DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to RCE filed on 01/05/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 12/11/2025 are accepted and entered. In this amendment,
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 3 and 8-10 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/11/2025 regarding 101 rejection and the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant’s argues that “The Office Action characterizes the claim as reciting
a mental process. However, the claimed method includes concrete steps that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. The claim requires creating fingerprints comprising sets of sensor measurements within defined time ranges, providing multidimensional training data containing state variables such as vibration, temperature, torque, pressure, current, voltage, and power output, clustering operating points on the basis of speed curves and torque curves, training a classifier that assigns operating points to clusters, and training a plurality of anomaly recognition models, each configured to carry out anomaly recognition for a specific cluster. These models calculate anomaly characteristic values that quantify severity. These are algorithmic operations on multidimensional machine-sensor data that cannot reasonably be performed mentally, as required by MPEP § 2106.04(a). Quantifying anomaly severity using trained anomaly-recognition models for non-ultrasound machine sensor data is not a mental step abstraction. For this reason, the claim does not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong One.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite “recognizing and combining operating-points of the training data (e.g., applied computational step to analyze data), training a classifier (i.e., computational process), training a plurality of anomaly recognition models (e.g., using clustering algorithm), assigning the operating data (e.g., classification algorithm), and recognizing operating anomalies (i.e., anomaly detection involves algorithms)” that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts. Thus, the claims recite abstract idea under Step 2A – prong One.
Applicant further argues that “Even assuming arguendo that the claim recites an
abstract idea, the claim is integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. These features constitute an improvement to the functioning of a machine-learning-based diagnostic system, e.g., by reducing false positives and enabling operating-point-specific anomaly identification. Such integration into a technological process satisfies MPEP § 2106.04(d)(l) where claims that improve the accuracy or functionality of a technological operation are eligible”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of “creating one or more fingerprints comprising a set of measurements; providing training data; and recording operation data” are considered data collecting which corresponds to insignificant extra- solution activities - see MPEP 2106.05(g), and “recording operation data” and displaying the anomaly characteristic value and/or recommendations based on the anomaly characteristic value and/or controlling the machine” are considered recited at a high level of generality, using exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an a6stract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant argues that under Step 2B, the claims improve upon the
existing technological process of machine monitoring through a specific, non-abstract application of machine learning that results in a tangible output. It is about improving the system and method for monitoring a machine by applying algorithms in a specific, novel, and technically advantageous way, for example, by creating and deploying a plurality of cluster-specific anomaly recognition models and providing actionable output through a display or control signal. This is a clear improvement in the functioning of an industrial monitoring system
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in Step 2A – prong Two. The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Please refer to the 101 rejection below for further details regarding the eligibility analysis.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 6 recites “the motor or electrically driven motor” should read “the motor or the electrically driven motor.”
Claims 1 and 11 recite, “recording operating data comprising state variable of operating-points” should read “recording operating data comprising the state variable of operating-points”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 4-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as 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.
Regarding claim 1, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claims for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Under Step 2A - Prong One of the test:
The limitations below fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts:
“recognizing and combining operating-points of the training data by way of
clustering to form operating-point clusters on the basis of speed curves and torque curves in the one or more fingerprints” (e.g., applied computational step to analyze data), “training a classifier that assigns operating-points to the recognized operating-point clusters” (i.e., computational process), “training a plurality of anomaly recognition models, each configured to carry out operating anomaly recognition for each of the recognized operating-point clusters” (e.g., using clustering algorithm), “assigning the operating data to respective operating-point clusters by way of the trained classifier” (e.g., classification algorithm), and “recognizing operating anomalies for a respective operating point cluster by way of a respective anomaly recognition model assigned to the respective operating-point cluster, wherein the respective anomaly recognition model calculates an anomaly characteristic value, the value of which describes a severity of the anomaly, wherein an anomaly and/or an anomaly type is recognized when the anomaly characteristic value exceeds a predetermined threshold value” (i.e., anomaly detection involves algorithms).”
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claim:
“creating one or more fingerprints comprising a set of measurements within a
defined time range that describes a reference behavior of the motor or electrically driven motor; providing training data comprising state variables of operating-points of the machine, wherein the operating-points comprise measured values comprising vibration, temperature, torque, pressure, current, voltage, or power output of the machine of the motor or of the electrically driven motor” are considered data collecting corresponding to insignificant extra-solution activities - see MPEP 2106.05(g).
wherein the application phase comprises: “recording operating data comprising
state variables of operating-points of the machine in an operating state” and “displaying the anomaly characteristic value and/or recommendations based on the anomaly characteristic value with regard to operating the machine and/or controlling the machine, such that the current operating-point of the machine changes” are considered
recited at a high level of generality, using the exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in
combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claim as a whole. The claim is directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A – prong Two of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, the claim does not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as indicated in Step 2A – prong Two. The claim, when considered as a whole, does not provide significantly more under Step 2B of the test. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Similarly, independent claim 11 is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more as explained above with regards to claim 1.
With regards to the dependent claims, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional
limitations (claims 5-6), that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mental processes and/or mathematical concepts, and
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered
individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities (claims 2, 4, and 6-7) and/or generic computer components (claim 6), which as indicated in the Office's guidance, they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Novel and Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11 are considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art but as currently presently are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for considering novel and non-obvious subject matter:
None of the prior art individual or in combination teaches or suggests the
“creating one or more fingerprints comprising a set of measurements within a defined time range that describes a reference behavior of the motor or electrically driven motor; and recognizing and combining operating-points of the training data by way of
clustering to form operating-point clusters on the basis of speed curves and torque curves in the one or more fingerprints” as recited in claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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://ppairmy.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.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857