This Office action is in response to amendment filed on 7/06/2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed 7/06/2026 are accepted and entered. In this amendment:
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 12-13 have been added.
Claims 3 and 8-10 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 11-13 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/06/2026 regarding 101 rejection and the prior art have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reason below:
Applicant’s argues that “the amended limitations "automatically controlling the machine by way of a control command based on the recognized operating anomaly and the calculated anomaly characteristic value, such that the current operating-point of the machine changes to a safe operating point to avoid critical operating points." The amendment directly addresses the concerns raised during the June 29th interview by explicitly reciting the specific physical action taken based on the analyzed data and the technological purpose of the invention. Amended claim 1 removes the optional displaying step and requires active, physical control of the motor or electrically driven motor. The amendment demonstrates a concrete improvement in the functioning of a technological process, which also establishes integration into a practical application. The mandated physical alteration of the machine operating state aligns with the Supreme Court holding in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), wherein calculating an abstract mathematical formula was integrated into a practical application by automatically controlling a physical rubber molding press.”
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations
“automatically controlling the machine by way of a control command based on the
recognized operating anomaly and the calculated anomaly characteristic value, such that the current operating-point of the machine changes to a safe operating point to avoid critical operating points” does not recite any additional element that is significantly more than abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(c), the guidance explains “A transformation applied to a generically recited article or to any and all articles would likely not provide significantly more than the judicial exception”. The argued feature recites a transformation at a high level of generality (e.g., there is no details as to how this controlling is done).
Regarding Diamond v. Diehr, the court found it eligible because it “described a process of curing rubber beginning with the loading of the mold and ending with the opening of the press and the production of a synthetic rubber product that has been perfectly cured—a result heretofore unknown in the art." Thus, the claims were directed to an improved technological process rather than just abstract math.
Unlike Diamond v. Diehr, the current claims do not recite an improved technological process in curing rubber as described by the court. Thus, the arguments are not persuasive.
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, 4-7, and 11-13 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 11, 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 claims are to a process and a CRM, which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1, continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, (see Italic font below).
The limitations “a training phase and an application phase, wherein the training phase comprises: 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; 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; training a classifier that assigns operating-points to the recognized operating- point clusters; and training a plurality of anomaly recognition models, each configured to carry out operating anomaly recognition for each of the recognized operating-point clusters; and wherein the application phase comprises: recording operating data comprising state variables of operating-points of the machine in an operating state; assigning the operating data to respective operating-point clusters by way of the trained classifier; 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; automatically controlling the machine by way of a control command based on the recognized operating anomaly and the calculated anomaly characteristic value, such that the current operating-point of the machine changes to a safe operating point to avoid critical operating points” fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Regarding claim 11, continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, (see Italic font below).
The limitations “a training phase comprising: 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; recognizing and combining operating-points of the training data by way of clustering to form operating-point clusters; training a classifier that assigns operating-points to the recognized operating- point clusters; and training a plurality of respective anomaly recognition models to carry out operating anomaly recognition for each of the respective recognized operating-point clusters; and an application phase comprising: recording operating data comprising state variables of operating-points of the machine in an operating state; assigning the operating data to the operating-point clusters by way of the trained classifier; recognizing operating anomalies by way of the respective anomaly recognition model for the assigned 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; and automatically controlling the machine by way of a control command based on the recognized operating anomaly and the calculated anomaly characteristic value, such that the current operating-point of the machine changes to a safe operating point to avoid critical operating points” fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
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 above Prong-One in non-Italic font, are pasted below:
Regarding claim 1:
“A method for monitoring an operation of a machine of a motor or an electrically driven motor using specifically trained anomaly recognition models for specific operating-point clusters, the method comprising a training phase and an application phase (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e., a method for monitoring an operation of a machine of a motor or an electrically driven motor), wherein the training phase comprises: 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; wherein the application phase comprises: recording operating data comprising state variables of operating-points of the machine in an operating state; and automatically controlling the machine by way of a control command based on the recognized operating anomaly and the calculated anomaly characteristic value, such that the current operating-point of the machine changes to a safe operating point to avoid critical operating points” (adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g); mere computer implementation recited at a high level of generality (i.e., recording and storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and steps recited at a high level of generality, automatically controlling the machine, see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Regarding claim 11:
“A non-transitory computer implemented storage medium that stores machine-readable instructions executable by at least one processor for monitoring an operation of a machine of a motor or an electrically driven motor using specifically trained anomaly recognition models for specific operating-point clusters, the machine-readable instructions comprising” (i.e., generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h) and merely using computer as a tool (i.e., processor) to perform abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)): a training phase comprising: 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; an application phase comprising: recording operating data comprising state variables of operating-points of the machine in an operating state; automatically controlling the machine by way of a control command based on the recognized operating anomaly and the calculated anomaly characteristic value, such that the current operating-point of the machine changes to a safe operating point to avoid critical operating points” (adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g); mere computer implementation recited at a high level of generality (i.e., recording and storing data, see MPEP 2106.05(f); and steps recited at a high level of generality, automatically controlling the machine, see MPEP 2106.05(c)).
Accordingly, the above additional limitations in claims 1 and 11, 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 claims as a whole. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activity (i.e., mere data gathering “recording data”), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g),
merely use a computer as a tool (i.e., processor in claim 11) to perform abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)),
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), i.e., a method/CRM for monitoring an operation of a machine of a motor or an electrically driven motor.
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more
under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 4-7, and 12-13 that are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claims by additional limitations that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts and/or mental process.
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refers to extra-solution activity and at a high level of generality, i.e., collect data and displaying (claim 6), and used machine learning to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (claims 2, 4-7, 12-13), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does 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 11-13 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.
Please refer to the previous Office Action of reason for allowance regarding the prior art.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights