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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 3 is rendered moot due to cancellation.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Amended Claim 6 recites “wherein the operations further include summing a set of procedures to dynamically define intervention and order of interventions for multiple simultaneously-present failures of the complex aircraft system without the summed set of procedures being limited to predefined cases (emphasis added)”. This is not supported by the Specification as filed, because the Specification contains no discussion of defining any order of interventions for multiple simultaneous failures. Paragraph [0067] of the Specification states …”then a set of more elementary procedures can be written that can be summed in order to define the intervention for a complex set of multiple failures, not only to predefined cases”. This may be interpreted as summing the elementary procedures in some order to define the intervention; or merely summing the elementary procedures to define the intervention. However, there is no teaching in paragraph [0067], or anywhere else in the Specification, of using the summing of the procedures to define an order of interventions as is recited in amended Claim 6.
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 6, 8, 11-12, 14, 17, 19, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Independent Claim 25 recites a computer implemented method. Thus, the claims are to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 25 recites:
A computer-implemented method for modeling a failure managing framework based on a model having specific elements, and automatically, dynamically determining ontologically-defined procedures comprising interventions and order of interventions to restore operational capability of a complex aircraft system subject to multipoint failure, the method comprising automatically performing [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process because it can be performed by in the human mind], with at least one computer processor, operations comprising:
accessing, in a memory, a system state graph (SSG) modeling the complex aircraft system, the stored SSG comprising nodes representing:
(a) state of components of the complex aircraft system,
(b) state of functions of the complex aircraft system, and
(c) mapped relationships of the components with the functions and/or other components;
receiving signals from sensors monitoring the complex aircraft system;
determining component states and function states in response to the received signals, the component states and function states including at least operational states, failed states and unavailable states [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process because it can be performed by in the human mind];
updating the component states and the function states of the nodes of the SSG based on the determined component states and the determined function states, taking into account the mapped relationships of the components with the functions and/or other components [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process because it can be performed by in the human mind]; and
automatically searching the updated SSG to dynamically determine an ontologically-defined procedure comprising interventions and order of interventions to recover functions and operational capability of the complex aircraft system, the ontologically-defined procedure comprising one or more of:
(i) physical isolation of a component,
(ii) reset of a component,
(iii) activation of a backup component, and
(iv) real-time reconfiguration of a component during operation [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites a mental process because it can be performed by in the human mind; it is noted that actually performing the ontologically-defined procedure is not claimed].
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., a computer, a computer processor, ”accessing, in a memory, a system state graph (SSG) modeling the complex aircraft system, the stored SSG comprising nodes representing: (a) state of components of the complex aircraft system, (b) state of functions of the complex aircraft system, and (c) mapped relationships of the components with the functions and/or other components; receiving signals from sensors monitoring the complex aircraft system”).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the method steps (i.e., the determining, updating, and searching steps) are performed. The computer and computer processor are merely generic computer hardware to perform the method steps. The accessing and receiving steps are mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claims 6, 8, 11-12, 14, 17, 19, and 24 merely recite further details of the mental process, and are also not patent eligible. It is noted that Claim 8 merely very broadly claims use of a known training method for artificial intelligence (see, for example, paragraph [0026] of Chen et al, U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0371481), and therefore cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 25, 11, 12, 19, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilmering et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0174612, hereinafter “Wilmering”) in view of Parker et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0375520, hereinafter “Parker”).
Regarding Claim 25, Wilmering teaches a computer-implemented method (onboard computer 206, offboard computer 218) for modeling a failure managing framework based on a model having specific elements (models 210 and 226), and automatically, dynamically determining ontologically-defined procedures comprising interventions and order of interventions to restore operational capability of a complex aircraft system subject to multipoint failure (abstract and paragraph [0002], failure modes and related aircraft maintenance), the method comprising automatically performing, with at least one computer processor (onboard computer 206, offboard computer 218), operations comprising: accessing, in a memory, a system state graph (SSG) modeling the complex aircraft system (Figs. 3-4, graphs; paragraphs [0047]-0050]; graph indicates the state of the system), the stored SSG comprising nodes representing:(a) state of components of the complex aircraft system (paragraph [0049], braking system is a component), (b) state of functions of the complex aircraft system (paragraph [0049], braking is a function), and (c) mapped relationships of the components with the functions and/or other components (paragraph [0049], wheelspeed transducer failure); receiving signals from sensors monitoring the complex aircraft system (paragraphs [0043] and [0049], data regarding the failed tests includes sensor data); determining component states and function states in response to the received signals, the component states and function states including at least operational states, failed states and unavailable states (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]; detected faults include operational states, failed states, and unavailable states of various components and functions, i.e. if a particular component or function is determined to have a particular fault, another component or function is determined not to be the source of the fault, and the faulty component or function may be unavailable); updating the component states and the function states of the nodes of the SSG based on the determined component states and the determined function states, taking into account the mapped relationships of the components with the functions and/or other components (end of paragraph [0048], paragraphs [0058]-[0063], updating the model, which is performed throughout operation of the aircraft); and automatically searching the updated SSG to dynamically determine an ontologically-defined procedure comprising interventions and order of interventions to recover functions and operational capability of the complex aircraft system (Fig. 3, instructions 314, paragraphs [0049] and [0063]).
Wilmering does not specifically teach that the ontologically-defined procedure comprises one or more of: (i) physical isolation of a component, (ii) reset of a component, (iii) activation of a backup component (no patentable weight due to “one or more of”), and (iv) real-time reconfiguration of a component during operation. However, Wilmering does teach ontologically-defined maintenance procedures (Fig. 3, instructions 314, paragraphs [0049] and [0063]). Further, Parker teaches a model (paragraph [0023]) that determines procedures comprising (iv) real-time reconfiguration of a component during operation (paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the reconfiguration of Parker in the system of Wilmering, in order to quickly apply an appropriate repair action and avoid out of service time (see Parker, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding dependent Claim 11, Wilmering in view of Parker teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 25. Wilmering further teaches wherein the nodes of the SSG include any of Function type elements, Component type elements, Degradation type elements, Supports type elements, Trends type elements, Functional Threshold type elements, and Logics type elements (Fig. 3, components and functions; other types given no patentable weight due to “any of”).
Regarding dependent Claim 12, Wilmering in view of Parker teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 25. Wilmering further teaches wherein the current states for the elements include any of Loss of Function, Component Reset, Component Isolation, Component Activation, Degradation Reset, Degradation Mitigation, Support Abnormal Use, and Support Depleted (Fig. 3, fault equated to loss of function; other states given no patentable weight due to “any of”).
Regarding dependent Claim 19, Wilmering in view of Parker teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 25. Wilmering further teaches wherein the SSG represents an ontological database (Figs. 3-4, it is noted that “ontological database” merely refers to a stored graph that show relations between concepts in a domain, as evidenced by Shi-Nash et al, U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0195854, paragraphs [0059] and [0119]).
Regarding dependent Claim 24, Wilmering in view of Parker teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 25. Wilmering further teaches wherein the operations further comprise updating the nodes of the stored SSG based on environment and context to reflect current operational and non-operational state of the nodes (end of paragraph [0048], paragraphs [0058]-[0063], updating the model, which is performed throughout operation of the aircraft).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilmering in view of Parker and Chen et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0371481, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding dependent Claim 8, Wilmering in view of Parker teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 25. Wilmering does not specifically teach further including using design reward functions to train artificial intelligence algorithms to perform systems intervention. However, Chen teaches, in paragraph [0026], using design of reward functions to train a neural network. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include design reward training, as taught in Chen, in the system of Wilmering, in order to employ reinforcement learning to train a neural network (see Chen, paragraph [0026]).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilmering in view of Parker and Dixit et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0122656, hereinafter “Dixit”).
Regarding dependent Claim 14, Wilmering in view of Parker teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 25. Wilmering does not specifically teach wherein executing of a Top-Down Functional Search includes initiating the Top-Down Functional Search at functional thresholds, and tasking the Top-Down Functional Search with recovering a function that is lost. However, Dixit teaches wherein executing of a Top-Down Functional Search includes initiating the Top-Down Functional Search at functional thresholds, and tasking the Top-Down Functional Search with recovering a function that is lost (model domain knowledge 20; paragraph [0025], anomalies and failure modes equated to function that is lost; paragraphs [0032] and [0036], thresholds). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the search and thresholds of Dixit in the system of Wilmering, in order to identify anomalies and failure modes (see Dixit, paragraph [0025]).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilmering in view of Parker and Chopra et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0147670, hereinafter “Chopra”).
Regarding dependent Claim 17, Wilmering in view of Parker teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 25. Wilmering does not specifically teach wherein the searching includes monitoring state of elements of an aircraft fault management system at a frequency dependent on system dynamics. However, Wilmering does teach use of sensors (paragraph [0043]). Further, Chopra teaches in paragraph [0037] that sensor parameters may be sampled at a particular frequency based on the nature of the parameter and how frequently it changes, which is equated to the frequency depending on system dynamics. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to sample parameters according to particular frequencies, as taught in Chopra, in the system of Wilmering, in order to collect data for parameters that indicate the condition or health of an aircraft (see Chopra, paragraph [0037]).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to the Specification, Applicant’s characterization, on page 13 of the arguments filed 2/6/2026, of the incorporated subject matter as non-essential is noted.
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the prior art rejections, new grounds of rejection are provided above based on Applicant’s new and amended Clams.
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant argues on page 9 that receiving sensor data integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner disagrees, because this is mere gathering of data from generic sensors. Applicant further argues on pages 9-11 the determining component states and function states based on the received data, and searching a graph, cannot be performed in the human mind. The Examiner disagrees. A human may examine received sensor data and locate nodes in a graph based on the received sensor data. It is noted that the Claims do not require the searching to be performed at any particular speed; nor do the Claims require the graph be particularly complex. Further, causing the searching to be performed by a computer processor, as is performed in Applicant’s claims, is merely use of generic computer hardware to implement the abstract idea.
Applicant goes on to argue on pages 11-13 that the Claims are an improvement to a particular technology. The Examiner disagrees because the Claims are obvious (see the updated rejections provided above).
Regarding Applicant’s request for an interview, it is recommended that Applicant schedule an interview after Applicant has reviewed the new grounds of rejection provided herein, because any refinements to the claim language would need to be made in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Although there is no prior art rejection for the claim 6, the Examiner cannot comment on its allowability until the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(a) is satisfactorily addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am to 3pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571)272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857