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 Claims
This communication is in response to Application 18/329,901 filed 04/02/2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, 13-15, 17-18 and 20 have been amended. Claims 4, 7, 9 and 19 have been canceled. Claim 22-25 are new claims. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-18 and 20-25 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made for applicant’s filing for foreign application #IN202311018133 filed on 03/17/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 14-16, filed 04/02/2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-14, filed 04/02/2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 of claim 1,
Applicant argues:
Amended independent claims 1, 11 and 13 now recite operating on “a first matrix mapping frequencies of routes between respective airports and a second matrix transforming the first matrix by assigning a uniform frequency for any airport of the respective airports with no departures to any other airports of the respective airports.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations define a particular mathematical/mental procedure used to process the historical flight data. Specifically, claim 1 recites, mapping route frequencies into a first matrix, transforming the first matrix by assigning uniform numerical frequency values, calculating a transition-probability matrix based on the resulting matrix information, and using the calculated information in subsequent forecasting procedures. These limitations therefore recite mathematical relationships and calculations used to organize, transform and analyze numerical route frequency information. Although the claimed second matrix may provide numerical values for routes that are not represented in the historical data, the alleged improvement is directed to the mathematical/mental forecasting process and the informational result produced by that process. Claim 1 does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer system, the HMM, the LSTM procedure, the bootstrapping procedure, an aircraft sensor, the aircraft engine, or another technological component. Instead, the claimed second matrix modifies numerical values used as inputs to subsequent probability and forecasting calculations, rather than improvement to the functioning of the computer or another technology.
To the extent the prior office action characterized the matrix calculations as insignificant extra solution activity, the office clarifies that the matrix mapping, matrix transformation, uniform frequency assignment, transition probability calculations, and related forecasting calculations are more appropriately identified as part of the recited mathematical concept.
Applicant argues:
(B)The claimed “second matrix” sets forth a technical improvement that is not well-understood, routine or conventional in the field.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Whether an element is well-understood, routine or conventional is not the relevant inquiry under Step 2A, Prong Two. The inquiry under Prong Two is whether the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Further, the claimed first matrix mapping, second matrix transformation, transition probability calculations and forecasting procedures are included within the identified mathematical/mental concept. The Office is not relying on a finding that specific mathematical calculation itself is conventional. Rather, the calculation forms part of the judicial exception and cannot, by itself supply the inventive concept under Step 2B. These elements, individually or in combination, merely provide data to the mathematical analysis, implement the analysis using a computer, limit the analysis to a particular field, and produce resulting forecast and schedule. They do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application.
Applicant argues:
The claimed methods and computer-readable medium integrate the judicial exception into a practical application to determine a maintenance schedule of one or more system of the aircraft based on the forecast future aircraft operational data.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 requires only “determining” a maintenance schedule based on the forecast future aircraft operational data. The claim does not affirmatively require repairing the engine, replacing an aircraft component, controlling the operation of the aircraft, modifying engine operation, or otherwise implementing the maintenance schedule. The recitation that the maintenance schedule is determined “ to repair” or “ to replace” one or more systems describes the intended purpose of the resulting schedule, but does not require that any repair or replacement actually be performed. Accordingly, the claim concludes with the generation of information, namely a maintenance schedule, based on the results of the mathematical analysis. Determining an informational result does not, without more, effect a physical transformation, control a particular machine, or impose a meaningful technological limit on the mathematical concept.
Applicant argues:
the claimed HMM, LSTM and/or bootstrapping procedure maintain correlations across different flight routes and corresponding sensor data to determine the maintenance schedule.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged correlations are produced through the recited matrices, transition probabilities, HMM, LSTM and bootstrapping procedures. These operations constitute the mathematical analysis as the judicial exception. The mathematical analysis cannot serve as the additional element that integrates itself into a practical application. Claim 1 must recite an additional element, or an ordered combination of additional elements, that applies the mathematical concept in a meaningful technological manner. Claim 1 does not recite such an application.
Applicant argues:
When read as a whole, the claims amount to significantly more than a mental process. The claimed methods and computer-readable medium cannot be generically reproduced and indeed require the specifically claimed limitations therein.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Office has considered claim 1 as a whole, including the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination. Thus, the claim as a whole remains directed to collecting data, mathematically and mentally analyzing the data, generating forecast information, and determining a schedule based on the resulting information. The generically recited computer system is used as a tool to perform the mathematical analysis, while the aircraft and engine limitations identify the particular environment in which the analysis is performed. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, neither integrate the mathematical concept into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the mathematical/mental concept. In regards to Applicant’s assertion that the claimed method cannot be generally reproduced in the human mind and indeed require the specifically claimed limitations therein, even assuming that certain calculations, including implementation of an HMM or sequential LSTM procedure over a large quantity of data, may not practically be performed mathematical or mentally, the rejection does not depend solely on characterizing the claim as a mental process. Claim 1 expressly recites mathematical concepts, including matrix mapping, matrix transformation, transition-probability calculations, and mathematical forecasting procedures. Mathematical concepts constitute a recognized category of abstract ideas independently of whether the calculations can practically be completed in the human mind. Moreover, the use of a computer to perform mathematical calculations more rapidly, efficiently or over a larger quantity of data does not establish eligibility where the claim does not improve the computer or another technology.
Applicant argues:
Absent the claimed methods and computer-readable medium, there is not existing or obvious approach to determining a maintenance schedule that accounts for gaps in operational data (e.g. the gaps corresponding to one more airports with no logged departures).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The novelty or non-obviousness of the claimed procedure is a separate inquiry under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. A mathematical concept does not become patent eligible merely because the particular calculation or application may be novel or nonobvious. Likewise, narrowing the scope of the mathematical procedure does not establish that the exception has been integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception.
Applicant argues:
Applicant reiterates that the arguments entered on pages 8-12 of the reply dated December 3, 2025 still apply and indeed are further strengthened in view of the independent claim amendments made herein.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Those arguments have been reconsidered in view of the amended claim language but remain unpersuasive. The amendment specifies the mathematical treatment of historical route frequency data, but does not add an element that improves the functioning of the computer or machine learning technology, physical controls or modifies the aircraft or engine, or otherwise applies the resulting forecast in a meaningful technological manner.
Applicant argues:
Applicant submits that each of dependent Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 20 and 22-24, as amended or introduced herein, recites limitations that further satisfy the requirement of Step 2A, prong two and/or step 2B, and therefore are further patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claims 2 and 14: further recite summing values of respective rows of the first matrix and dividing values of the second matrix by corresponding values of a third matrix. These limitations further define the mathematical calculations used to generate the transition probability information. They do not improve the functioning of the computer system, forecasting model, aircraft, or another technology. Accordingly, claims 2 and 14 do not overcome the rejection.
Claims 3 and 15: further recite determining that a row of the third matrix has a value of zero and, in response, dividing corresponding values of the second matrix based on a sum of the assigned uniform frequency. These limitations specify conditional mathematical rules for processing numerical matrix values. They further refine the mathematical concept itself and not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claims 8 and 18: recite searching a database storage unit for a record containing specified aircraft, engine, airport, and departure time parameters. The database search merely identifies and retrieves historical information for use by the bootstrapping procedure. The claims do not recite an improved database structure, indexing method, search architecture, or other improvement to computer functionality. Accordingly, these limitations constitute data gathering and selection activity incidental to the mathematical analysis.
Claims 10 and 20: recite determining that a requested record is not found and sequentially adjusting one or more search parameters until a related record is located. These limitations further define the rules used to search for and select information supplied to the forecasting procedure. They do not improve the operation of the database or computer system and do not meaningfully apply the resulting forecast to the aircraft or engine.
Claim 22: further limits the transition probability matrix to a selected period of time having a seasonal characteristic and calculates the forecast based on that characteristic. The selected time period and seasonal characteristic merely provide additional variables for the mathematical forecasting analysis. The limitations do not improve the computer, forecasting model, aircraft sensors, or another technology.
Claim 23: recites categorizing forecast future aircraft operational data according to the quantity of available historical data and automatically updating the forecast based on the categorization. These limitations further recite evaluating, classifying, and modifying informational data using a computer. The term “automatically” does not identify an improvement to computer functionality or to the internal operation of the bootstrapping procedure.
Claim 24: recite modeling damage progression of the engine based on the forecasted routes and aircraft operational data. This limitation adds a further predictive mathematical analysis that produces information regarding anticipated engine damage. The claim does not require repairing, removing, replacing, or controlling the engine based on the modeled damage progression. Accordingly, claim 24 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The dependent claims further define mathematical calculations, data searching and selection, information categorization, forecast updating, and predictive modeling. The limitations do not improve computer functionality or affirmatively apply the resulting information through a physical maintenance or control operation.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claims 11 and 13.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-18 and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For at least the above, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-18 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
Claim 1. A method of forecasting operation data of an aircraft, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system [additional element-generic computer implementation], historical flight data of the aircraft, the historical flight data including historical departure airports, historical arrival airports, and historical period of flight occurrence: [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]; and
calculating, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer implementation], at least one matrix based on the historical flight data, the at least one matrix comprising a first matrix mapping frequencies of routes between respective airports and a second matrix transforming the first matrix by assigning a uniform frequency for any airport of the respective airports with no departures to any other airport of the respective airports [Mathematical concept];
calculating, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer implementation], a transition probability matrix capturing a pattern of the historical departure airports and the historical arrival airports based on the at least one matrix [Mathematical concept];
determining, by the computer system, based on the transition probability matrix, using a hidden Markov model (HMM) or a sequential Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) procedure [additional element-generic computer implementation] forecasted departure airports, forecasted arrival airports, and time of arrival of the aircraft to the forecasted arrival airports to build a forecasted sequence of future routes [Mental process/step];
receiving, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer implementation], past aircraft sensor parameters comprising past engine parameters [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
calculating, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer implementation], using a bootstrapping procedure or the sequential LSTM procedure based on the past aircraft sensor parameters [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors] and the forecasted sequence of future routes, forecast future aircraft operational data comprising future engine parameters [Mathematical concept]; and
determining, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer implementation], based on the forecast future aircraft operational data, a maintenance schedule of one or more systems of the aircraft to repair the one or more systems to prevent failure of the one or more systems or to replace the one or more systems prior to failure, the one or more systems comprising the engine [mental process/step].
Claim 11, A method of forecasting operation data of an aircraft, the method comprising:
receiving, by a computer system [additional element-generic computer], operational flight data of the aircraft that includes a plurality of aircraft flight sensor parameters from one or more components of the aircraft, the plurality of aircraft flight sensor parameters being associated with a plurality of flight phases of the aircraft, the plurality of aircraft sensor parameters including past engine parameters (insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering);
training, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer], a sequential Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) procedure using the operational flight data for the plurality of flight phases of the aircraft (Mathematical Concept/Calculations and data analysis);
outputting, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer], multi-output data for each of the plurality of aircraft flight sensor parameters associated with a corresponding flight phase of the aircraft [insignificant extra solution activity (outputting data)];
grouping, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer], the multi-output data for each of the plurality of aircraft flight sensor parameters with a respective flight record based on forecasted route data structure forecasted based on a transition probability matrix capturing a pattern of the historical departure airports and the historical arrival airports by a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) or the sequential LSTM procedure to correlate between the multi-output data with the forecasted route data structure (Mathematical Concept/Calculations and data analysis),
the transition probability matrix based on a first matrix mapping frequencies of routes between respective airports and a second matrix transforming the first matrix by assigning a uniform frequency for any airport of the respective airports with no departures to any other airport of the respective airports (Mathematical Concept/Calculations and data analysis); and
determining, by the computer system [additional element-generic computer], based on the multi-output data correlated with the forecasted route data structure, a plurality of forecast aircraft flight sensor parameters from the one or more components of the aircraft (Mathematical concept-predictive mathematical calculation) to repair the one or more components to prevent failure of the one or more components or to replace the one or more components prior to failure, the plurality of forecast aircraft flight sensor parameters including future engine parameters [field of use and intended use limitation].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes
The claim recites a method. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes- Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mathematical/mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite the limitations of:
(Claim 1): calculating, at least one matrix based on the historical flight data, the at least one matrix comprising a first matrix mapping frequencies of routes between respective airports and a second matrix transforming the first matrix by assigning a uniform frequency for any airport of the respective airports with no departures to any other airport of the respective airports; calculating, a transition probability matrix capturing a pattern of the historical departure airports and the historical arrival airports based on the at least one matrix; determining forecasted departure airports, forecasted arrival airports, and time of arrival of the aircraft to the forecasted arrival airports to build a forecasted sequence of future routes and determining, based on the forecast future aircraft operational data, a maintenance schedule of one or more systems of the aircraft to repair the one or more systems to prevent failure of the one or more systems or to replace the one or more systems prior to failure, the one or more systems comprising the engine.
(Claim 11): training, a sequential Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) procedure using the operational flight data for the plurality of flight phases of the aircraft; grouping, the multi-output data for each of the plurality of aircraft flight sensor parameters with a respective flight record based on forecasted route data structure forecasted based on a transition probability matrix capturing a pattern of the historical departure airports and the historical arrival airports by a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) or the sequential LSTM procedure to correlate between the multi-output data with the forecasted route data structure; the transition probability matrix based on a first matrix mapping frequencies of routes between respective airports and a second matrix transforming the first matrix by assigning a uniform frequency for any airport of the respective airports with no departures to any other airport of the respective airports; determining, based on the multi-output data correlated with the forecasted route data structure, a plurality of forecast aircraft flight sensor parameters from the one or more components of the aircraft. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and mathematical concept but for the recitation of “by the computer system, hidden Markov model or sequential Long Short Term Memory (LSTM).” That is, other than reciting “by the computer system, hidden Markov model or sequential Long Short Term Memory (LSTM)” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind or mathematical calculations with pen and paper. For example, but for the “by the computer system, hidden Markov model or sequential Long Short Term Memory (LSTM),” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental/mathematical process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental/mathematical process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recited additional elements or steps of by the computer system, hidden Markov model or sequential Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) and sensors. In particular, the sensors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of generating data) and amounts to mere pre-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “by the computer system, hidden Markov model or sequential Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) …” limitation is recited at a high-level generality (i.e., a computer performing generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component.
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.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an invention concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “sensor system and a computer device were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field.
The specification recites that “the operational data includes day-to-day flight data and recorded sensor information that captures various operational and environmental parameters of the aircraft in three phases, e.g., takeoff, climb, and cruise” (See ¶23), and further does not provide any indication that the computer device is anything other than conventional computer element (See ¶55 of applicant’s specification). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)
Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Independent claim 13 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-18 and 20-25 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-18 and 20-25 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-18 and 20-25 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chiaramonte et al., US 11334854B2 discloses generating an asset workscope. The example system includes an asset health calculator to identify a component of an asset to be removed from operation to perform maintenance based on generating a first asset health quantifier corresponding to a first health status of the asset component.
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 MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
Respectfully submitted
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights