DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1, 5-9, 15, 17-18, 20, 22-23, 27, and 32-35 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s assertions that: “Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the amended claim integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claim as a whole effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Specifically, the method transforms sensor measurements into a recalibrated model that enables accurate channel arbitration for controlling the physical operation of a turbine engine. The claim is not merely applying mathematical concepts using generic computer components. Rather, claim 1 as amended recites a specific method for improving turbine engine channel arbitration through repeated measuring and correcting steps at regular calculation intervals during operation, where the recalibrated model enables accurate arbitration that avoids pressure measurement jumps and false pumping detection events-a concrete improvement to turbine engine safety and control systems.”, and that: “The claimed method is analogous to patent-eligible claims that use mathematical calculations as part of a larger process that effects a physical change or improvement to a technological system. See Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981) (holding that a process for curing rubber that employed a mathematical equation was patent eligible because the claim as a whole was directed to an improved process for molding rubber articles, not to the mathematical equation itself)”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims, as currently constructed, are clearly directed to a mathematical concept, as evidenced by the specification and none of the additional elements provide by the claims recite anything that goes beyond the recited judicial exception. but are all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. It is further noted by the Examiner that to transform an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon into "a patent-eligible application", the claim must recite more than simply the judicial exception "while adding the words 'apply it.'" Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 101 USPQ2d at 1965, and that added limitation of wherein the repeating of the steps at calculation could amount to an iteration process (mathematical concept) or otherwise post-solution activities, thus do not add anything more significant the recited abstract. Furthermore, none of the cited cases by the Applicants are applicable to the instant case; the fact simply patterns do not match. As per applicant’s assertions that: “The claimed method provides a concrete technical improvement to turbine engine safety systems. The prevention of erroneous channel arbitration that would cause pressure measurement jumps leading to false pumping detection events represents a specific technological improvement to turbine engine control, not merely an abstract mathematical concept.” and that: “This technical solution is clearly reflected in amended claim 1, which recites the specific steps of calculating an error, calculating a correction by minimizing the error by means of a corrector, recalibrating the model through displacement of points and interpolation, and critically, repeating the measuring and correcting steps at regular calculation intervals during operation of the turbine engine wherein the recalibrated model enables accurate arbitration between the two acquisition channels by avoiding pressure measurement jumps that would otherwise lead to false pumping detection events. Under Step 2B, even if the claim were found to recite an abstract idea, the combination of elements - measuring pressure with sensors, correcting a thermodynamic model through specific recalibration steps repeated at regular calculation intervals during operation, and enabling accurate arbitration between acquisition channels to avoid pressure measurement jumps leading to false pumping detection - amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea because this specific combination provides a technological improvement to turbine engine control systems”; the Examiner respectfully notes that the claims, as currently amended, clearly do not provide any improvement whatsoever to a technological field, as asserted by the Applicant. In fact, there absolutely no way to improve the functionality of the general processor by performing the recited steps of the claims. Even if the claim were to recite some sort of improvement, said improvement would have only applied to Applicants’ method and not the computer in general, i.e., when other computer applications are executed, they do not benefit from the same improvement that Applicants intended to have produced. Therefore, the claims are clearly abstract, as currently constructed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
5.1 Claim 27 remains 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. the claim (lines 3-4) state “wherein the variable is,”; however, previously claim 1 made reference to “... as a function of two variables”; it is unclear whether applicant meant to refer to the previously recited two variables or something else. Similarly in lines 7 “the variables are.”. Further clarification and/or corrections is respectfully requested in response to this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
6.1 Claims 1, 5-9, 15, 17-18, 20, 22-23, 27, and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Step 2A- Prong One
The claim(s) recite(s) a method for correcting a thermodynamic model of operating parameter of a turbine engine comprising at least one combustion chamber, the thermodynamic model being used to arbitrate between two acquisition channels of the operating parameter,.. said method comprising the following steps: The step of: E2: “correcting the thermodynamic model using the measurement of the operating parameter value”, “said thermodynamic model expressing said static pressure as a function at least of one parameter of the compressor, wherein said thermodynamic model is defined by:- at least one segment, the thermodynamic model indicating a value of said operating parameter as a function of a variable, the thermodynamic model being affine on each segment, or - at least one plane, the thermodynamic model indicating a value of said parameter as a function of two variables, the thermodynamic model being affine on each plane”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship, as “said correcting step comprising the following sub steps: E31: “calculating an error by comparing said value of the operating parameter with the corresponding value of the thermodynamic model, said value of the thermodynamic model belonging, if the thermodynamic model is defined by the at least one segment, to one of the segments of the thermodynamic model or, if the thermodynamic model is defined by the at least one plane, to one of the planes of the thermodynamic model”, E32: “calculating a correction by minimizing said error by means of a corrector, the correction being a deviation to be applied to coordinates of points of the thermodynamic model to move said points”, E33: “recalibration, if the thermodynamic model is defined by the at least one segment, of the segment of the thermodynamic model or, if the thermodynamic model 1s defined by the at least one plane, of the plane of the thermodynamic model using the correction, to reposition said segment or plane and thus obtain a recalibrated model of the operating parameter”, “step E33 comprising the following sub steps: E331: “displacement of, if the thermodynamic model is defined by the at least one segment, two points of the thermodynamic model, or, if the thermodynamic model is defined by at least one plane, three points of the thermodynamic model”, E332: “interpolation of the thermodynamic model between the displaced points, wherein the measuring and correcting steps are repeated at regular calculation intervals during operation of the turbine engine, and wherein the recalibrated model enables accurate arbitration between the two acquisition channels by avoiding pressure measurement jumps that would otherwise lead to false pumping detection events”, all of which under the broadest reasonable interpretation fall under a mathematical concept / mathematical relationship; the specification described the model as a mathematical model ([0010] A model is mathematical law the evolution of a physical quantity (parameter) as a function of one or more physical variables); and using data obtain via the sensors to manipulate the model could include one or more mathematical computation on the model to arrive at a corrected mathematical model. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, by use of generic computer components and thus are clearly directed to an abstract idea, as constructed.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitation of “a non-volatile memory”, “two acquisition channels involving two sensors”, “a processor”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “E1: measuring an operating parameter value, by one of the two sensors”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering activities that are pre-solution activities, and “wherein the thermodynamic model is stored in a memory and wherein the operating parameter is a static pressure upstream of the combustion chamber”, are also well-known, routine and conventional activities “WURC” to store the model in the memory (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f), and do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as previously discussed above with reference to the integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a non-volatile memory”, “two acquisition channels involving two sensors”, “a processor”, either alone or in combination, all serve to gather and process data and do not add anything more significantly to the judicial exception, but are mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component previously known in the industries. Merely adding a programmable computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24. Furthermore, the use of a general-purpose computer to apply an otherwise ineligible algorithm does not qualify as a particular machine. See Ultramerciallnc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 20l4); In re TLI Commc 'ns LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of concrete or tangible components is not an inventive concept); Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785; the step of: “E1: measuring an operating parameter value, by one of the two sensors”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, reasonable fall under data gathering activities that are pre-solution activities, and “wherein the thermodynamic model is stored in a memory and wherein the operating parameter is a static pressure upstream of the combustion chamber”, are also well-known, routine and conventional activities “WURC” to store the model in the memory (See further MPEP 2106.05(d)(i-iv)-f), and do not add anything more significant to the recited abstract; thus are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
6.2 Dependent claims 5-9, 15, 17-18, 20, 22-23, 27, and 32-35 merely include limitations pertaining to further mathematical computations: Claim 5. “wherein the thermodynamic model is expressed as a function of a compressor speed reduced on the temperature of said compressor” (mathematical concept). Claim 6. “wherein the step of correcting is performed on the thermodynamic model as a function of the compressor speed reduced on the temperature of said compressor” (mathematical concept). Claim 7. “wherein the compressor is a high-pressure compressor, when the turbine engine further comprises a low-pressure compressor upstream of the high-pressure compressor” (mathematical concept). Claim 8. “wherein the thermodynamic model is defined by segment to and wherein the correcting step consists in correcting each segment” (mathematical concept). Claim 9. “wherein on each segment the model is linear” (mathematical concept). Claim 15. “wherein the step of obtaining the value of the operating parameter is performed by: a direct measurement of said operating parameter using a sensor, or a measurement of a third-party parameter on which said operating parameter depends, or a simulation” (pre-solution data gathering activities). Claim 17. “wherein, when the thermodynamic model is a law by segment, the step of correcting is done by freezing a first point of the segment and by moving a second point of the segment using the correction, the first point and the second point being the ends of the segment” (mathematical concept). Claim 18. “wherein, when the thermodynamic model is a law by segment, the step of correcting is done by moving the two ends of the segment using the correction” (mathematical concept). Claims 20. “wherein a distribution of the correction to be applied to one end of the segment is equal to the ratio of a distance of the corresponding value of the model to another end of the segment, over the segment” (mathematical concept). Claim 22. “wherein, when the thermodynamic model is a law by plane, the plane has the shape of a rectangle which is cut into triangles, and the step of correcting is done by freezing one or two vertices of the triangle and moving the last two vertices or the last vertex of the triangle using the correction” (mathematical concept). Claim 23. “wherein, when the thermodynamic model is a law by plane, the plane is cut into triangles, and the step of correcting is done by moving the three vertices of the triangle” (mathematical concept). Claim 27. “wherein the operating parameter is a static pressure upstream of the combustion chamber or the operating parameter is a static pressure upstream of the combustion chamber divided by a compressor pressure and wherein the variable corresponding to the at least one segment is, when the thermodynamic model is a law by segment, a high-pressure compressor speed, reduced on a temperature of said compressor and the variables corresponding to the at least one plane are, when the thermodynamic model is a law by plane, a high-pressure compressor speed reduced on a temperature of said compressor and a low-pressure compressor speed reduced on a temperature of said compressor, or the high-pressure compressor speed reduced on a temperature of said compressor and a total external pressure” (mathematical concept or otherwise a mental process), Claim 32 “wherein the method is performed by a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) comprising a processor and the non-volatile memory” (WURC activities to gather and process data). Claim 33 “wherein the corrector is an integral corrector that introduces inertia to the correcting step to avoid hypersensitivity to disturbances and to control a resetting speed of the thermodynamic model” (WURC data gathering and processing). Claim 34 “wherein the non-volatile memory stores a plurality of thermodynamic models corresponding to different levels of aircraft air bleed from the compressor, and wherein the method further comprises selecting the thermodynamic model to be corrected based on a level of active air bleed at a given instant” (WURC data gathering and processing). Claim 35 “wherein the corrector has different dynamics for different segments or planes of the thermodynamic model, wherein rapid dynamics are applied to speed ranges covered quickly during take-off and slow dynamics are applied to speed ranges where reset time is not a constraint” (WURC data gathering and processing), all of which further amount to either mental/data gathering and/or otherwise mathematical concept similar to that already recited by the independent claims and already addressed above and thus are further not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
7.1 Adibhatla (USPG_PUB No. 20180297718) teaches a method and apparatus to monitor health information of a turbine engine.
8. Claims 1, 5-9, 15, 17-18, 20, 22-23, 27, and 32-35 are rejected. THIS ACTION IS Non-FINAL. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 March 4, 2026