DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3, and 6-9 are pending, and claims dated 11/04/2025 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/02/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/04/2025 with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1 recites two limitations A and B, cited in part below, that fail to provide adequate written description support:
“updating the digital twin of the associated turbomachine based on the at least one acquired operating parameter by implementing a diagnosis based on the acquired operating parameter”
“wherein the update includes a resetting of health data”
The specification, as originally filed, recites:
[0066] …An additional processing can then be implemented if the discrepancy is considered too large (typically the generation of an alert).
[0067] Also, it is possible, with the new information, to perform an update the digital twin with, in particular:
- a resetting of health data,
- an implementation of a diagnosis based on the information received,
- a supply of a database,
- an update of a health model of the turbomachine,
- an additional configuration of the device.
[0068] It is then possible to generate alerts such recommendation to inspect or add another device (particularly if this other device is equipped with other sensors).
With regards to A., the claim affirmatively requires that the digital twin is updated by implementing a diagnosis. A mere statement that it is “possible” to update the digital twin by implementing a diagnosis does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed requirement of “updating the digital twin by implementing a diagnosis” when the disclosure does not describe or explain:
What the diagnosis is
How the diagnosis is implemented
How the diagnosis affects anything
The specification appears to provide only a conclusory statement of possibility and lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate possession of the claimed relationship between implementing a diagnosis and updating the digital twin.
Similarly, with regards to B, the claim requires the update to include a resetting of health data. A mere statement that it is “possible” to update the digital twin with a resetting of health data does not reasonably convey possession of the claimed requirement of the update including a resetting of health data when the disclosure does not describe or explain:
What the reset is and how the reset is implemented (which absent an explanation, raises claim scope questions such as - Is a reset clearing memory? Is a reset reinitializing a model? Is a reset recalculating a value? Is an update to a value considered a reset because an update sets a new value?)
How the reset affects anything
The specification provides only a conclusory statement of possibility and lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate possession of the claimed relationship between a resetting of health data and updating the digital twin.
Claims 3 and 6-9 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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, when describing the information communication device in the “associating, by a remote server…” paragraph, recites “and a battery power at least one of the modules”. This language is grammatically unclear. It is not clear whether this means a battery powers at least one module, or the battery is part of at least one of the modules, or something else. “The modules” lack antecedent basis, and is unclear whether this refers to all modules (i.e., modules 1-4) or a select number of modules (i.e., only modules 1-3). For examination purposes, this is interpreted as a battery that powers at least one module.
Regarding claim 1, in the “updating the digital twin…” paragraph, recites “based on the acquired operating parameter”. However, the claim previously recites at least one acquired parameter, so in a case two or more operating parameters are acquired, this limitation is not clear. For examination purposes, this is interpreted as “based on the at least one acquired operating parameter”.
Claims 3 and 6-9 are similarly rejected, because of their dependencies on rejected claim 1.
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 software (i.e., memory) 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, 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 power at least one of the modules,
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 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, 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. In light of Applicant’s specification para. [0002], a digital twin is “an information representation”. A digital twin may be a digital model and/or simulation of a physical turbomachine. 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 stored information 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, 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 power at least one of the modules,
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 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 to a storage. 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. All the additional elements were WRC as supported by case law and in the cited prior art, McElhinney et al. (US-20160371585-A1), in view Brown (US-20080125950-A1).
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. Additionally, as supporting evidence of WRC activity, McElhinney teaches generating an alert.
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.
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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McElhinney et al. (US-20160371585-A1), in view Brown (US-20080125950-A1) and herein after will be referred to as McElhinney and Brown, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, McElhinney teaches a method for managing a fleet of information communication devices with reversible attachment on aircraft turbomachines, comprising:
determining, among a plurality of digital twins ([0150] As one example, the analytics system 108 may be configured to define predictive models and corresponding workflows based on received operating data for one or more assets and/or received external data related to the one or more assets), 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 least one portion of a digital twin is related a duration since a last update of the portion exceeding a duration threshold ([0237] The analytics system 108 may update a model daily, weekly, monthly, etc; [0371] Conversely, the local analytics device 220 may have an outdated version of either or both of the model or PSFs. As such, the local analytics device 220 may be configured to modify the PSF for the local analytics device (e.g., by decreasing the prediction accuracies and/or increasing the costs) based on an amount of time that has elapsed since the predictive model was last updated, since the PFS was last updated, or some combination thereof. In some cases, the local analytics device 220 may do so if the amount of time exceeds a threshold amount of time. In sum, in a particular example embodiment, the local analytics device 220 may (a) modify the local-analytics-device PSF based on an amount of time since an update to (a1) the predictive model that PSF corresponds to).
Examiner Note: In light of Applicant’s specification para. [0002], a digital twin is “an information representation”. In McElhinney, the models in the analytic system are an information representation of the assets (FIG. 1, [0150]). Therefore, Examiner corresponds the models in McElhinney to the claimed “digital twins”.
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 (FIG. 1 assets 102, 104; [0083] assets may include …aircraft; [0084] assets 102 and 104 may each be of the same type (e.g. a fleet of …aircrafts); [0098] For instance, in the context of transportation assets, examples of subsystems 202 may include engines; [0371] …may have an outdated version of either or both of the model or PSFs […] modify the PSF […] if the amount of time exceeds a threshold amount of time),
choosing a subgroup of turbomachines among said plurality of identified turbomachines, and for each turbomachine of said subgroup of turbomachines (FIG. 1 assets 102, 104),
associating, by a remote server ([0009] A number of assets may provide respective data indicative of each asset's operating conditions to the remote computing system, which may be configured to perform one or more operations based on the provided data. Typically, sensor and/or actuator data (e.g., “signal data”) may be utilized for general asset-monitoring operations), an information communication device among said fleet of information communication devices with a turbomachine among said subgroup of turbomachines (FIG. 2 asset 200 comprising sensor(s) 204; [0009] each asset may include multiple sensors and/or actuators distributed throughout the asset that facilitate monitoring operating conditions of the asset),
wherein the information communication device includes […], a second module for acquiring at least one operating parameter (FIG. 2 sensor(s) 204), […] a fourth module for communicating the packet (FIG.1 communicating sensor data to models in analytics system 108; [0009] A number of assets may provide respective data indicative of each asset's operating conditions to the remote computing system, which may be configured to perform one or more operations based on the provided data.),
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 ([0102] Additionally, various sensors 204 may be configured to measure other operating conditions of the asset 200, examples of which may include temperatures, pressures, speeds, acceleration or deceleration rates, friction, power usages, fuel usages, fluid levels, runtimes, voltages and currents, magnetic fields, electric fields, presence or absence of objects, positions of components, and power generation, among other examples),
[…] communicating, with the fourth module, said packet to a digital twin storage entity (FIG. 1 sensors of assets 102, 104 communicate to models of analytics system 108 the sensor information to update the models via communication network 106; [0009] A number of assets may provide respective data indicative of each asset's operating conditions to the remote computing system, which may be configured to perform one or more operations based on the provided data. Typically, sensor and/or actuator data (e.g., “signal data”) may be utilized for general asset-monitoring operations),
updating the digital twin of the associated turbomachine based on the at least one acquired operating parameter by implementing a diagnosis based on the acquired operating parameter, and ([0205] As the analytics system 108 continues to receive updated operating data for the group of one or more assets, the analytics system 108 may also continue to refine the predictive model for the defined set of one or more failures by repeating steps 704-710 on the updated operating data; [0199] In example implementations, one or more predictive models for monitoring the health of an asset may be utilized to output a health metric (e.g., “health score”) for an asset; [0206] Starting with block 702, as noted above, the analytics system 108 may begin by defining a set of the one or more failures that form the basis for the health metric)
Examiner Note: In McElhinney, Examiner interprets the data the sensors send to the model the corresponds to the claimed “packet”, and the implementing of a health metric corresponds to the claimed “implementing a diagnosis”.
generating an alert to inspect the associated turbomachine based on the update of the digital twin of said turbomachine ([0108] When such a determination is affirmative, the central processing unit 206 may generate abnormal-condition data and may also cause the asset's user interface 212 to output an indication of the abnormal condition, such as a visual and/or audible alert; [0109] FIG. 3 depicts a conceptual illustration of example abnormal-condition indicators and respective triggering criteria for an asset; [0139] In the event the processing unit determines that one or more abnormal-condition indicators are triggered, the processing unit may be configured to perform one or more local operations, such as outputting an indication of the triggered indicator via a user interface),
wherein the update includes a resetting of health data ([0205] As the analytics system 108 continues to receive updated operating data for the group of one or more assets, the analytics system 108 may also continue to refine the predictive model for the defined set of one or more failures by repeating steps 704-710 on the updated operating data; [0237] In practice, the analytics system 108 may be configured to update the individual failure models and/or the overall health-metric model)
Examiner Note: Applicant’s specification does not describe how the reset is implemented or what constitutes a reset. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Examiner interprets a reset is defined as setting something again or differently, and in McElhinney, an update sets the health metric again to a new updated value. Therefore, in McElhinney, Examiner interprets an update to the health metric corresponds to the claimed “a resetting of health data”.
In McElhinney, the information communication device is not explicitly disclosed to be “reversible”, so McElhinney does not explicitly teach: wherein the information communication device includes a first module for attaching the information communication device, a third module for preparing a packet including the at least one operating parameter, and a battery power at least one of the modules, attaching the associated information communication device to the associated turbomachine with the first module, 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.
However, Brown teaches wherein the information communication device (FIG. 4 data storage device 30) includes a first module for attaching the information communication device (FIG. 5 step 102: mount data storage device 30 to engine 10),
a second module for acquiring at least one operating parameter (FIG. 5 step 104: track engine data 104),
a third module for preparing a packet including the at least one operating parameter (FIG. 5 step 106: upload engine data into data storage device 30; [0030] For example, an engine maintenance log may be created on the peripheral device 38 and the engine data, including engine history data and engine parts data, may be recorded within the engine maintenance log), and
a battery power at least one of the modules ([0018] …devices with their own power source are also possible),
attaching the associated information communication device to the associated turbomachine with the first module (FIG. 5 step 102: mount data storage device 30 to engine 10),
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 (FIG. 5 step 106: upload engine data into data storage device 30),
withdrawing the associated information communication device from the associated turbomachine by disconnecting the first module from the associated turbomachine (Fig. 5 step 108: retrieve engine data and step 110: repeat for other engines for additional engine data; [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).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to modify the information communication device as taught in McElhinney to incorporate the teachings of Brown to include wherein the information communication device includes a first module for attaching the information communication device, a third module for preparing a packet including the at least one operating parameter, and a battery power at least one of the modules, attaching the associated information communication device to the associated turbomachine with the first module, 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, with a reasonable expectation of success since doing so would have achieved the benefit providing convenience by allowing easy removal and replacement of the information communication device, and “providing an improved process for recording engine data and reducing the opportunity for human error in recording the engine data” (Brown [0005]).
Regarding claim 3, McElhinney, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
McElhinney also teaches wherein the out-of-date state of the at least one portion of the digital twin of the turbomachine set of digital twins is related to detection of an event chosen from a group comprising: a discrepancy between information of said portion and information coming from the associated turbomachine exceeding a threshold relating to this information or an alert ([0166] A particular data-transmission scheme may indicate how an asset transmits data to the analytics system 108. […] In some example implementations, a particular data-transmission scheme may correspond to a predictive model for asset health and may be adjusted to transmit data less frequently based on an asset health that is above a threshold value).
Regarding claim 6, McElhinney, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
McElhinney also teaches further comprising developing the digital twin of the set of digital twins from an indicator ([0109] FIG. 3 depicts a conceptual illustration of example abnormal-condition indicators and respective triggering criteria for an asset).
Regarding claim 7, McElhinney, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
McElhinney also teaches further comprising a comparison processing of an indicator that allows the update of the digital twin of the associated turbomachine ([0140] the asset 102 may transmit operating data to the analytics system 108 continuously, periodically, and/or in response to triggering events (e.g., abnormal conditions) […] Additionally or alternatively, the asset 102 may be configured to transmit operating data based on certain triggers, such as when sensor and/or actuator measurements satisfy triggering criteria for any abnormal-condition indicators).
Examiner Note: In McElhinney, Examiner interprets the comparing of the indicator with an abnormal condition triggering criteria to determine whether the asset needs to transmit data to update the model corresponds to the claimed “comparison processing”.
Regarding claim 8, McElhinney, as modified, teaches the method according to claim 1.
McElhinney also teaches wherein the digital twin storage entity is embedded by an aircraft or is remote (FIG. 1 remote analytics system 108 or FIG. 2 local analytics device 220; [0028] It should also be understood that the relative advantages of executing a given predictive model at the remote computing system vs. a local analytics device may vary on a model-by-model basis).
Regarding claim 9, McElhinney, as modified, teaches a method for managing a fleet of turbomachines by means of devices managed according to the method according to claim 1 ([0379] the method 1500 may involve the analytics system 108 receiving respective operating data for a plurality of assets (e.g., the assets 102 and 104). At block 1504, the method 1500 may involve the analytics system 108, based on the received operating data, defining a predictive model and a corresponding workflow (e.g., a failure model and corresponding workflow) that are related to the operation of the plurality of assets).
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
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