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 CORRESPONDENCE
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 6, 10, 13 – 17, 19, 20 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
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 – 10, 12 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
receive a fault message regarding one or more components of an aircraft,
determine a priority from the fault message,
determine one or more parts for maintenance from the fault message, and
determine the aircraft can fly a scheduled flight from the fault message
determine a time and a location for the maintenance based on the priority and location of the one or more parts; and
automatically operate one or more aspects of the aircraft based on the time and the location of the maintenance.
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of maintenance scheduling based on the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule, identify scheduling options, which corresponds to “Mental Processes”, as it is directed towards steps that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user collect and/or write down vehicle state information, analyze the state information to identify the specifics of a vehicle issue in their mind, compare the issue against a maintenance schedule for a maintenance location in their mind, determine when to schedule maintenance in their mind (NOTE: the claimed invention only recites that a time and location is determined and not actually scheduling the maintenance at the determined time and location), and, at this time, having a human operate a vehicle. The Examiner asserts that, as claimed, “automatically operate” is broad and encompasses acts that can be performed by a human and/or initiated by a human, e.g., turning on the aircraft, accelerating the aircraft, turning on lights, opening the door, checking the wing flaps, filling the tires with air, checking the coffee cart is onboard, or etc., or performing generic operations, e.g., flying an aircraft using generic auto-pilot functions and not improving upon or resolving an issue that arose in this technology, but directed towards human activities (NOTE: the specification recites that operating an aspect of the aircraft includes one or more of: opening the door, checking the wing flaps, filling the tires with air, checking the coffee cart is onboard, or operating the airplane.).
The limitations of:
receive a fault message regarding one or more components of an aircraft,
determine a priority from the fault message,
determine one or more parts for maintenance from the fault message, and
determine the aircraft can fly a scheduled flight from the fault message
determine a time and a location for the maintenance based on the priority and location of the one or more parts; and
automatically operate one or more aspects of the aircraft based on the time and the location of the maintenance,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic maintenance control unit that has been defined in the specification as including generic artificial intelligence or generic machine learning (the claimed invention has not positively claimed artificial intelligence or machine learning), and aircraft/aspect of an aircraft (NOTE: the specification also recites that operating an aspect of the aircraft includes one or more of: opening the door, checking the wing flaps, filling the tires with air, checking the coffee cart is onboard, or operating the airplane). That is, other than reciting a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic maintenance control unit, and aircraft/aspect of an aircraft nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic maintenance control unit, and aircraft/aspect of an aircraft in the context of this claim encompasses a user can collect information about a vehicle issue, analyze the information, and determine a time and location to perform maintenance. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic maintenance control unit, and aircraft/aspect of an aircraft, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic maintenance control unit, and aircraft/aspect of an aircraft to communicate information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. analyze collected information concerning a vehicle, determine when to schedule maintenance on the vehicle, and operating an aspect of the vehicle (e.g., opening a door, checking the coffee cart is onboard”. The generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic maintenance control unit, and aircraft/aspect of an aircraft can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic maintenance control unit, and aircraft/aspect of an aircraft are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic maintenance control unit, and aircraft/aspect of an aircraft.
Although the claim recites “a maintenance control unit”, which claim 12 and ¶ 14 of the applicant’s specification have defined to be “an artificial intelligence unit or machine learning system, the claims and specification fail to provide sufficient disclosure regarding an improvement to how a machine learning algorithm can be trained, but simply recites a high-level generic recitation that a machine learning algorithm is being trained. There is insufficient evidence from the specification to indicate that the use of the machine learning algorithm involves anything other than the generic application of a known technique in its normal, routine, and ordinary capacity or that the claimed invention purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or the machine learning algorithm. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Even training and applying a machine learning model is simply application of a computer model, itself an abstract idea manifestation. Further, such training and applying of a model is no more than putting data into a black box machine learning operation. The nomination as being a machine learning model is a functional label, devoid of technological implementation and application details. The specification does not contend it invented any of these activities, or the creation and use of such machine learning models. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Examiner asserts that the scope of the disclosed invention, as presented in the originally filed specification, is not directed towards the improvement of machine learning, but directed towards maintenance scheduling. The specification’s disclosure on machine learning is nothing more than a high general explanation of generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea. Referring to MPEP § 2106.05(f) and ¶ 67 of the applicant’s specification, the training and re-training are merely being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, which provides nothing more than a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP § 2106.05(f). The Examiner asserts that in light of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, the claimed invention is analogous to Example 47, Claim 2.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system with machine learning model(s). Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium and generic maintenance control unit to perform the steps of:
receive a fault message regarding one or more components of an aircraft,
determine a priority from the fault message,
determine one or more parts for maintenance from the fault message, and
determine the aircraft can fly a scheduled flight from the fault message
determine a time and a location for the maintenance based on the priority and location of the one or more parts; and
automatically operate one or more aspects of the aircraft based on the time and the location of the maintenance,
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claims 2, 3 are directed towards human activities, mental processes, and extra-solution activities, in this case, providing a recommendation for a time and location of the maintenance and scheduling the maintenance service.
Claim 4 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as extra-solution activities, in this case, displaying the time and location for the maintenance service.
Claims 5, 6 are directed towards the recitation of generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as extra-solution activities, in this case, describing stored information.
Claim 7 is directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing what is included in the priority.
Claims 8, 9 are directed towards descriptive subject matter, in this case, describing the priority, the location of the maintenance, and time of the maintenance.
Claim 10 is directed towards human activities, in this case, scheduling delivery of a part.
Claim 12 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea as was discussed above with respect the “maintenance control unit” and “artificial intelligence or machine learning”.
Claim 21, at this time, is directed towards the recitation of generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea. The Examiner asserts that, as claimed, “automatically operate” is broad and encompasses acts that can be performed by a human and/or initiated by a human, e.g., turning on the aircraft, accelerating the aircraft, turning on lights, or etc., or performing generic operations, e.g., flying an aircraft using generic auto-pilot functions and not improving upon or resolving an issue that arose in this technology
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for scheduling the maintenance of a vehicle. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 10, 12 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zanghi et al - US Patent 10423934 B1 in view of Bristow et al. (US PGPub 20210192405 A1).
In regards to claims 1, 13, 20, Zanghi discloses (Claim 1) a system comprising; (Claim 13) a method comprising; (Claim 20) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising executable instructions that, in response to execution, cause one or more control units comprising a processor, to perform operations comprising:
a maintenance control unit including one or more processors configured to (Col. 8 Lines 6 – 60):
receive (Claim 13: , by one or more processors of a maintenance control unit,) a fault message regarding one or more components of an [vehicle] (Col. 1 – 2 Lines 44 – 9; Col. 3 Lines 34 – 57; Col. 4 Lines 40 – 65; Col. 4 – 5 Lines 66 – 19; Col. 10 Lines 44 - 57 wherein the system receives a fault message regarding a component of a vehicle),
determine (Claim 13: , by one or more processors of the maintenance control unit,) a priority from the fault message (Col. 11 Line 1 – 14; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein the priority of the fault is determined),
determine (Claim 13: , by one or more processors of the maintenance control unit,) one or more parts for maintenance from the fault message (Col. 2 – 3 Lines 62 – 3; Col. 5 Lines 32 – 61 wherein the parts needed to address the fault is determined),
determine (Claim 13: , by one or more processors of the maintenance control unit,) the [vehicle] can [operate] a scheduled [route] from the fault message (Col. 2 Lines 29 – 42; Col. 3 Lines 4 – 20, 34 – 57; Col. 3 – 4 Lines 58 – 9; Col. 4 Lines 40 – 55; Col. 4 – 5 Lines 66 – 19; Col. 5 Lines 32 – 61; Col. 6 Lines 27 – 55; Col. 7 Lines 9 – 30; Col. 9 Lines 38 – 56; Col. 12 Lines 3 – 21; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein the system determines the vehicle can operate a scheduled route from the fault message, e.g., the fault does not prohibit the vehicle from driving a scheduled route to a maintenance location);
determine (Claim 13: , by one or more processors of the maintenance control unit,) a time and a location for the maintenance based on the priority and location of the one or more parts (Col. 5 Lines 32 – 61; Col. 7 Lines 1 – 8; Col. 11 Lines 1 – 53; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein a time and location is determined for the maintenance service based on the priority of the issue and location of parts to resolve the issue); and
automatically operate one or more aspects of the [vehicle] based on the time and the location of the maintenance (Col. 3 Lines 4 – 20; Col. 3 – 4 Lines 58 – 9; Col. 6 Lines 28 – 55; Col. 9 Lines 38 – 56 wherein an aspect of the vehicle is operated based on the time and location of the maintenance, e.g., driving to a service center).
Zanghi discloses a system and method for monitoring and scheduling servicing needs of a vehicle based on a plurality of factors for a variety of vehicles. Moreover, the Examiner refers to and incorporates MPEP § 2111.04 and § 2111.05 as what the vehicle is intended to be, i.e. an aircraft, is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing what the vehicle is intended to be while failing to establish the criticality of the vehicle type in order to make and use the invention and achieve the same predictable result. That is to say, identifying or labeling the vehicle as an “aircraft” is a label for the vehicle and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and, thus does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., the type of the vehicle) which does not explicitly alter or impact the claimed invention does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided Bristow to teach this aspect of the claimed invention. In other words, Zanghi fails to explicitly disclose all types of vehicles that require maintenance monitoring and scheduling.
To be more specific, Zanghi fails to explicitly disclose:
receive a fault message regarding one or more components of an aircraft
determine (Claim 13: , by one or more processors of the maintenance control unit,) the aircraft can fly a scheduled flight from the fault message
automatically operate one or more aspects of the aircraft based on the time and the location of the maintenance
However, Bristow, which is also directed towards the monitoring and scheduling of vehicles, teaches that aircrafts are a well-known vehicle type that requires monitoring of its performance/components to determine if the aircraft can be operated for a scheduled flight and, based on the monitoring, determine whether maintenance is required and, in response to determining that maintenance is required, scheduling a time and location to perform maintenance. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Bristow would have found it obvious that there is a plurality of different vehicle types, such as, but not limited to, autonomous vehicles, drones, aircraft, rotorcraft, watercraft, ground vehicles, and etc., which require monitoring and scheduling of maintenance and, in light of the teachings of Bristow, would have found it obvious to substitute any of these well-known and established vehicle types and still achieve the same predictable result, i.e. monitoring and scheduling of maintenance for a vehicle.
(For support see: ¶ 5, 14, 16, 19, 20, 26, 30, 44, 47)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an aircraft, as taught by Bristow, for the generic vehicle disclosed by Zanghi.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious, i.e. monitoring and scheduling of maintenance for a vehicle.
In regards to claims 2, 14, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), wherein the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit are further configured to provide a recommendation for the time and the location of the maintenance (Zanghi – Col. 5 Lines 32 – 61; Col. 7 Lines 1 – 8; Col. 11 Lines 1 – 53; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23; Bristow – ¶ 22, 44 wherein, based on the collected and analyzed data, the system recommends a time and location for maintenance to be performed
As was discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an aircraft, as taught by Bristow, for the generic vehicle disclosed by Zanghi.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious, i.e. monitoring and scheduling of maintenance for a vehicle.).
In regards to claims 3, 15, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), wherein the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit are further configured to automatically schedule the time and the location for the maintenance (Zanghi – Col. 5 Lines 32 – 61; Col. 7 Lines 1 – 8; Col. 8 Lines 6 – 60; Col. 11 Lines 1 – 53; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23; Bristow – ¶ 22, 23, 44 wherein the system automatically schedules the time and the location for the maintenance
As was discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an aircraft, as taught by Bristow, for the generic vehicle disclosed by Zanghi.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious, i.e. monitoring and scheduling of maintenance for a vehicle.).
In regards to claims 4, 16, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), further comprising a user interface including a display, wherein the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit are in communication with the user interface, and wherein the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit are further configured to show the time and the location for the maintenance on the display (Zanghi – Fig. 4; Col. 3 Lines 21 – 30; Col. 5 Lines 20 – 31; Col. 6 Lines 27 – 55; Col. 9 Lines 38 – 56; Col. 12 Lines 3 – 21; Col. 16 Lines 34 – 44; Col. 17 Lines 47 – 61 wherein the system includes an interface in communication with the maintenance unit to display when and where the maintenance is to take place).
In regards to claims 5, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising an inventory database, wherein the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit are in communication with the inventory database, and wherein the inventory database includes information regarding the one or more parts (Zanghi – Col. 2 – 3 Lines 53 – 3; Col. 5 Lines 32 – 46; Col. 6 Lines 26 – 55; Col. 9 Lines 18 – 37 wherein the system includes an inventory database that is used by the system to determine the availability and location of parts).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a flight schedule database, wherein the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit are in communication with the flight schedule database, wherein the flight schedule database includes information regarding a flight schedule for the aircraft and other aircraft (Zanghi – Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23; Bristow – ¶ 44 wherein the system includes a schedule of vehicle use and demand, such as, a flight schedule, which is used to determine scheduling of vehicles during low demand and limit downtime
As was discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an aircraft, as taught by Bristow, for the generic vehicle disclosed by Zanghi.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious, i.e. monitoring and scheduling of maintenance for a vehicle.).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the priority includes one of immediate attention, deferred attention, or predicted attention (Zanghi – Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein the priority includes one of immediate attention, deferred attention, or predicted attention).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the priority is immediate attention, and wherein the location of the maintenance is at a current location of the aircraft, and the time of the maintenance is before another flight of the aircraft (Zanghi – Col. 11 Lines 1 – 35; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein the maintenance location can be at the location of the vehicle and the time of maintenance can be before the vehicle is used).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the priority is one of deferred attention or predicted attention, and wherein the location of the maintenance is at one of a current location of the aircraft or a future location of the aircraft (Zanghi – Col. 11 Lines 1 – 35; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein the maintenance location can be at the location of the vehicle or a future location and the time of maintenance can be based on the priority of the issue, which can result in delayed or predicted scheduling).
In regards to claims 10, 19, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 1 (the method of claim 13), wherein the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit are further configured to schedule delivery of the one or more parts at the location (Zanghi – Col. 2 – 3 Lines 62 – 3; Col. 9 Lines 18 – 56 wherein parts can be delivered to the maintenance location for use at the scheduled time).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the maintenance control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (Zanghi – Col. 8 Lines 6 – 60; Bristow – ¶ 23, 43 wherein the maintenance control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system
As was discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an aircraft, as taught by Bristow, for the generic vehicle disclosed by Zanghi.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious, i.e. monitoring and scheduling of maintenance for a vehicle.).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the method of claim 13, further comprising:
communicatively coupling the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit with an inventory database that includes information regarding the one or more parts (Zanghi – Col. 2 – 3 Lines 53 – 3; Col. 5 Lines 32 – 46; Col. 6 Lines 26 – 55; Col. 9 Lines 18 – 37 wherein the system includes an inventory database that is used by the system to determine the availability and location of parts); and
communicatively coupling the one or more processors of the maintenance control unit with a flight schedule database that includes information regarding a flight schedule for the aircraft and other aircraft (Zanghi – Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23; Bristow – ¶ 44 wherein the system includes a schedule of vehicle use and demand, such as, a flight schedule, which is used to determine scheduling of vehicles during low demand and limit downtime
As was discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an aircraft, as taught by Bristow, for the generic vehicle disclosed by Zanghi.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious, i.e. monitoring and scheduling of maintenance for a vehicle.).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the method of claim 13, wherein when the priority is immediate attention, the location of the maintenance is at a current location of the aircraft, and the time of the maintenance is before another flight of the aircraft, and wherein when the priority is one of deferred attention or predicted attention, the location of the maintenance is at one of a current location of the aircraft or a future location of the aircraft (Zanghi – Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein the priority includes one of immediate attention, deferred attention, or predicted attention; Col. 11 Lines 1 – 35; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein the maintenance location can be at the location of the vehicle and the time of maintenance can be before the vehicle is used; Col. 11 Lines 1 – 35; Col. 13 Lines 6 – 23 wherein the maintenance location can be at the location of the vehicle or a future location and the time of maintenance can be based on the priority of the issue, which can result in delayed or predicted scheduling).
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Zanghi and Bristow discloses the method of claim 1, wherein to automatically operate the one or more aspects of the aircraft based on the time and the location of the maintenance includes to automatically operate the aircraft (Zanghi – Col. 3 Lines 4 – 20; Col. 3 – 4 Lines 58 – 9; Col. 6 Lines 28 – 55; Col. 9 Lines 38 – 56; Bristow – ¶ 5, 14, 16 wherein an aspect of the vehicle is operated based on the time and location of the maintenance, e.g., driving to a service center
As was discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an aircraft, as taught by Bristow, for the generic vehicle disclosed by Zanghi.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious, i.e. monitoring and scheduling of maintenance for a vehicle.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b)
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(a)
The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is not directed towards improving technology or aircrafts, resolving an issue that arose in technology or aircrafts, or deeply rooted in technology or aircrafts, but, as admitted by the applicant on Page 8, last paragraph, directed towards the abstract idea of maintenance scheduling, which is further based on the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule, identify scheduling options.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is not concerned with improving or resolving an issue regarding aircraft operation, but directed towards the collection and comparison of information and, based on a rule, identify scheduling options. The Examiner further asserts that, as claimed, “automatically operate” is broad and encompasses acts that can be performed by a human and/or initiated by a human, e.g., turning on the aircraft, accelerating the aircraft, turning on lights, opening the door, checking the wing flaps, filling the tires with air, checking the coffee cart is onboard, or etc., or performing generic operations, e.g., flying an aircraft using generic auto-pilot functions and not improving upon or resolving an issue that arose in this technology, but directed towards human activities (NOTE: the specification recites that operating an aspect of the aircraft includes one or more of: opening the door, checking the wing flaps, filling the tires with air, checking the coffee cart is onboard, or operating the airplane.). As a result, operating an aspect of an aircraft, which would be operating the aircraft as the aspect is part of the aircraft, has been defined by the specification to be nothing more than opening a door, filling the tires with air, and visually checking wing flaps, which are aspects that can be performed by a human generically interacting with the vehicle. Neither the specification or claimed invention are concerned with technologically improving how a door opens, how tires are filled, or checking wing flaps, resolving an issue that arose in door, tire, or wing flap technology, or deeply rooted in any of these technologies. The specification goes on to disclose that operating as aspect can also include checking the coffee cart is onboard, which is not deeply rooted in technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or improving coffee carts or technological checking of the coffee cart, but a human simply visually checking if the cart is onboard. Consequently, Example 20 is not applicable to the instant invention, especially because on Page 9, first full paragraph the applicant argues that the invention is directed towards reducing maintenance delays, not improving a technological functioning of the aircraft.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Pertinent Arguments
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., commercial aircrafts or determining if or whether an aircraft can fly to identify a location to provide maintenance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Moreover, Bristow teaches that the vehicle types are not limited to drones, but can include autonomous vehicles, drones, aircraft, rotorcraft, watercraft, ground vehicles, and etc., which can further include passenger aircrafts (see, at least, ¶ 26, 30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Yan et al. (Predictive maintenance framework of the aircraft system based on PHM information); Berri et al. (Computational framework for real-time diagnostics and prognostics of aircraft actuation systems); Kordestani et al. (An Overview of the State of the Art in Aircraft Prognostic and Health Management Strategies); Osmanbhoy et al. (Development of fault detection and reporting for non-central maintenance aircraft) – which are directed towards aircraft fault detection and maintenance scheduling
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 GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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 Monfeldt can be reached at 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 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 1/14/2026
Prosecution Insights