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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/15/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/15/25 has been entered. (1) Claims amended: (1) independent claims: 1, 6, and 12. (2) Claims canceled: 7 and 11.
Claim Status
Claims 1-6, and 8-17 are pending.
The pending claims comprise 3 groups:
1) Method1: 1-5, and 14-17,
2) Method2: 6, 8-10, and
3) Product1: 12 and
4) Apparatus1: 13.
All appear to have similar scope.
As of 10/15/2025, independent method claim 1 is as followed:
Claim 1 (Currently Amended): A method for peforming optimized maintenance, repair, and /or overhaul of a fleet of aircraft engines, the method comprising at least the following steps:
a) acquiring input data on a plurality of engines, the data comprising in particular a mean time between shop visits (MTBSV) or data relating to life- limited parts (LLP) of the engines;
b) providing an existing initial maintenance plan or creating an initial maintenance plan based on the acquired input data;
c) determining a total maintenance effort for the fleet resulting from an application of the initial maintenance plan;
d) sorting the engines into a defined order according to at least one criterion;
e) applying at least one optimization strategy or heuristic stored as an algorithm in a computer program to each of the engines, the at least one optimizing strategy or heuristic being applied in the defined order to each of the engines, wherein the at least one optimization strategy or heuristic includes one of:
(e1) checking a respective engine of the fleet of aircraft engines to determine whether an LLP with sufficient remaining service life is in another engine of the fleet of aircraft engines or available on a second-hand marketplace,
(e2) checking whether a shop visit to replace an LLP with new parts can be dispensed with by increasing a scope of maintenance of a preceding shop visit, and
(3e) checking whether a shop visit due shortly before an engine is decommissioned can be dispensed with;
f) outputting an optimized maintenance plan for the engines after application of step e) and/or outputting output data comprising an estimated total maintenance effort of the optimized maintenance plan; and
g) performing a maintenance operation, repair operation, and/or an overhaul operation on at least one engine of the fleet of aircraft engines according to the optimized maintenance plan and /or the output data output in step f).
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 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-6 and 8-13:
Claim categories:
1) Method1: 1-5, and 11, and 6, 8-10, and 14-17,
2) Product: 12, and
3) System1: 13.
Analysis of Step 1:
Method: claims 1-5, and 11, 14-17, and 6, 8-10 are directed to a process; i.e., a series of steps or acts, for a method for implementing maintenance planning of aircraft engines. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-6 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for generating an optimized maintenance plan for a fleet of aircraft engines and implementing the plan, is a fundamental economic principle or business practice for determining a good maintenance plan for a fleet of aircraft engines, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 1, and 6 recite an abstract idea related to evaluation/analyzing a fleet of aircraft engine conditions by developing maintenance plan based on some optimization strategies, which constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for evaluation/analyzing a fleet of aircraft engine conditions by developing maintenance plan based on some optimization strategies and executing the plan, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[a] acquire input data… engines. Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step.
[b] provide a maintenance plan (data) Mental step.
[c] determine effort result. Mental step.
[d] Sort engines into order. Mental step.
[e] apply an optimization strategy. Mental step.
[e1] checking …. Mental step.
[f] output the optimized plan (data). Data output, IE-SA.
[g] perform a maintenance operation. IE-SA.
Steps [a] and [f] are data gathering and outputting and sending data which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [b]-[e] are for evaluating / analyzing fleet of aircraft conditions and developing an optimizing plan based on iteration and result value and executing the plan. These mental steps or well known business activities for analyzing various maintenance parameters and determining best output results.
Step [g] of performing a maintenance operation of a maintenance plan on at least one engine appears to be insignificant extra-solution activity of the maintenance plan/project or model.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) for determining an effective (best) aircraft engines maintenance schedule and executing the plan and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [a]-[g] above.
Steps [a] and [f] are data gathering and outputting and sending data which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [b]-[e] are for evaluating / analyzing fleet of aircraft conditions and developing an optimizing plan based on iteration and result value and executing the plan. These mental steps or well known business activities for analyzing various maintenance parameters and determining best output results.
Step [g] of performing a maintenance operation of a maintenance plan on at least one engine appears to be insignificant extra-solution activity of the maintenance plan/project or model.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) for determining an effective (best) aircraft engines maintenance schedule and executing the plan and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [b]-[e] when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 2, 5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the optimizing maintenance schedule parameter, i.e. sorting criteria, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2 and 5 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 4, 14-17 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the optimizing maintenance schedule plan based on sorted criteria, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 4 and 14-17 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the optimizing maintenance schedule plan, a different optimization strategy, this further limits the abstract idea of the analysis options, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 8-10, and 12-27 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 1-5, 12-13, 14-17 (method1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) YANG et al. US 10,272,087, and
(2) ARAGONES et al. US 2007/0.088.584, and
(3) FRIND et al. US 9,679,259.
As for independent claims 1 and respectively 12 (a computer program) and 13 “Apparatus”, YANG et al. discloses a computer-implemented method, for the automated generation of automatically generating an optimized maintenance plan for a fleet of aircraft engines, the method comprising at least the following steps:
a) acquiring input data on a plurality of engines, the data comprising in particular a mean time between shop visits (MTBSV) or data relating to life- limited parts (LLP) of the aircrafts (engines);
{see Fig. 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
384
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
580
372
media_image2.png
Greyscale
{see col. 10, lines 40-50 “ may be used to schedule maintenance activities for each aircraft over the planning period. In effectively utilize opportunities to integrate maintenance activities…”}
b) providing an existing initial maintenance plan or creating an initial maintenance plan based on the acquired input data;
{see col. 10, lines 40-50 “ may be used to schedule maintenance activities for each aircraft over the planning period. In effectively utilize opportunities to integrate maintenance activities…”}
c) determining a total maintenance effort for the fleet resulting from an application of the initial maintenance plan;
{see col. 10, lines 5-25}
PNG
media_image3.png
435
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
d) sorting the aircrafts (engines) into a defined order according to at least one criterion;
{see col. 6, lines 45-50}
PNG
media_image4.png
434
450
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As for the sorting of the aircraft for maintenance activity by a criteria, such as date or cost, this would have been obvious in view of the teaching above.
e) applying at least one optimization strategy or heuristic, stored as an algorithm in a computer program, to each of the engines in the defined order; and
wherein the at least one optimization strategy or heuristic includes one of:
(e1) checking a respective engine of the fleet of aircraft engines to determine whether an LLP with sufficient remaining service life is in another engine of the fleet of aircraft engines or available on a second-hand marketplace,
{see Fig. 3, optimum solution 155, col. 9, lines 10-30}
PNG
media_image5.png
421
449
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Col. 12, lines 1-15, that teaches the checking of a respective engine of the fleet that an LLP with sufficient remaining service life in another engine of the fleet.
PNG
media_image6.png
325
474
media_image6.png
Greyscale
f) outputting an optimized maintenance plan for the engines after application of step e) and/or outputting output data comprising an estimated total maintenance effort of the optimized maintenance plan.
{see Fig. 4, Fleet Engine Plan, that shows an optimized maintenance plan}
PNG
media_image7.png
466
660
media_image7.png
Greyscale
g) executing maintenance of the fleet of aircraft engines according to the optimized maintenance plan and /or the output data output in step f).
{see col. 10, lines 1-30 .. maintenance activity, by month, …, actual maintenance activity… should retire, the order sorted by date….”}
YANG et al. fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses (1) the data comprising a mean time between shop visits (MTVBS) or life-limited parts (LLP) of the engines, (2) heuristic value being applied in the defined order to each of the engines.
In a similar system for optimizing a fleet of aircraft maintenance schedule, ARAGONES et al. is cited teach data comprising life-limited parts (LLP) of the engines, see [0022] and time traveling in the shop, see [0026].
PNG
media_image8.png
277
451
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
401
450
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft fleet maintenance evaluation system of YANG et al. by cited teach data comprising life-limited parts (LLP) of the engines, see [0022] and time traveling in the shop, see [0026], as taught by ARAGONES et al. for maintenance analysis.
YANG et al./ARGONES et al fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses (2) heuristic value being applied in the defined order to each of the engines.
In a similar system for using ML system for training and evaluation, FRIND et al. is cited to teach the concept of using heuristic value being applied in the defined order to each of the evaluation item, see
PNG
media_image10.png
278
596
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
320
592
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft fleet maintenance evaluation system of YANG et al./ARAGONES et al. by using heuristic value being applied in the defined order to each of the evaluation item as taught by FRIND et al. for defined order of presentation and management, see par. (55) and (72) above.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above) which deals with parameters for optimizing strategies, these are taught in YANG et al. Fig. 4, 165, “Optimization”, “Optimization Results” or ARAGONES et al. [0022] and [0026 .. event simulator..].
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1 above) which deals with parameters for optimizing strategies, these are taught in YANG et al. Fig. 3, 155, “Generating Optimal Aircraft fleet solution”, Fig. 4, 165, “Optimization”, or ARAGONES et al. [0022] and [0026 .. failure tables 86 that include engine failure dates by failure modes …event simulator..].
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above) which deals with parameters for optimizing strategies, these are taught in YANG et al. Fig. 3, 155, “Generating Optimal Aircraft fleet solution”, Fig. 4, 165, “Optimization”, or col. 6, lines 45-50 “sorted by dates..” or
ARAGONES et al. [0022] and [0026 .. failure tables 86 that include engine failure dates by failure modes… event simulator].
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above) which deals with application of different optimization strategies for each iteration, this is taught in YANG et al. Fig. 3, 155, “Generating Optimal Aircraft fleet solution”, Fig. 4, 165, “Optimization”, or col. 6, lines 45-50 “sorted by dates..” or ARAGONES et al. Fig. 1, “event simulator” (72) and Fig. 6, “Strategy 1”, “Strategy 2,” and [0026 .. failure tables 86 that include engine failure dates by failure modes… event simulator].
As for dep. claim 14 (part of 1 above) which deals with engine sorted criteria, i.e. by estimated maintenance effort, this is taught in YANG et al. Fig. 3, 155, “Generating Optimal Aircraft fleet solution”, Fig. 4, 165, “Optimization”, or col. 6, lines 45-50 “sorted by dates..” or ARAGONES et al. Fig. 1, “event simulator” (72) and Fig. 6, “Strategy 1”, “Strategy 2,” and [0026 .. failure tables 86 that include engine failure dates by failure modes… event simulator].
As for dep. claim 15 (part of 1 above) which deals with engine sorted ordered criteria, i.e. high to low, this is taught in YANG et al. col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 50, which teaches the determination of total shop costs associated with each engine and the selection of engine with cost less than budget amount, completing maintenance less than the assigned time and other relevant conditions. The feature of optimizing in descending order is taught by RADETZKI et al. in [0052] and [0054] cited above. The listing of the order of the highest effort or cost to lowest effort or cost for effective maintenance execution would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in view of the teaching of RADETSKI et al.
As for dep. claim 16 (part of 1 above) which deals with engine sorted criteria, i.e. by estimated maintenance cost, this is taught in YANG et al. Fig. 3, 155, “Generating Optimal Aircraft fleet solution”, Fig. 4, 165, “Optimization”, or col. 6, lines 45-50 “sorted by dates..” or ARAGONES et al. Fig. 1, “event simulator” (72) and Fig. 6, “Strategy 1”, “Strategy 2,” and [0026 .. failure tables 86 that include engine failure dates by failure modes… event simulator].
As for dep. claim 17 (part of 1 above) which deals with engine sorted ordered criteria, i.e. high to low, this is taught in YANG et al. col. 22, line 45 to col. 23, line 50, which teaches the determination of total shop costs associated with each engine and the selection of engine with cost less than budget amount, completing maintenance less than the assigned time and other relevant conditions. The feature of optimizing in descending order is taught by RADETZKI et al. in [0052] and [0054] cited above. The listing of the order of the highest effort or cost to lowest effort or cost for effective maintenance execution would have been obvious to a skilled artisan in view of the teaching of RADETSKI et al.
Claims 6, 8-10 (method2) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) YANG et al. US 10,272,087, and
(2) ARAGONES et al. US 2007/0.088.584, and
(3) FRIND et al. US 9,679,259 and
(4) RADETZKI et al. US 2019/0.114.588.
As for amended independent claim 6, which has similar limitation as in amended independent claim 1 with a self-learning algorithm trained for the optimized treatment plan, RADETZKI et al. is cited to teach this feature, see [0052] and [0054].
PNG
media_image12.png
432
660
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft fleet maintenance evaluation system of YANG et al./ARAGONES et al. / FRIND et a. by using a self-learning algorithm trained for the optimized treatment plan as taught by RADETZKI et al., see par. [0052] and [0054] for training a knowledge-based system for prediction analysis.
As for dep. claim 8 (part of 6 above) which deals the type of input data set, at least one set selected from the group comprising data regarding LLP of the engines, this is taught in ARAGONES et al. [0022 … life-limited parts (LLP)..].
As for dep. claim 9 (part of 6 above) which deals the type of output data set, next maintenance time of need for lease for the next maintenance, this is taught in YANG et al. col. 8, lines 40-60 or Fig. 4, or ARAGONES et al. [0015 total costs for the fleet of engines..].
As for dep. claim 10 (part of 6 above) which deals the type of output data set, next maintenance time of need for lease for the next maintenance, this is taught in YANG et al. col. 8, lines 40-60 or Fig. 4, or ARAGONES et al. [0015 total costs for the fleet of engines..].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) 101 Rejection:
Applicant’s assertion that claim 1 passes the eligibility test by the amended feature of “g) performing a maintenance operation, repair operation, and/or an overhaul operation on at least one engine of the fleet of aircraft engines according to the optimized maintenance plan and /or the output data output in step f)” is not persuasive because this step appears to be insignificant extra-solution activity for carrying out a maintenance plan (project or model) wherein the plan (project) appears to be the main subject. Moreover, the maintenance plan/model may not result in any actions if the conditions are not met.
2) 103 Rejection:
Applicant’s arguments have been reviewed and are moot due to new citations being used to address the amended features and others.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689