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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the amendment filed on March 30, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. No claims have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9 and 16 are independent.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments regarding specification objections, filed March 30, 2026, with respect to informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The
objection of informalities has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102, filed March 30, 2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations, an in particular, the method of independent claim 1, discloses a diagnostic process tied to specific operating conditions and vibration mode analysis provides a technical improvement to vehicle diagnostics that cannot be performed from simple mental observation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and opines that the plain language of the recited claims does not preclude a human to practically perform these operations from simple observation of a vehicle ‘s telemetry and environmental data by using/interfacing with a generic computer module, either in-vehicle or remotely, that receives raw and/or human readable processed data, for example, alarm/abnormality notifications, analogous to using an On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) terminal by a vehicle technician in the automotive industry to troubleshoot a vehicle’s failure mode/component by selecting and menu-navigating available vehicle data to isolate a failing component, wherein the outputting of information about the identified first component is merely presenting the analysis results from human observation (mental process), an abstract idea, therefore the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is retained.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process).Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method comprising [mental process/step]:
receiving, by a vehicle, vibration data associated with a multicomponent system of the vehicle;
determining, by the vehicle, that a first set of operating conditions associated with the multicomponent system have been satisfied [mental process/step];
responsive to the first set of operating conditions being satisfied, determining, by the vehicle and based on the vibration data, first health indication data associated with the multicomponent system [mental process/step];
determining, by the vehicle and based on the first health indication data, that the multicomponent system is exhibiting unexpected behavior [mental process/step];
responsive to determining that the multicomponent system is exhibiting unexpected behavior, determining, by the vehicle, that a second set of operating conditions associated with a first component of the multicomponent system have been satisfied [mental process/step];
responsive to the second set of operating conditions being satisfied, determining, by the vehicle and based on the vibration data and local mode data associated with the first component, second health indication data associated with the first component [mental process/step];
determining, by the vehicle and based on the second health indication data, that the first component is exhibiting unexpected behavior [mental process/step]; and
outputting, by the vehicle, information about the first component.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determining a first set of operating conditions …”, “… determining first health indication data …”, “… determining that the multicomponent system is exhibiting unexpected behavior …”, “… determining that a second set of operating conditions … have been satisfied”, “… determining second health indication data …”, and “determining that the first component is exhibiting unexpected behavior” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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 use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A method comprising [mental process/step]:
receiving, by a vehicle, vibration data associated with a multicomponent system of the vehicle [pre-solution activity (data gathering using a generic computer module component of the vehicle)];
determining, by the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component of the vehicle], that a first set of operating conditions associated with the multicomponent system have been satisfied [mental process/step];
responsive to the first set of operating conditions being satisfied, determining, by the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component of the vehicle] and based on the vibration data, first health indication data associated with the multicomponent system [mental process/step];
determining, by the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component of the vehicle] and based on the first health indication data, that the multicomponent system is exhibiting unexpected behavior [mental process/step];
responsive to determining that the multicomponent system is exhibiting unexpected behavior, determining, by the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component of the vehicle], that a second set of operating conditions associated with a first component of the multicomponent system have been satisfied [mental process/step];
responsive to the second set of operating conditions being satisfied, determining, by the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component of the vehicle] and based on the vibration data and local mode data associated with the first component, second health indication data associated with the first component [mental process/step];
determining, by the vehicle [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module component of the vehicle] and based on the second health indication data, that the first component is exhibiting unexpected behavior [mental process/step]; and
outputting, by the vehicle, information about the first component [insignificant post-solution activity (presenting/dispatching results of the mental process) using generic computing module component of the vehicle].
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “receiving vibration data …” and outputting information …” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (a generic computer component of the vehicle) to perform the process. In particular, the “vehicle” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a computer system performing a generic computer function of the vehicle) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computer module of the vehicle to perform the determination steps amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “receiving vibration data …” and outputting information …” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the 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 [provide concise explanation]. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-20 are allowed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
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 PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at 571-270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
June 22, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights