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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on October 29, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, which is illustrative of the all independent claims and analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for the maintenance of commercial aircraft. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the method for the maintenance of commercial aircraft by the maintenance personnel at the maintenance station. The claim recites the steps: determining the required items of maintenance work of at least one aircraft…, upon determining that the deadline of at least one item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the first period of time: specifying a maintenance station adequately equipped for carrying out the maintenance work…, upon determining that the deadline of an item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the second period of time: specifying at least one time span required for carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft within the second period of time, and specifying the routing of all aircrafts in the flight network in consideration of the technical data of the aircraft and the technical requirements of the individual flight routes…, and carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft at the specified maintenance station in the provided ground time based on the flight routes of the fight network and the routing of the aircraft in the flight network comprising the ground times of the aircraft, wherein the items of maintenance work include arising repair measures identified during execution of carrying out the items of maintenance work on the aircraft, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions (including marketing, sales activities, behaviors, business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities , teaching, and following rules or instructions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The claim recites the steps of: determining the required items of maintenance work of at least one aircraft…, upon determining that the deadline of at least one item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the first period of time: specifying a maintenance station adequately equipped for carrying out the maintenance work…, upon determining that the deadline of an item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the second period of time: specifying at least one time span required for carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft within the second period of time, and specifying the routing of all aircrafts in the flight network in consideration of the technical data of the aircraft and the technical requirements of the individual flight routes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim also recites the additional elements “for each of the aircraft of the fleet: technical data, information on required times of maintenance work on a basis of maintenance intervals…”; “for the fleet: a flight plan for a second period of time following the first period of time…”; “for the fight network: maintenance stations in the fight network comprising their technical equipment and capacity are available” are mere data gathering and transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and transmitting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and transmitting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, the additional elements for the fight network: maintenance stations in the fight network comprising their technical equipment and capacity are available” invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (using maintenance stations and technical equipment for performing maintenance process). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claim also recites additional elements a computer and software programming instructions, and using the computer to perform the determining, specifying, and carrying steps. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer function of determining, specifying, and carrying steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements recite generic computer components the computer and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the aircraft/maintenance station, they are just merely used as general means for collecting and transmitting data.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “for each of the aircraft of the fleet: technical data, information on required times of maintenance work on a basis of maintenance intervals…”; “for the fleet: a flight plan for a second period of time following the first period of time…”; “for the fight network: maintenance stations in the fight network comprising their technical equipment and capacity are available” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “for each of the aircraft of the fleet: technical data, information on required times of maintenance work on a basis of maintenance intervals…”; “for the fleet: a flight plan for a second period of time following the first period of time…”; “for the fight network: maintenance stations in the fight network comprising their technical equipment and capacity are available” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the computer to perform limitations determining the required items of maintenance work of at least one aircraft…, upon determining that the deadline of at least one item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the first period of time: specifying a maintenance station adequately equipped for carrying out the maintenance work…, upon determining that the deadline of an item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the second period of time: specifying at least one time span required for carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft within the second period of time, and specifying the routing of all aircrafts in the flight network in consideration of the technical data of the aircraft and the technical requirements of the individual flight routes…, and carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft at the specified maintenance stion in the provided ground time…, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
The Berkheimer Memorandum mandates that an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
(1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(2) a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(3) a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); or
(4) a statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), which satisfies the requirements set forth in MPEP § 2144.03.
In this case, the present Specification described in para [0018] of using a general-purpose computer and available commercial products to perform the method. Thus, the applicant provides (1) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements.
Regarding independent claim 11, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 11 directed to a medium, is also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 2-10, the dependent claims do not add limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites wherein upon determining that the deadline of an item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the second period of time, it is checked whether, as the flight plan progresses out of the first period of time, it is possible to carry out the maintenance work…; Claim 3 recites wherein the items of information on required items of maintenance work comprise specification…; Claim 4 recites wherein the specification of a maintenance station adequately equipped for carrying out the maintenance work…; Claim 5 recites wherein upon determining that there is not sufficient capacity of a maintenance station within the first period of time for specifying carrying out an item of maintenance work on an aircraft a deferrable item of maintenance work on another aircraft at the maintenance station is deferred …; claim 6 recites wherein upon specifying carrying out items of maintenance work in the first period of time, further carrying out at least one item of maintenance work…; Claim 7 recites wherein the technical data of an aircraft comprise specifications of the aircraft type…; Claim 8 recites wherein the required items of maintenance work, items of information on the components of the aircraft affected by the maintenance work…; Claim 9 recites wherein the technical requirements of the individual flight routes comprises takeoff and landing parameters…; Claim 10 recites wherein the first period of time is up to 21 days; Thus, the dependent claims simply refine the abstract ideas that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-11 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of: a flight plan for a second period of time following the first period of time, comprising flight routes of the flight network to be operated having technical requirements of the individual flight routes and not specifying specific aircraft of the fleet to operate the flight routes of the flight network; specifying at least one time span required for carrying out the item(s) of maintenance work on an aircraft within the second period of time, specifying the routing of all aircraft in the flight network in consideration of the technical data of the aircraft and the technical requirements of the individual flight routes, wherein the routing for the aircraft to be maintained has a ground time corresponding to the at least one specified time span at the maintenance station adequately equipped for carrying out the maintenance work; and carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft at the specified maintenance station in the provided ground time based on the flight routes of the fight network and the routing of the aircraft in the flight network comprising the ground times of the aircraft, wherein the items of maintenance work include arising repair measures identified during execution of carrying out the items of maintenance work on the aircraft, recited in the independent claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-11 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (See details above).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the pending claims are not directed to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
The claims recite the method for performing the maintenance of commercial aircraft by the maintenance personnel at the maintenance station. Specification para [00041] described “The corresponding work has to be carried out on the ground at maintenance stations configured for this purpose and equipped with corresponding personnel, wherein maintenance stations are generally only provided at selected points of a flight network”, and para [00421], “wherein capacity relates in this context not only to the technical equipment of the maintenance station, but also to the availability of maintenance personnel at this station. By evening out the utilization, it is ensured that maintenance personnel are utilized evenly.” Therefore, in light of the Specification, the step of “carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft at the specified maintenance station in the provided ground time, wherein the items of maintenance work include arising repair measures identified during execution of carrying out the items of maintenance work on the aircraft” in light of the Specification, is performed by the maintenance personnel following the instructions. The claims recite the steps: determining the required items of maintenance work of at least one aircraft…, upon determining that the deadline of at least one item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the first period of time: specifying a maintenance station adequately equipped for carrying out the maintenance work…, upon determining that the deadline of an item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the second period of time: specifying at least one time span required for carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft within the second period of time, and specifying the routing of all aircrafts in the flight network in consideration of the technical data of the aircraft and the technical requirements of the individual flight routes…, and carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft at the specified maintenance stion in the provided ground time based on the flight routes of the fight network and the routing of the aircraft in the flight network comprising the ground times of the aircraft, wherein the items of maintenance work include arising repair measures identified during execution of carrying out the items of maintenance work on the aircraft, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions (including marketing, sales activities, behaviors, business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities , teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: determining the required items of maintenance work of at least one aircraft…, upon determining that the deadline of at least one item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the first period of time: specifying a maintenance station adequately equipped for carrying out the maintenance work…, upon determining that the deadline of an item of maintenance work of an aircraft falls in the second period of time: specifying at least one time span required for carrying out the items of maintenance work on an aircraft within the second period of time, and specifying the routing of all aircrafts in the flight network in consideration of the technical data of the aircraft and the technical requirements of the individual flight routes, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the pending claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite additional elements a computer and software programming instructions, and using the computer to perform the determining, specifying, and carrying steps. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer function of determining, specifying, and carrying steps) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements recite generic computer components the computer and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f). Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the pending claims provide improvements to the technological field of determining maintenance work periods and routing of aircraft in a fleet of a flight network and carrying out of the items of maintenance work for an aircraft at a specified maintenance station, the Examiner submits that while the disclosure states that “these features provide for generating individual flight routes which may be combined to form a rotation in which flight routes are flown by one aircraft after another in succession to one another. By specifying rotations instead of flight routes combined the computing power for creating a routing of all aircraft in the flight network can generally be reduced for the second period of time (Specification, paragraph [0060]). Additionally, the features of the claims provide for specifying ground times of an aircraft at specific maintenance stations both for the first and second period of time on a plurality of technical parameters which are taken into consideration” (Specification, paragraph [0062]), there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of determining maintenance work periods and routing of aircraft in a fleet of a flight network and carrying out of the items of maintenance work for an aircraft at a specified maintenance station, rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
According, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-11 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dins et al. (US 2018/0012423) disclose the maintenance system is used to monitor the condition or health characteristics of one or more aircraft systems and provides support for an operator or other individual for use in making decisions regarding future maintenance, operation, or use of the aircraft (para [0021]).
Johnson et al. (US 2017/0323403) disclose a method of providing a first set of computer systems with access to a recommendation pertaining to operation of one or more assets based on the one or more assets being in revenue service or in repair
Albouy et al. (US 2015/0066285) disclose a maintenance supervision system for supervising maintenance of a series of vehicles, including various devices and equipment units, the system being capable of: collecting data identifying equipment failures; determining maintenance operations to be carried out on each vehicle, based on the data collected.
Rigal et al. (US 2010/0077046) disclose a method and a device for management of maintenance information items in an aircraft.
McMillin et al. (US 2009/0150022) disclose a method of managing maintenance of an aircraft.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 February 27, 2026