, Hays et al. teach determining of the select characteristics further comprising: determining hyper-parameters for the second plurality of the rotating machine based on the second features for the second plurality of the rotating machine in relation to patterns identified in one or more groups of operational periods for the second plurality of the rotating machine (Col.32, line 59-Col.33, line 6). Regarding claim 36, Hays et al. teach determining of the select characteristics comprising: determining third features for the second plurality of the rotating machine based on the pressure sensor data associated with the post-operational period (Col.32, line 59-Col.33, line 6). Regarding claim 38, although combination of Husseiny, Wang, and Hays et al. fail to teach where at least a portion of the pressure sensor data was sampled at a 10 Hertz rate or higher, the third features are determined based at least in part on the portion of the pressure sensor data sampled at the 10 Hertz rate or higher. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to including the pressure sensor data was sampled at a 10 Hertz rate , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 39, Hays et al. teach determining of the select characteristics further comprising: determining inter-operational features for the second plurality of the rotating machine based on the third features for the second plurality of the rotating machine in relation to patterns identified in one or more groups of operational periods for the second plurality of the rotating machine (Col.32, line 59-Col.33, line 6). Regarding claim 45, Hays et al. teach determining of the select characteristics comprising: determining hyper-parameters for the second plurality of the rotating machine based on the third features for the second plurality of the rotating machine in relation to patterns identified in one or more groups of operational periods for the second plurality of the rotating machine (Col.32, line 59-Col.33, line 6) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Husseiny (US 5,210,704) in view of Wang et al. (US 11,209,810) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yuan (CN 211309857) . Regarding claim 19, the combination of Husseiny and Wang fail to teach wherein the rotating machine is deactivated during the preoperational period which ends when power is applied to the rotating machine. Yuan teaches wherein the rotating machine is deactivated (stop) during the preoperational period which ends when power is applied to the rotating machine (page 2: The adjusting device will absorb the rotating power applied to the rotating shaft through the inner adjusting wheel so as to keep the stop state of the rotating shaft, and prevent the machine damage caused by forced rotation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate the rotating machine is deactivated during the preoperational period which ends when power is applied to the rotating machine of Yuan with the system of Wang in view of Husseiny for the purposes of providing prevent the machine damage caused by forced rotation (Yuan, page 2) Regarding claim 20, Yuan teaches the operational period begins when power is applied to the rotating machine and ends when the power is removed (page 2: The adjusting device will absorb the rotating power applied to the rotating shaft through the inner adjusting wheel so as to keep the stop state of the rotating shaft). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/615,104 Page 2 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/615,104 Page 3 Art Unit: 2857 Application/Control Number: 18/615,104 Page 4 Art Unit: 2857
Prosecution Insights