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
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 the Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the request for continued examination filed on January 13, 2026.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
It is noted that the case is now handled by Examiner Toan Bui.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the 112f claim interpretation, the Applicant has amended the claim to define the “maintenance coordination control unit” as interpreted as a computing system.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because they meet the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims were analyzed using the 2019 PEG guidelines and are still considered ineligible under U.S.C. 101. The claims are not eligible under 35 USC 101 because they do not meet the requirements of the test set forth by the Supreme Court. Step 1 is met because the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories. Part 2A-Prong1 of the test is trying to evaluate if the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, then Part 2A-Prong 2 is to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, then Part 2B checks whether they are applied.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments, it is not that the claim as a whole is to such an abstract idea that would be the ultimate conclusion under both parts of the analysis. The claims are directed towards the abstract idea of a computer system that recites the steps of …receiving…, analyzing…, scheduling…revising..., storing.., coupling.., and determining…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims are reciting concepts characterized under the Mental Processes groupings Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea. The claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations when taken individually and in combination are not sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, and do not provide meaningful limitations beyond general linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The Applicant asserted in page 8 that “the claims integrate the exception into a practical application . . .” & “[to] solve these problems, Applicant utilizes one or more processors to analyze hundreds health signals from different aircraft in real time, determine schedules in real time for the different aircraft, and then alter a memory to schedule maintenance operations in real time based on the analyze steps”. However, changing different aircraft to fill in for the scheduled flight has always been part of the airline industry. The aircraft carriers have back-up plans to substitute one airline for another and perform those in real-time. The aid of the existing technology helps to expedite the decision making rather than improves a technological environment. Furthermore, the additional elements, do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. [Specification, 0042-43] Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
Additionally, the claims when taken individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims contain the additional limitations of a : a maintenance control unit, health management sub-systems, a computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that cause one or more control units comprising a processor. The additional limitations when considered both individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more because the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Additionally, the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are merely apply-it. The additional limitations are merely electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; and receiving or transmitting data over a network all of which have been held by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(2)). The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination.
The Dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and not patent eligible.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments, on page 9, that the instant application’s claims are similar to the example 20, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The instant application is merely coordinating data (determine another aircraft can fly a flight number in place of an aircraft of the different aircraft) . Wherein example 20, the control system used a sensor to adjust the velocity of an end effector. Therefore, the instant application is different than the example and is not a practical application.
The applicant argues in pages 10-11 that the “[the] written description requirement instead requires Applicant show possession of automatically operating an aircraft based on the scheduling’”. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because claiming that the Applicant clearly has possession of such operation in par. [0036] fails to satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). The rejection is maintained.
With regard to the 103 rejection, the Applicant asserted that “[neither] Combs nor Smith teach or suggest this recitation and claim 1 is non-obvious accordingly”. However, Smith disclosed “determine another aircraft can fly a flight number . . .” in par. [0086]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Combs to include the teachings of Smith, because “given the necessity to produce a plan within short time constraints, a generated plan may not be fully calculated to maximize revenues for the airline.” [0005]. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 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 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As discussed in MPEP 2163, “[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant has invented the subject matter which is claimed.” In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
In the present case, the Examiner finds that Applicant has failed to clearly convey information that Applicant has in fact invented the claimed limitation of "wherein the aircraft are automatically operated in response to the maintenance coordination control unit scheduling the one or more maintenance operations." Rather than disclosing how Applicant automatically operates aircraft in response to the maintenance coordination control unit scheduling the one or more maintenance operations, Applicant has merely disclosed the method steps/function with result oriented language. In paragraph 0036 of the Specification, Applicant describes:
In at least one example, in response to the schedule 120 being revised by the maintenance coordination control unit 104, one or more of the aircraft 102 can be automatically operated based on the revised schedule 120. For example, when the maintenance coordination control unit 104 schedules maintenance, the aircraft 102 for which maintenance is scheduled can be automatically operated to travel to the location for the maintenance. In at least one example, the maintenance coordination control unit 104 can take control of the aircraft 102 to operate the aircraft 102 to travel to the location for the maintenance. Optionally, the aircraft 102 are not automatically operated based on the revised schedule 120.
Applicant does not disclose any information as to how he one or more aircraft can be automatically operated based on the scheduling. Nothing in the Specification informs one having ordinary skill in the art that the inventor was in possession of what is claimed. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the above stated claims are insufficient to meet the written description requirement.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1
Claims 1-10 is directed to a system and claims 11-19 are directed to a method and claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One
The claims are directed to the scheduling of maintenance to remedy one or more maintenance issues in aircraft. Using claim 11 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 1 and 20, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of the claim in bold:
receiving, by one or more processors of a maintenance coordination control unit, at least a thousand (hundred for claims 1 and 20) health signals from health management sub-systems of different aircraft, wherein the health signals include one or more tail assignments that combine tail numbers with respective flight numbers and one or more maintenance issues for the different aircraft; and
analyzing, with the one or more processors, the at least hundred health signals to determine schedules in real time for the different aircraft;
determining, with the one or more processors, another aircraft can fly a flight number in place of an aircraft of the different aircraft and
scheduling, by the maintenance coordination control unit, one or more maintenance operations for the different aircraft, wherein the one or more maintenance operations are configured to remedy the one or more maintenance issues.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the claims are reciting concepts characterized under the Mental Processes groupings. As a whole, each of claims 1, 11 and 20’s bolded steps recited above recites steps that can performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. But for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, could be interpreted as a human mentally receiving data including tail assignments and maintenance issues and scheduling maintenance operations, which can be achieved using pen and paper. This encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Next, the examiner considers whether claims 1-20 recites any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 11 and 20 recite: a maintenance control unit, health management sub-systems, a computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that cause one or more control units comprising a processor. The additional elements, do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. [Specification, 0042-43] Specifically, these elements are generic computer components defined in the specification as “any processor-based system”. The claimed sub-systems are defined generically in the specification as “one or more sensors”. [Specification,0029]. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the independent claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception.
Step 2B
If the claims are not integrated into a judicial exception, the Examiner must consider whether there is “significantly more” recited in the claim in step 2B. As noted above, the additional elements were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4, 9, 13, 18 are merely reciting further embellishment of the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more;” rather, the dependent claims are merely further reciting features that are just as abstract as independent claims .
Dependent claims 5, 6, 14, 15 recite the additional limitation of a database that stores data. This represents generically recited data-storage that is purely conventional. Receiving, analyzing, transmitting, and storing information, and issuing instructions are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the industry. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining claims requiring “arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, determining” to “involve the normal, basic functions of a computer” and to be “conventional, routine, and well-known”).This does not provide for integration at the 2" prong or significantly more at step 2B, see MPEP2106.05(f).
In claim 10 and 19, the additional limitation of a machine learning or artificial intelligence system additionally represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. This additional elements can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer system.
Claims 7 and 16 recite the sensors discussed above with regard to independent claim 11. The claimed sub-systems are defined generically in the specification as “one or more sensors”. [Specification,0029]. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. As noted above, the additional elements were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
With regard to claim 8 and 17, the claims further recite the additional limitation of “wherein the aircraft are automatically operated in response to the maintenance coordination control unit scheduling the one or more maintenance operations.” The examiner considers this additional element to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2106.05(f) (describes “A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair”), In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s)1, 3-7, 9-11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs et al., (US 2022/0077516) in view of Smith (U.S. Pub. US 20030167110 A1).
Claims 1, 11 and 20: Combs describes a system, a method and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising:
receiving, by a maintenance coordination control unit, [at least a hundred/thousand] [Fig. 1], health signals from health management sub-systems of different aircraft [0009] (describes “The battery health information component may be configured to obtain battery health information for individual batteries within the fleet of aircraft batteries. The battery health information may characterize the degradation of the individual batteries over time. In some implementations, the battery health information for an individual battery may include and/or be determined based on location(s) of the battery, flight information for one of more individual flights the battery was used for, charge information, historical battery life information, efficiency level, charge capacity, time of day and duration of charging, temperature at which charging occurred, cell balancing data battery internal resistance/impedance data (wherein responsive to the battery included a battery pack, the battery internal resistance/impedance data may include internal resistance/impedance data at a pack level and/or a battery cell level), a BMS (Battery Management System) performance log (e.g., including performance information of the batteries, health information for the BMS sensors, and/or other information), and/or other information. The cell balancing data may include data on the differences in voltages between cells and/or other information. For example, over time battery cells may become “out of balance” such that some cells degrade (i.e., drop voltage) faster than others. Cell balancing data may be obtained by monitoring battery cells and ensuring that they charge and/or discharge evenly. Cells becoming out of balance may be a telltale sign of degradation and/or impending failure. In some implementations, the battery health information may be pulled from one or more individual batteries. For example, the battery health information may be pulled from the batteries while they charge in the charging stations.”; “different aircraft.” [0005] and [0056]),
wherein the health signals include one or more tail assignments [0006;0009] (describes receiving data regarding “flight information for one of more individual flights”); [0010] (describes receiving flight schedules)
and one or more maintenance issues for the different aircraft [0012] (describes receiving data related to battery-related maintenance issues);
and
scheduling, by the maintenance coordination control unit, one or more maintenance operations for the different aircraft by altering a memory, wherein the one or more maintenance operations are configured to remedy the different maintenance issues [0016] (describes “In some implementations, the management component may be configured to determine a future maintenance schedule for one or more individual batteries within the fleet of aircraft batteries. The future maintenance schedule may comprise a predictive schedule of maintenance for individual batteries in the fleet aircraft batteries. The future maintenance schedule may include multiple predictions of batteries to receive maintenance.”; “the fleet of aircraft “ [0016]; in [0019] it describes flight information as aircraft information. As well as “specific aircraft tail numbers (unique sequence of alphanumeric characteristics used to identify a specific aircraft)” [0003]).
Combs does not explicitly teach but Smith teaches :
at least a hundred/ thousand ( The examiner would like to note although the claim limitation merely describes scalability and could be rejected under duplication of parts under MPEP 2144.04 duplication of parts the examiner has also provided art for compact prosecution. Smith teaches “hundreds of aircraft”. Therefore, the system is capable of handling that scale in addition hundreds that encompass at least a thousand.; “may have hundreds of aircraft and thousands of flights scheduled” [0003])
that combine tail numbers with respective flight numbers (“experts allocate all candidate flight Segments to specific aircraft tail numbers (unique sequence of alphanumeric characteristics used to identify a specific aircraft) within a given Sub-fleet of the airline.” [0003]; “aircraft information may include tail identification” [0019]; “The maintenance event information may include aircraft tail,” [0020]; abstract; The system produces a “flight assignment plan” that assigns specific aircraft (identified by tail numbers) to specific flights. [0005])
determining another aircraft can fly a flight number in place of an aircraft of the different aircraft (see at least par. [0086] “. . . Further it should be apparent, that the present invention has the capability to handle the ferrying of aircraft between airport stations, swap aircraft within the same equipment type and different seating capacity, swap aircraft across equipment types that share common crew ratings (adaptive aircraft assignment), and assign different aircraft types to flights such that there is no passenger spill (real-time fleet assignment). These situations would be handled by modifying the underlying sub-problem or master problem to include these capabilities . . .”) the cited portion discloses assigning another aircraft in place of a flight number with the aircraft being similar in equipment and/or seating type.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Combs to include the teachings of Smith, because “given the necessity to produce a plan within short time constraints, a generated plan may not be fully calculated to maximize revenues for the airline.” [0005]. Therefore, the rejection is not obvious.
3 and 13. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs further describes wherein the different aircraft include all of the aircraft of one or more airlines. [0032] (describes managing a fleet).
4. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs further describes wherein the different aircraft include all of the aircraft of a plurality of airlines.[0053-55; Fig. 5)
5 and 14. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs further describes storing, in a maintenance issue database, data regarding the maintenance issues; and communicatively coupling the maintenance coordination control unit with the maintenance issue database [Fig. 1] (describes databases storing maintenance issue in communication with the control unit system).
6 and 15. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs further describes storing, in a tail assignment database, tail assignments for the different aircraft; and communicatively coupling the maintenance coordination control unit with the tail assignment database. [Fig. 1] (describes databases storing scheduling data in communication with the control unit system; “different aircraft.” [0005]).
7 and 16. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs further describes comprising monitoring, by one or more sensors of the health management sub-systems, one or more aspects of one or more components of the different aircraft [0009] (describes BMS sensors) ; “different aircraft.” [0005]).
9 and 18. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs further describes determining, by the maintenance coordination control unit, one or more costs for the one or more maintenance issues [0039] (describes characterizing cost of maintenance).
10 and 19. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs further describes wherein the maintenance coordination control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system [0013] (describes “In some implementations, the predictions of the one or more batteries to be re-allocated and/or to receive maintenance may be determined via machine learning.”).
Claim(s) 2, 8, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Combs et al., (US 2022/0077516) in view of Smith (U.S. Pub. US 20030167110 A1), in further view of Marwedel et al., (US 2013/0073419).
2 and 12. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs describes maintaining flight schedule information and utilizing the flight schedule information for maintenance and other fleet outputs [0010] (describes “separate and/or distinct locations. The flight schedule information may include flight times, flight departure location information, flight arrival location information, flight durations, flight power requirements, and/or other information characterizing one or more flights and/or scheduled flights to and/or from the multiple airports utilizing the individual batteries in the fleet. The flight schedule information may be used to determine a battery management plan for one or more of the batteries in the fleet of aircraft batteries, allocations of individual batteries to individual flights, a future maintenance schedule for one or more individual batteries within the fleet of aircraft batteries, and/or other fleet management outputs.”), Combs does not expressly describe revising, by the maintenance coordination control unit, tail assignments of the different aircraft to accommodate the one or more maintenance operations.
However, Marwedel, which relates to a platform for aircraft maintenance services, teaches that it was well-known in the art, well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to revise flight schedules and routes (i.e., tail assignments) in order to accommodate maintenance operations. [0043] (describes “[0043] In a possible embodiment if the maintenance requirement is urgent the maintenance platform server 2 can send a control signal via the wireless link to the aircraft 8 to change its travelling route and can give an indication of the coordinates of the respective airport where the corresponding maintenance service is offered. In less urgent maintenance cases the maintenance platform server 2 can notify the aircraft operator to change the intended flight schedule of the aircraft 8 allowing maintenance of the aircraft at the selected maintenance service supplier. The maintenance platform server 2 can in a possible embodiment calculate an optimised travelling and maintenance schedule for the aircraft 8 of the aircraft operator.”).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date, to modify the teachings of Combs to include the well-known business practice of Marwedel, which describes changing the intended flight schedule of the aircraft allowing maintenance of the aircraft. Such combination would have been obvious as “Maintenance of an aircraft is crucial for the safety and reliability of airlines operations. For maintenance of the aircraft fleet an aircraft operator needs to manage multiple maintenance service suppliers and spare part suppliers in a very efficient and coordinated manner” and revising flight schedules to accommodate the crucial maintenance is of upmost importance for maintaining the safety and reliability of airline operations. [Marwedel, 0003].
8 and 17. Combs and Smith describes the system of claim 1 and the method of claim 11. Combs describes maintaining flight schedule information and utilizing the flight schedule information for maintenance and other fleet outputs [0010] (describes “separate and/or distinct locations. The flight schedule information may include flight times, flight departure location information, flight arrival location information, flight durations, flight power requirements, and/or other information characterizing one or more flights and/or scheduled flights to and/or from the multiple airports utilizing the individual batteries in the fleet. The flight schedule information may be used to determine a battery management plan for one or more of the batteries in the fleet of aircraft batteries, allocations of individual batteries to individual flights, a future maintenance schedule for one or more individual batteries within the fleet of aircraft batteries, and/or other fleet management outputs.”), Combs does not expressly describe automatically operating one of the different aircraft in response to said scheduling.
However, Marwedel, which relates to a platform for aircraft maintenance services, teaches that it was well-known in the art, well before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to automatically operate aircraft in response to the scheduling. [0043] (describes “[0043] In a possible embodiment if the maintenance requirement is urgent the maintenance platform server 2 can send a control signal via the wireless link to the aircraft 8 to change its travelling route and can give an indication of the coordinates of the respective airport where the corresponding maintenance service is offered. In less urgent maintenance cases the maintenance platform server 2 can notify the aircraft operator to change the intended flight schedule of the aircraft 8 allowing maintenance of the aircraft at the selected maintenance service supplier. The maintenance platform server 2 can in a possible embodiment calculate an optimised travelling and maintenance schedule for the aircraft 8 of the aircraft operator.”).
It would have been obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, on the effective filing date, to modify the teachings of Combs and Smith to include the well-known business practice of Marwedel, which automatically operating the aircraft in response to scheduling allowing maintenance of the aircraft. Such combination would have been obvious as “Maintenance of an aircraft is crucial for the safety and reliability of airlines operations. For maintenance of the aircraft fleet an aircraft operator needs to manage multiple maintenance service suppliers and spare part suppliers in a very efficient and coordinated manner” and revising flight schedules to accommodate the crucial maintenance is of upmost importance for maintaining the safety and reliability of airline operations. [Marwedel, 0003].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0508. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-4pm.
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.
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.
/TOAN DUC BUI/Examiner, Art Unit 3693 /BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
Prosecution Insights