Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status
This instant application No. 18/359473 has claims 1-26 pending.
Priority /Filing Date
Applicant claimed Foreign Priority from UK Application No. GB2211034.0. The priority filing date of this application is July 28, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609(C), the Applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated July 26, 2023 and October 10, 2024 are acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. As required by M.P.E.P. 609 C(2), a copy of each of the PTOL-1449s initialed and dated by the Examiner is attached to the instant Office action.
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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 1-10, 12-23 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ronald Wingenter hereafter Wingenter (Pub. No.: US 2010/0262442 A1), in view of RAVEMARK et al. hereafter Ravemark (International Pub. No.: WO 02/23425 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wingenter disclose a computer-implemented method for selecting components to be used in an aircraft system (Wingenter: [0048]: "operation of the aircraft engine ... can be simulated"), the method comprising:
providing a reliability evaluation function configured to produce a reliability score for a given set of candidate components for the aircraft system (Wingenter: [0048]: "the reliability of each component of the engine can be modeled based on the data received at block 500, the results of analyzing the data, engine history data, current performance data associated with the engine ... simulation engine 312 can perform Monte Carlo simulations to generate an estimate time on wing (ETOW) related to the aircraft engine");
providing a complexity evaluation function configured to produce a complexity score representative of a complexity of installing a given set of candidate components for the aircraft system (Wingenter: [0047]: "one or more work scopes are generated by the computing system based on the failure data. In an illustrative embodiment, a work scope can identify one or more repair tasks, one or more engine components to be repaired or replaced, other information associated with repair or other maintenance of an engine"); and
performing a multi-objective optimisation function to determine at least one set of candidate components for the aircraft system that satisfy one or more conditions relating to at least one of the reliability score and the complexity score (Wingenter: [0050]: "the computing system ... determines whether each work scope is optimized or at least satisfies certain criteria. For example, the user ... can determine a minimum acceptable ETOW for an engine after a work scope is completed for the engine or one or more components thereof. A desired and selected work scope can be a work scope that meets or exceeds the threshold ETOW while requiring the lowest estimated cost per unit of operating time"),
wherein the multi-objective optimisation function includes iteratively (Wingenter: [0051]: "if it is determined that the work scope(s) generated at block 502 are not satisfactory, the method can proceed to decision step 516, and it is determined whether any other work scopes can be generated to address the engine or mechanical system failure(s) associated with the particular work scope. If other work scopes can be generated, the method returns to block 502"):
performing at least one of the reliability evaluation function to generate a reliability score for the set of candidate components (Wingenter: [0051]: "If other work scopes can be generated, the method returns to block 502", [0048]: "the reliability of each component of the engine can be modeled based on the data received at block 500, the results of analyzing the data, engine history data, current performance data associated with the engine") and the complexity evaluation function to generate a complexity score for the set of candidate components (Wingenter: [0051]: "If other work scopes can be generated, the method returns to block 502", [0047]: "one or more work scopes are generated by the computing system based on the failure data");
evaluating at least one of the reliability score and the complexity score according to the one or more conditions (Wingenter: [0050]: "the computing system ... determines whether each work scope is optimized or at least satisfies certain criteria. For example, the user ... can determine a minimum acceptable ETOW for an engine after a work scope is completed for the engine or one or more components thereof. A desired and selected work scope can be a work scope that meets or exceeds the threshold ETOW while requiring the lowest estimated cost per unit of operating time"); and
storing the (Wingenter: [0051]: "if no other work scopes are available to correct a failure, the method moves to block 518, and replacement of the engine or removal from the fleet is recommended").
Wingenter do not explicitly disclose
selecting and storing a new set of candidate components for the aircraft system.
Ravemark discloses:
selecting and storing a new set of candidate components for the aircraft system (Ravemark: page 12 lines 5-12: “Once all decision parameters are calculated the user can compare the value for the selected design parameter, such as cost, power output, weight etc to a constraint or target and make a decision (5) to continue with the optimization (6) by changing specifications and/or changing component types”; page 31 lines 15-26: “Each specification change per user per electrical apparatus ' selected is advantageously stored in a user history database 1211, as indicated in FIGURE 13. Data from all choices may be stored, including equipment selections, specifications and specification 20 changes for decisions not to buy”);
Wingenter and Ravemark are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to Industrial product system maintenance and reliability optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above aircraft system components selection application, as taught by Wingenter, and incorporating the use of selection and storage of new components, as taught by Ravemark.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to evaluate environmental impact of an electrical apparatus, optimized and the delivery time of the purchased, specified apparatus reduced, as suggested by Ravemark (Ravemark: abstract).
Regarding Claims 15, 25 and 26 the claims recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the reliability evaluation function comprises:
obtaining a plurality of operational events (Wingenter: [0015]: “failure or performance of a particular part, component or module of a mechanical system, manufacturer test data relating to reliability of various components over time, life-limited parts data, and other data”);
for each said operational event, determining whether the given set of candidate components comply with a respective reliability condition for the said operational event (Wingenter: [0060]: “the ETOW predictor tool 710 can predict an estimated operating time, such as an estimated time on wing (ETOW) for the engine over a period of time, based on the reliability model, projected operating conditions, repair or other maintenance events, other data, or any combination thereof”);
and
generating the reliability score for the given set of candidate components based on a number of operational events of the plurality of operational events for which the given set of candidate components does not comply with the respective reliability condition (Wingenter: [0048]: "the reliability of each component of the engine can be modeled based on the data received at block 500, the results of analyzing the data, engine history data, current performance data associated with the engine ... simulation engine 312 can perform Monte Carlo simulations to generate an estimate time on wing (ETOW) related to the aircraft engine").
Regarding Claim 16, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 2 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 2, wherein determining whether the given set of candidate components comply with the respective reliability condition for a said operational event comprises:
determining a maximum likelihood threshold for the said operational event (Wingenter: [0055]: "determining a work scope that meets or exceeds a threshold operating time with a lowest cost per unit operating time");
determining a likelihood of the said operational event based on respective altered operational mode probability values associated with the given set of candidate components (Wingenter: [0055]: "determining a work scope that meets or exceeds a threshold operating time with a lowest cost per unit operating time"; [0059]: operation level (0-level) failure distributions 703, intermediate level (I-level) failure distributions 704, depot level (D-level) failure distributions 706, or any combination thereof); and
determining whether the likelihood of the said operational event exceeds the maximum likelihood threshold (Wingenter: [0055]: "determining a work scope that meets or exceeds a threshold operating time with a lowest cost per unit operating time"),
wherein the given set of candidate components complies with the respective reliability condition for the said operational event if the likelihood of the operational event is less than the maximum likelihood threshold for the operational event (Wingenter: [0019]: " determine one or more work scopes that have an estimated operating time, an estimated cost, cost performance parameter, or any combination thereof, that is equal to, lower than, or greater than a threshold figure.").
Regarding Claim 17, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 3 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 3, wherein determining whether the given set of candidate components comply with the respective reliability condition for a said operational event comprises:
determining a marginal likelihood threshold for the said operational event, the marginal likelihood threshold representing a lower likelihood than the maximum likelihood threshold (Wingenter: [0055]: "determining a work scope that meets or exceeds a threshold operating time with a lowest cost per unit operating time"); and
determining whether the likelihood of the said operational event exceeds the marginal likelihood threshold (Wingenter: [0055]: "determining a work scope that meets or exceeds a threshold operating time with a lowest cost per unit operating time"),
wherein the given set of components complies with the respective reliability condition for the said operational event if the likelihood of the operational event is less than the marginal likelihood threshold for the said operational event (Wingenter: [0019]: " determine one or more work scopes that have an estimated operating time, an estimated cost, cost performance parameter, or any combination thereof, that is equal to, lower than, or greater than a threshold figure.").
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 4 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 5, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises obtaining component library data representative of a plurality of candidate components for the aircraft system, wherein each candidate component is associated with a respective altered operational mode probability value in the component library data (Wingenter: [0020]: " The system 100 can include mechanical system data 116, such as data associated with current performance of the mechanical system, data associated with a history of various parts within the mechanical system, and the like. Further, the system 100 can include inventory data 118 such as a list of available shop assets, parts, components and modules for use in the mechanical system.").
Regarding Claim 6, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according claim 3, wherein obtaining the plurality of operational events includes:
determining a set of component types for the aircraft system, each component type being associated with two or more of the candidate components for the aircraft system (Wingenter: [0017]: "one or more engine or system components");
generating an initial set of operational events each representing an altered operational mode of at least one of the component types (Wingenter: [0054]: "failures or other repair events can be projected for the engine based on the simulations.");
determining a worst-case likelihood for each of the initial set of operational events based on the altered operational mode probability values associated with the candidate components for the aircraft system (Wingenter: [0055]: "determining a work scope that meets or exceeds a threshold operating time with a lowest cost per unit operating time"); and
modifying the initial set of operational events by removing operational events for which the associated worst-case likelihood is below a maximum likelihood threshold (Wingenter: [0034]: "user can adjust or modify the failure model 308 or the parameters on which the failure model 308 is based via the GUI."); and
outputting the modified set of operational events as the plurality of operational events (Wingenter: [0034]: "user can adjust or modify the failure model 308 or the parameters on which the failure model 308 is based via the GUI.", Also see [0044]).
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 6 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 7, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 3, wherein the method comprises obtaining operational event category data representing a plurality of altered operational modes for the aircraft system and associating each altered operational mode with a respective maximum likelihood threshold, and wherein determining the maximum likelihood threshold for the said operational event comprises:
selecting an altered operational mode based on an evaluation of the operational event (Ravemark: page 12 lines 5-12: Once all decision parameters are calculated the user can compare the value for the selected design parameter, such as cost, power output, weight etc to a constraint or target and make a decision (5) to continue with the optimization (6) by changing specifications and/or changing component types); and
identifying the maximum likelihood threshold corresponding to the selected altered operational mode from the operational event category data (Wingenter: [0055]: "determining a work scope that meets or exceeds a threshold operating time with a lowest cost per unit operating time").
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 7 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 8, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the complexity
evaluation function comprises, iteratively (Wingenter: [0042]):
obtaining a set of independence rules representing dependencies between components in the aircraft system (Wingenter: [0042]: "The work scope evaluation tool 420 determines whether the work scope (s) meet threshold criteria.");
storing a complexity score representative of a number of independence rules having been removed from the set of independence rules (Wingenter: [0047]: "one or more work scopes are generated by the computing system based on the failure data. In an illustrative embodiment, a work scope can identify one or more repair tasks, one or more engine components to be repaired or replaced, other information associated with repair or other maintenance of an engine");
evaluating a performance of the aircraft system when the given set of components is installed according to the set of independence rules(Wingenter: [0039]: "the reliability prediction tool 414 can model the reliability of the mechanical system after completion of a work scope, based on current performance data 402 related to the mechanical system; failure distributions 404 related to the mechanical system, such as operation level (O-level) failure distributions; the performance history 406 of the mechanical system; life-limited parts data 408; and the available shop assets data 410");
if the performance of the aircraft system satisfies one or more performance criteria: removing at least one independence rule from the set of independence rules; and updating the complexity score (Wingenter: [0050], [0051]: "On the other hand, if no other work scopes are available to correct a failure, the method moves to block 518, and replacement of the engine or removal from the fleet is recommended"); and
if the performance of the aircraft system does not satisfy the one or more performance criteria, outputting the complexity score (Wingenter: [0050], [0051]: "In an illustrative embodiment, a cost performance parameter can be generated for each work scope and can be represented in a display or other output, such as that illustrated at 424 in FIG. 4.").
Regarding Claim 21, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 8 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 9, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one set of candidate components for the aircraft system satisfy two or more conditions relating to at least the reliability score and the complexity score, wherein the two or more conditions include a target reliability score and a target complexity score (Wingenter: [0050]: "the computing system ... determines whether each work scope is optimized or at least satisfies certain criteria. For example, the user ... can determine a minimum acceptable ETOW for an engine after a work scope is completed for the engine or one or more components thereof. A desired and selected work scope can be a work scope that meets or exceeds the threshold ETOW while requiring the lowest estimated cost per unit of operating time").
Regarding Claim 22, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 9 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 10, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the method comprises obtaining component library data representative of a plurality of candidate components for the aircraft system, wherein each candidate component is associated with respective component characteristics, the multi-objective optimisation function is performed to determine at least one set of candidate components that satisfy two or more conditions relating to:
one or more target component characteristics (Wingenter: [0048]: "the reliability of each component of the engine can be modeled based on the data received at block 500, the results of analyzing the data, engine history data, current performance data associated with the engine, life-limited parts data, shop assets data, operation level (O-level) failure distributions, or any combination thereof").; and
at least one of the reliability score and the complexity score (Wingenter: [0047], [0048]); and
wherein the multi-objective optimisation further comprises:
determining a component characteristic score based on the component characteristics associated with the selected set of candidate components (Wingenter: [0032], [0034]); and
evaluating the component characteristic score and at least one of the reliability score and the complexity score according to the two or more conditions (Wingenter: [0032], [0034], [0047], [0048]).
Regarding Claim 23, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 10 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 12, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the multi-objective optimisation function includes a genetic algorithm (Ravemark: page 12 lines 1-5: “When the components are selected additional specifications (3) on the components can be entered. When the system is described the system will use built-in algorithms and calculation functions to evaluate the system (4) and present the decision parameters”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 12, wherein the genetic algorithm is a non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (Ravemark: page 12 lines 22-32: “Suitable built-in algorithm and calculation function means may include Mixed-Integer linear programming optimizations (MILP) or even Mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) modules to support the user to search the space of possible solutions”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark further disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1, further comprising selecting one or more of the stored sets of candidate components for the aircraft system based on the associated indications of the outcomes of the evaluations according to the one or more conditions (Ravemark: page 12 lines 5-12: “Once all decision parameters are calculated the user can compare the value for the selected design parameter, such as cost, power output, weight etc to a constraint or target and make a decision (5) to continue with the optimization (6) by changing specifications and/or changing component types”; page 31 lines 15-26: “Each specification change per user per electrical apparatus ' selected is advantageously stored in a user history database 1211, as indicated in FIGURE 13. Data from all choices may be stored, including equipment selections, specifications and specification 20 changes for decisions not to buy”).
5. Claims 11 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ronald Wingenter hereafter Wingenter (Pub. No.: US 2010/0262442 A1), in view of RAVEMARK et al. hereafter Ravemark (International Pub. No.: WO 02/23425 A1), further in view of Holden et al. hereafter Holden (Patent No.: US 8,831,913 B2).
Regarding Claim 11, the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark disclose the computer-implemented method according to claim 1.
However, the combination donot explicitly disclose wherein performing the multi-objective optimisation function includes generating a plurality of sets of candidate components the plurality of sets of candidate components representing a pareto frontier.
Holden disclose:
wherein performing the multi-objective optimisation function includes generating a plurality of sets of candidate components the plurality of sets of candidate components representing a pareto frontier (Holden: Figure 16, column 16 lines 32-54).
Wingenter, Ravemark and Holden are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. All of them relate to Industrial product system maintenance and reliability optimization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above aircraft system components selection application, as taught by the combinations of Wingenter and Ravemark, and incorporating the use of pareto frontier characteristics of the component components, as taught by Holden.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to verify whether the design has been optimized, as suggested by Holden (Holden: column 1 lines 29-331).
Regarding Claim 24, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 11 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Truong et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0103877 A1) teaches an integrated platform that provides recommendation tools for various phases of an industrial automation project lifecycle wherein the integrated platform provides a master hub connecting data from multiple parties and the data can be used to create installed base evaluations which can be used to create customized spare part inventory recommendations.
Ethington et al. (Patent No.: US 10,239,640 B2) teaches a predictive aircraft maintenance systems and methods which include extracting feature data from flight data collected during a flight of the aircraft, applying an ensemble of related classifiers to produce a classifier indicator for each classifier of the ensemble of classifiers, aggregating the classifier indicators to produce an aggregate indicator indicating an aggregate category of a selected component for a threshold number of future flights, and determining the performance status of the selected component based on the aggregate indicator.
George Howell (Pub. No.: US 2021/0300528 A1) conceptually presents an aircraft control system including an aircraft control module, a trained classifier module, and an aircraft control processing engine and using the determined operating control value to generate operating control outputs and control the aircraft using the operating control outputs.
Aaron et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0048648 A1) defines a method that includes obtaining a first test matrix for a first aircraft system and a second test matrix for a second aircraft system and determining, based at least in part on a range of the second sensor data, a test coverage metric of the second test matrix.
7. Examiner’s Remarks: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights