DETAILED ACTI0N
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is a Final Action in response to the communications filed on 03/04/2026.
Claims 1 – 2, 8 – 10, 13, and 15 have been amended.
Applicant’s claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to II. Reply to Examiner’s Response;
Examiner’s Response to III. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
Examiner’s Response to Rejections IV. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claims 1 – 20.
Examiner’s Response to II. Reply to Examiner’s Response.
Applicant argued the cited combination, considered as a whole, does not disclose all the features of currently amended claims 1, 8, and 15, and thus of each claim dependent thereon. In response to Applicant’s argument, Examiner merely pointed out to Applicant a new search was performed and new art was applied. Furthermore, a rationale of KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) was applied to Applicant’s claims.
Examiner’s Response to III. Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Office Action rejected Applicant’s claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Wezter, Michael et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,266,066), in view of Steketee; Brian B et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0372534) hereinafter "Steketee" in view of in view of Jamrosz, Bryan Scott et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0312897) hereinafter "Jamrosz" in view of Guenther, Nicholas A et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0265118) hereinafter “Guenther"; The Office Action has rejected claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Wezter in view of Steketee in view of Jamrosz in view of Guenther and further in view of Song, Shuguang et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0354939) hereinafter "Song"; Applicant argues that the cited combinations, considered as a whole, fail to disclose all the features arranged as they are in the rejected claims.
III.B. The Cited Art Does Not Disclose All the Features Recited in the Claims
Examiner respectfully agrees. The citations used in rejections of the Office Action do not teach all features of the independent claims, as Examiner’s cited art does not fully teach stock-out delay on another aircraft by releasing holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed. For these reasons, rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is removed for claims 1 – 20.
III. C. Claim Amendments Render Moot the Rejections
Applicant argues claims 1-20, as currently amended at least via amendment to claims 1, 8, and 15, are in proper condition for allowance.
Examiner respectfully agrees. The citations used in rejections of the Office Action do not teach all features of the independent claims, as Examiner’s cited art does not fully teach stock-out delay on another aircraft by releasing holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed. For these reasons, rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is removed for claims 1 – 20.
Examiner’s Response to Rejections IV. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Claims 1 – 20
Applicant argues the Office Action assertions ignore that a "system configured to prevent delays for an aircraft in depot heavy maintenance" and "performing, using the replacement parts, the work task during depot heavy maintenance and replacing a non-conformance; and claims 1 – 20 do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity and a mathematical concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office Action assertions do not ignore that a "system configured to prevent delays for an aircraft in depot heavy maintenance" and "performing, using the replacement parts, the work task during depot heavy maintenance and replacing a non-conformance." Applicant’s claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity where the claim recites managing relationships or interactions; in addition, Applicant’s claim 1 recites mathematical concepts as the claim recites mathematical calculations. Accordingly, all pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1 – 20 are 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 claims contain 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “preventing a stock-out delay on another aircraft in depot heavy maintenance by releasing holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed”. Although Applicant’s Specification in ¶ 0045, recites “forecasts of risks for inductions already in progress;” “Users may also user interface display 228 to examine where high-risk (i.e., out of stock) replacement parts are likely to be needed and in what quantity, permitting the supply chain to better anticipate non-conformance-driven parts demand and mitigate risk of being out of stock;” and ¶ 0029, risk of surprise replacement parts requirements have passed, there is no support in Applicant’s Specification to “prevent a stock-out delay on another aircraft in depot heavy maintenance by releasing holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed”.
Claim 8 has been amended to recite “prevent a stock-out delay on another aircraft by releasing holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed”. Although Applicant’s Specification in ¶ 0045, recites “forecasts of risks for inductions already in progress;” “Users may also user interface display 228 to examine where high-risk (i.e., out of stock) replacement parts are likely to be needed and in what quantity, permitting the supply chain to better anticipate non-conformance-driven parts demand and mitigate risk of being out of stock;” and ¶ 0029, risk of surprise replacement parts requirements have passed, there is no support in Applicant’s Specification to prevent a stock-out delay on another aircraft by releasing holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed.
Claim 15 has been amended to recite “prevent a stock-out delay on another aircraft in depot heavy maintenance based upon a release of holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed”. Although Applicant’s Specification in ¶ 0045, recites “forecasts of risks for inductions already in progress;” “Users may also user interface display 228 to examine where high-risk (i.e., out of stock) replacement parts are likely to be needed and in what quantity, permitting the supply chain to better anticipate non-conformance-driven parts demand and mitigate risk of being out of stock;” and ¶ 0029, risk of surprise replacement part requirements have passed, there is no support in Applicant’s Specification to prevent a stock-out delay on another aircraft in depot heavy maintenance based upon a release of holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed.
Applicant’s dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Accordingly, claims 1 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
collating historical work records of depot heavy maintenance, wherein each work record in the historical work records of depot heavy maintenance specifies;
a type of work task, non-conformances discovered during a work task, when the work task occurred, and where the work task occurred;
determining, from the historical work records of depot heavy maintenance, probabilities of non-conformances according to: types of work tasks, locations of the work tasks, and timing of the work tasks;
determining replacement part requirements according to types of non- conformances;
receiving, user updates to forecasts of risk for inductions into depot heavy maintenance already in progress;
and sending requests for delivery of replacement parts to specified according to: scheduled work tasks service locations;
and anticipated probabilities of non-conformances related to the work tasks: and performing, the work task during depot heavy maintenance and replacing a in non-conformance during work task.
Claim 1 under its broadest reasonable interpretation recites certain methods of organizing human activity where the claim particularly recites managing relationships or interactions, as we have for example, a computer-implemented method of predicting discovering non-conformance of parts for an aircraft during depot heavy maintenance, the method comprising: using a number of processors to perform operations of: collating historical work records of depot heavy maintenance related to an aircraft model, wherein each work record in the historical work records of depot heavy maintenance specifies: a type of work task, non-conformances discovered during a work task, replacement parts required for the work task, when the work task occurred, and where the work task occurred; determining, from the historical work records of depot heavy maintenance, probabilities of non-conformances according to; types of work tasks, locations of the work tasks, and timing of the work tasks; determining replacement part requirements according to types of non- conformances; receiving, via a user interface display, user updates to forecasts of risk of required parts being unstocked for inductions into depot heavy maintenance already in progress; and sending requests for delivery of replacement parts to specified service locations according to: scheduled work tasks for the aircraft model at the specified service locations; and anticipated probabilities of non-conformances related to the work tasks: and performing, using the replacement parts, the work task during depot heavy maintenance and replacing a part found in non-conformance during work task with one of the replacement parts. The claim manages relationships or interactions between a people and manages interactions between a person and a computer where we have the sub-grouping managing relationships such as historical work records specifying a type of work task, locations of work tasks, and timing of the work tasks. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
Applicant’s claim 1 recites mathematical concepts, and particularly mathematical calculations. Claim 1 recites evaluating from the historical work records of depot heavy maintenance, probabilities of non-conformances according to: types of work tasks, locations of the work tasks, and timing of the work tasks, and evaluating anticipated probabilities of non-conformances related to work tasks. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number. Accordingly, claim 1 recites the abstract idea of mathematical calculations.
The limitations of claims 8 and 15, are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1 and also include the abstract ideas identified above,
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas as well. For instance, claim 2 is directed towards observing a chart of probabilities of nonconformance, claim 3 is directed towards observing percentages of non-conformances requiring replacement parts, claim 4 is directed towards observing probabilities of non-conformances requiring in replacement part orders, claim 5 is directed towards observing frequency of replacement parts ordered to resolve non-conformances, claim 6 is directed towards observing replacement parts and respective quantities on hand, claim 7 is directed towards evaluating work tasks, claim 9 is directed towards observing a chart of probabilities of non-conformance discovery, claim 10 is directed towards observing percentages of non-conformances requiring replacement parts, claim 11 is directed towards observing probabilities of non-conformances requiring in replacement part orders, claim 12 is directed towards observing frequency of replacement parts ordered to resolve non-conformances, claim 13 is directed towards observing replacement parts and quantities on hand, claim 14 is directed towards evaluating work tasks, claim 16 is directed towards observing a chart of probabilities of non-conformance discovery, claim 17 is directed observing percentages of non-conformances requiring replacement parts, claim 18 is directed towards observing probabilities of non-conformances requiring replacement part orders, claim 19 is directed towards observing the frequency of replacement parts ordered to resolve non-conformances, and claim 20 is directed towards observing replacement parts and respective quantities to have on hand. Accordingly, the dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas as well.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of aircraft, deriving specific replacement parts required for resolving non-conformances at a specific stage and location of the aircraft in depot heavy maintenance, preventing a stock-out delay on another aircraft in depot heavy maintenance by releasing holds on the required parts stocked once the risk of the required parts being unstocked has passed, aircraft model, replacement parts, unstocked parts, depot heavy maintenance, a number of processors, and a user interface display. In addition to reciting the additional elements of claim 1, claim 8 recites the additional elements of a system configured to prevent delays for an aircraft in depot heavy maintenance, aircraft, a storage device configured to store program instructions, one or more processor(s) operably connected to the storage device and configured to execute the program instructions, and an aircraft model; in addition to reciting the additional elements of claim 1, claim 15 recites a computer product configured to prevent stockouts for an aircraft in depot heavy maintenance, an aircraft, a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium that comprises program instructions embodied thereon and configured to perform the following steps, and a vehicle model. The additional elements of an aircraft, aircraft model, replacement parts, unstocked parts, depot heavy maintenance, one or more processors, a user interface display, a system configured to prevent delays for an aircraft in depot heavy maintenance, aircraft, a storage device configured to store program instructions, an aircraft model a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, a computer product configured to prevent stockouts for an aircraft in depot heavy maintenance, and a vehicle model are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions, (see at least Spec. ¶¶ 0076 and 0077), as in general-purpose and illustrative examples which are generic computer components as per Applicant’s Specifications shown here:
“[0076]Processor unit 1104 serves to execute instructions for software that may be loaded into memory 1106. Processor unit 1104 may be a number of processors, a multi-processor core, or some other type of processor, depending on the particular implementation. In an embodiment, processor unit 1104 comprises one or more conventional general-purpose central processing units (CPUs). In an alternate embodiment, processor unit 1104 comprises one or more graphical processing units (GPUs).”
“[0077]Memory 1106 and persistent storage 1108 are examples of storage devices 1116. A storage device is any piece of hardware that is capable of storing information, such as, for example, without limitation, at least one of data, program code in functional form, or other suitable information either on a temporary basis, a permanent basis, or both on a temporary basis and a permanent basis. Storage devices 1116 may also be referred to as computer-readable storage devices in these illustrative examples. Memory 1106, in these examples, may be, for example, a random access memory or any other suitable volatile or non-volatile storage device. Persistent storage 1108 may take various forms, depending on the particular implementation.”
and thus are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., a number of processors). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., one or more processors). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception and amount to no more than mere instructions using generic computer components to implement the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2 – 7, and 9 – 14, and 16 – 20, when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reasons above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually, add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Note: these are additional references found but not used.
- Reference Kirkish, Paula M. et al (US Patent No. 12,190,253) discloses a system according to which a network of physical sensors are configured to detect and track the performance of aircraft engines.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday.
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 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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
06/13/2026
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights