DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3, and 6-9 are pending. Claims dated 06/01/2026 are being examined.
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 Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
As it does not appear the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are disputed, the Examiner maintains the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) that was applied in the previous Office Action. Applicant disputes the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections that arise from the 112(f), and these arguments are addressed below.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant argues, “one of ordinary skill in the art of turbomachine fleet management would readily understand what "implementing a diagnosis" and "resetting of health data" mean in the context of updating a digital twin. These are standard operations in the field of predictive maintenance and digital twin technology” (pp. 7-8 of remarks).
In view of Applicant’s argument (1), the 112(a) rejections for the claims reciting “implementing a diagnosis” and “resetting of health data” are withdrawn. As the claims do not recite any particular diagnostic algorithm or resetting algorithm, the Examiner interprets these functions as standard operations (well-known, routine, and conventional in in the field of predictive maintenance and digital twin technology).
Applicant argues, “this disclosure describes the third module as comprising processing means for preparing a packet containing the acquired operating parameter for transmission. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this module comprises standard data processing circuitry or software configured to format and prepare data packets for communication” (p. 8 of remarks).
Applicant's argument (2) has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. Examiner’s review of the disclosure finds that there is no recitation of “processing means”, and this argument merely restates that some unspecified component performs processing. The specification fails to identify specific structure, i.e., hardware or circuitry corresponding to the claimed function of preparing a packet.
As the specification does not clearly link any “processing circuitry” or “software” with the claimed “third module”, the assertion that a person of ordinary skill would understand what a third module comprises is unpersuasive. The issue is not whether “persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function”, but whether the specification discloses corresponding structure demonstrating possession of the claimed invention, see MPEP 2181. The court established that the specification itself must disclose the structure, and it cannot simply rely on the understanding and knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art to fill in the gaps. For example, in Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380[, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230] (Fed. Cir. 1999), the court embraced the proposition that ‘consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function. In view of the above, the 112(f) and corresponding 112(a) rejections are maintained for the claims reciting “a third module for preparing…”.
35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the previously set forth 112(b) rejection (now reciting “battery powering…”). Accordingly, the Examiner has withdrawn the previously set forth rejection. However, the 112(b) rejections are maintained for the claims reciting “a third module for preparing…” as reasoned in the explanation for maintaining the 112(a) rejection above.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not overcome the previously set forth rejections. The rejections under 101 are therefore maintained. Further reasoning for maintaining the 101 rejections is provided below in response to Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues, “these steps go beyond merely automating abstract ideas and instead use the information obtained from the analysis to deploy physical devices, acquire real-world data, and update digital twin simulations of turbomachines” (p. 10 of remarks).
Applicant's argument (3) has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. The deployment of physical devices and acquiring real-world data in Applicant’s specification comprises a person attaching sensor(s) to the turbomachine and collecting the sensor data. This additional element amounts to mere data gathering. The step of updating comprises transmitting collected information using known data transmission technology and amounts to insignificant post-solution activity. The additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant argues, “these devices are selectively deployed only to turbomachines identified as having out-of-date digital twins, thereby minimizing mass impact on the fleet while ensuring digital twin accuracy” (p. 11 of remarks).
Applicant's argument (4) has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. The claim limits the circumstances under which the data is gathered, but this determination of circumstances (“identifying”) was characterized as an abstract idea (mental process). Deciding to filter or collect subset data rather than comprehensive data is a concept a person can do in their head or via basic organization. The judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements, but the Examiner maintains the attachment of sensors and collection of sensor data remain as mere data gathering activities that obtain information for use in the recited updating.
Applicant argues “the digital twins are thus technical simulation models used to reproduce and simulate turbomachine operation, not mere data records” (p. 11 of remarks).
Applicant's argument (5) has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. An updated representation of a simulation model is achieved via transmitting collected data or results obtained from the “acquiring” and “preparing” steps to the model using known data transmission technology. These limitations do not serve to improve computer functionality or data transmission technology and only amounts to sending and receiving data. Mere transmission of data over network(s) is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The turbomachine(s) is/are merely the environment in which maintenance is managed. Limiting the use of data collection to aircraft turbomachines is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Applicant argues “claim 1 as amended integrates any alleged abstract ideas into a practical application by employing the analysis results to take corrective action through a specific technical solution for fleet management” (p. 11 of remarks).
Applicant's argument (6) has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. The additional limitations describing corrective action (“implementing a diagnosis” and “resetting health data”) have been reevaluated in light of Applicant’s remarks, and it has been determined that such limitations are standard operations -- well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in the art. Further, the specification does not appear to point to any particular diagnostic algorithm or resetting algorithm. The Examiner maintains the additional elements are directed to well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first module for attaching the information communication device…” in claim 1
“a third module for preparing a packet including the at least one operating parameter” in claim 1
“a fourth module for communicating the packet” in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Specifically, from the specification, as originally filed,
“a first module for attaching the information communication device…” in claim 1 corresponds to physical structure(s) that attach to a turbomachine as per para. [0071] “This device includes a module 102 for attaching the device to the turbomachine. For example, the attachment module 102 can include attachment clips with multipoint physical attachment means.”
“a fourth module for communicating the packet” in claim 1 corresponds to structure(s) that allow for wired or wireless communication as per para. [0073] The communication module can include an interface for wired communication (a socket), or wireless communication means.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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, 3, and 6-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a third module for preparing a packet including the at least one operating parameter” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is not clear what said third module is, i.e., whether this is supposed to be referring to software or hardware of an information device. The link to the structure of said unit to the functions stated in the claim is missing. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3 and 6-9 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation “a third module for preparing a packet including the at least one operating parameter” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The link to the structure of said unit to the function(s) stated in the claim is missing. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets said third module as memory (i.e., RAM) that stores a packet (data) prior to transmission.
Claims 3 and 6-9 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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, 3, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1:
Independent claim 1 is directed to a method. 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 in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below). Claim 1 recites:
(Claim 1) A method for managing a fleet of information communication devices with reversible attachment on aircraft turbomachines, comprising:
determining, among a plurality of digital twins configured to simulate operational states of turbomachines, a set of digital twins for which at least one portion of a digital twin of the set of digital twins is in an out-of-date state, wherein the out-of-date state of at the least one portion of the digital twin of the set of digital twins is related to a duration since a last update of the at least one portion exceeding a duration threshold,
identifying, among a fleet of turbomachines, a plurality of turbomachines associated with said out-of-date state of the at least one portion of the digital twin of the set of digital twins,
choosing a subgroup of turbomachines among said plurality of identified turbomachines, and for each turbomachine of said subgroup of turbomachines,
associating, by a remote server, an information communication device among said fleet of information communication devices with a turbomachine among said subgroup of turbomachines, wherein the information communication device includes a first module for attaching the information communication device, a second module for acquiring at least one operating parameter, a third module for preparing a packet including the at least one operating parameter, a fourth module for communicating the packet, and a battery powering at least one of first module, the second module, the third module, or the fourth module,
attaching the associated information communication device to the associated turbomachine with the first module,
acquiring, with the second module, the at least one operating parameter of the associated turbomachine, wherein the second module includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, and an accelerometer, and the at least one operating parameter includes at least one of a temperature, a pressure, or an acceleration,
preparing, with the third module, the packet including the at least one acquired operating parameter, said packet allowing an update of the digital twin of the associated turbomachine,
withdrawing the associated information communication device from the associated turbomachine by disconnecting the first module from the associated turbomachine,
communicating, with the fourth module, said packet to a digital twin storage entity,
updating the digital twin of the associated turbomachine based on the at least one acquired operating parameter by implementing a diagnosis based on the at least one acquired operating parameter, and
generating an alert to inspect the associated turbomachine based on the update of the digital twin of said turbomachine, wherein the update includes a resetting of health data.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute “mental processes” – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Specifically, the limitation: “determining, among a plurality of digital twins configured to simulate operational states of turbomachines, a set of digital twins for which at least one portion … is in an out-of-date state … related to a duration since a last update … exceeding a duration threshold” in the context of this claim encompasses mental observation. A person can mentally observe that a model/simulation is out of date by noticing that too much time has elapsed since a last update of a model/simulation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this is an evaluation of how much time has elapsed against a threshold.
The limitation: “identifying, among a fleet of turbomachines, a plurality of turbomachines associated with said out-of-date state of the at least one portion of the digital twin of the set of digital twins” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation by correlation of data. A person can mentally observe that a turbomachine model/simulation is out of date by noticing that too much time has elapsed since a last update. A person can mentally identify which turbomachines are associated with the out-of-date models/simulations.
The limitation: “choosing a subgroup of turbomachines among said plurality of identified turbomachines…” in the context of this claim encompasses mental judgement by organized decision-making. A person can mentally select a number of turbomachines to collect data from.
The limitation: “associating … an information communication device … with a turbomachine among said subgroup of turbomachines” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation by correlation of data. A person can mentally associate (i.e., correlate) which information communication devices are associated with turbomachines.
The limitation: “preparing … the packet including the at least one acquired operating parameter…” in the context of this claim encompasses mental evaluation. A person can mentally sort and organize acquired data.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. Collectively, these limitations amount to: collecting information, analyzing it, updating records, and notifying user(s). Similarly, it has been held that examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) – See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II:
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea(s) into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
(Claim 1) A method for managing a fleet of information communication devices with reversible attachment on aircraft turbomachines, comprising:
determining, among a plurality of digital twins configured to simulate operational states of turbomachines, a set of digital twins for which at least one portion of a digital twin of the set of digital twins is in an out-of-date state, wherein the out-of-date state of at the least one portion of the digital twin of the set of digital twins is related to a duration since a last update of the at least one portion exceeding a duration threshold,
identifying, among a fleet of turbomachines, a plurality of turbomachines associated with said out-of-date state of the at least one portion of the digital twin of the set of digital twins,
choosing a subgroup of turbomachines among said plurality of identified turbomachines, and for each turbomachine of said subgroup of turbomachines,
associating, by a remote server, an information communication device among said fleet of information communication devices with a turbomachine among said subgroup of turbomachines, wherein the information communication device includes a first module for attaching the information communication device, a second module for acquiring at least one operating parameter, a third module for preparing a packet including the at least one operating parameter, a fourth module for communicating the packet, and a battery powering at least one of the first module, the second module, the third module, or the fourth module,
attaching the associated information communication device to the associated turbomachine with the first module,
acquiring, with the second module, the at least one operating parameter of the associated turbomachine, wherein the second module includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, and an accelerometer, and the at least one operating parameter includes at least one of a temperature, a pressure, or an acceleration,
preparing, with the third module, the packet including the at least one acquired operating parameter, said packet allowing an update of the digital twin of the associated turbomachine,
withdrawing the associated information communication device from the associated turbomachine by disconnecting the first module from the associated turbomachine,
communicating, with the fourth module, said packet to a digital twin storage entity,
updating the digital twin of the associated turbomachine based on the at least one acquired operating parameter by implementing a diagnosis based on the at least one acquired operating parameter, and
generating an alert to inspect the associated turbomachine based on the update of the digital twin of said turbomachine, wherein the update includes a resetting of health data.
For the following reason(s), the Examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the computer elements:
Regarding the additional limitations of “a remote server” and “information communication device”, the remote server acts merely as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract ideas. Applicant’s specification para. [0057] discloses that the method steps may be either implemented by the device or a remote server. The remote server does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly, the information communication device acts merely as a tool to perform the aforementioned abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component/tool cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the data gathering steps:
The sensor(s) used are conventional sensors (temperature, pressure, and/or accelerometer) that are used only for the purpose of mere gathering data (“acquiring…” limitation). The additional limitations of “attaching…” and “withdrawing…”, amount to a person physically connecting the sensor(s) to collect data to a turbomachine, and once data is collected, the person removing the sensor(s) from the turbomachine. These additional elements contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, only to be used for mere data gathering and is insignificant extra-solution activity. It has been held that “a transformation that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more (or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application)” (MPEP2106.05(c).
Regarding the technological environment:
The turbomachine(s) is/are merely the environment in which maintenance is managed. Limiting the use of data collection to aircraft turbomachines is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and does not provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Regarding the post solution activity steps:
The additional limitations of “communicating…” and “updating…” under broadest reasonable interpretation amounts to post-solution activity in the form of transmitting collected data or results obtained from the “acquiring” and “preparing” step described above using known data transmission techniques. These limitations do not serve to improve computer functionality or data transmission technology and only amounts to sending and receiving data. Mere transmission of data over network(s) is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The additional limitations of “implementing a diagnosis…” amounts to an output of new data for updating into a model/simulation. The diagnosis is recited at a high level of generality in the claim. The specification was evaluated by the Examiner to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, the implementation of a diagnosis as providing an improvement. The implementation of a diagnosis is recited once in Applicant’s specification [0067] but substantially recites the same language as in the claim. There is no description of what this diagnosis comprises or how the acquired data is used to implement a diagnosis. For example, from the claims, is updating the digital twin an implementation of a diagnosis? Claims that include mere transmission of data have been found ineligible, and this implementation of a diagnosis in light of Applicant’s specification does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary data output - collection and transmission of sensor data and does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. Similarly, it has been held in Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016), that the displaying the results of abstract data analysis is not patent eligible.
The additional limitations of “generating an alert to inspect the associated turbomachine based on the update of the digital twin of said turbomachine, wherein the update includes a resetting of health data” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Para. [0068] discusses that through this performed update “[i]t is then possible to generate alerts such recommendation”. As from para. [0068] while, “it is possible” to generate an alert, the Examiner finds there is nothing in the specification or drawings that suggests an alert after an update is critical, essential, or required to the invention. The generation of an alert is a step that is incidental to the primary process or merely nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Additionally, the alert is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of a recommendation), and amount to mere insignificant post solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further the resetting of health data is recited once in Applicant’s specification [0067] but substantially recites the same language as in the claim. There is no description of what this reset comprises or how the reset is implemented. For example, from the claims, is an update to a value considered a reset because an update set a new value? If this is the case, receiving and transmitting data periodically to update values does not go beyond mere data transmission. Claims that include mere transmission of data have been found ineligible, and this resetting of health data in light of Applicant’s specification does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary data output - collection and transmission of sensor data and does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
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, that 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 (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 2019 PEG, 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. The background does not provide any indication that these computer elements are anything other than generic, off the-shelf computer components.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional (WRC) activity in the field.
Regarding the computer elements:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of a remote server and information communication device in the claim amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The information communication device is claimed to be “reversible” (capable of being attached/withdrawn), but these features are WRC. Brown teaches a removable data storage device. Further Applicant’s specification discloses the WRC nature of a device being reversible in para. [0059] stating “[i]ndeed, the device is of the LRU (Line Replaceable Unit) type well known to the person skilled in the art and indicating that the device can be attached/withdrawn during an aircraft stopover”. The specification is also devoid of any reference to an unconventional sensor hardware as it appears the sensor(s) used to collect data are conventional sensors (temperature, pressure, and/or accelerometer).
Regarding the data gathering steps:
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquiring…” and the preceding and subsequent steps of “attaching…” and “withdrawing…” respectively, these additional limitations have been reevaluated, and it has been determined that such limitations are conventional as they merely consist of data gathering and data transmitting which are recited at a high level of generality. See OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); or buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Additionally, as supporting evidence of WRC activity, “attaching…”, “acquiring…”, and “withdrawing…” are taught in Brown (Fig. 1 step 102: mount data storage device 30 to engine 10 and step 108: retrieve engine data and step 110: repeat for other engines for additional engine data; supported by [0027] The data storage device 30 may be removed from its mounting location on the gas turbine engine 10 to connect with the peripheral device 38).
Regarding the insignificant post solution activity steps:
Examples of insignificant post-solution activities can include merely displaying a result (e.g., output) on a display device, merely communicating a message based on the result, merely recording the result in a memory storage device, and the like. Adding a final step of transmitting collected information to a process that recites an abstract idea does not add a meaningful limitation to the process. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. In light of Applicant’s specification, the Examiner finds the step of “generating an alert” is considered an optional next step to take after performing an update, rather than an integral aspect of the invention.
Regarding the resetting of health data, this limitation is recited once in Applicant’s specification [0067] but substantially recites the same language as in the claim. There is no description of what this reset comprises or how the reset is implemented. For example, from the claims, is an update to a value considered a reset because an update set a new value? If this is the case, receiving and transmitting data periodically to update values does not go beyond mere data transmission. Claims that include mere transmission of data have been found ineligible, and this resetting of health data in light of Applicant’s specification does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary data output - mere transmission of sensor data and does not transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application.
In addition, from remarks filed 07/08/2026, the Examiner agrees with Applicant that these are standard operations in the field of predictive maintenance and digital twin technology. There does not appear to be any evidence suggesting that any of the corrective actions are not standard operations.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3 and 6-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) 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, specifically only reciting additional activities that may also be reasonably performed in the human mind (i.e., claim 3 further elaborating on how the out-of-date state is determined; claim 6 developing step; claim 7, comparison step), or do no more than generally link a judicial exception to a particular technological environment, i.e., an aircraft environment (claims 8-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, and 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 112(b), and 101 set forth in this Office Action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts on record do not teach, describe, and/or suggest all the limitations as presented in the claim as a whole – specifically in agreement with Applicant’s argument in p. 12 of remarks, the digital twin as a virtual replica reproducing and/or simulation the operation of the turbomachine. The closest prior art, McElhinney does not teach "determining, among a plurality of digital twins configured to simulate operational states of turbomachines, a set of digital twins for which at least one portion of a digital twin of the set of digital twins is in an out-of-date state, wherein the out-of-date state of at the least one portion of the digital twin of the set of digital twins is related to a duration since a last update of the at least one portion exceeding a duration threshold," as in amended claim 1.
The dependent claims are also potentially allowable as they are dependent on potentially allowable claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20160314222-A1: Djelassi describes a method and system for resetting a digital model
US-20190147412-A1: Chiaramonte describes updating digital twin models of a plurality of engines, i.e. FIG. 17
US-20190146000-A1: Hurst describes monitoring a turbine engine using a digital twin model
US-20190146470-A1: Akkaram describes use of digital twin model of an asset
US-20190138970-A1: Deutsch describes digital twin models of multiple gas turbines, i.e., FIG. 4
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVIN SEOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-6488. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached on (571) 270-3969. 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.
/DAVIN SEOL/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights