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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 (which recites substantially similar subject matter as claims 8 and 15) states:
A method comprising:
extracting structured maintenance action information from an authoritative maintenance source, the authoritative maintenance source defining a plurality of faults for a system and a respective set of one or more maintenance actions for each of the plurality of faults;
generating, for at least one fault of the plurality of faults, a respective first map of the fault to one or more relevant portions of the structured maintenance action information;
generating, for a received predictive alert, a second map of one or more related faults identified from the plurality of faults; and
identifying, based on the first maps, the second map, and maintenance records analyzed according to the structured maintenance action information, a maintenance action that is most likely indicated by the predictive alert.
Step 1: Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations (represented by bolded font) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer-readable storage medium” / “one or more computer processors” (from claim 8) and “a memory storing an authoritative maintenance source and maintenance records” / “one or more processors” (from claim 15), nothing in the claim elements preclude the process from being practically performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the bolded limitations in the context of the independent claims may encompass a person determining a most likely maintenance action for a predicted fault. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements (represented by underlined font) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations “a computer-readable storage medium” / “one or more computer processors” (from claim 8) and “a memory storing an authoritative maintenance source and maintenance records” / “one or more processors” (from claim 15), the examiner submits that these elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that the elements are considered a mere generic computer component which allows the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)).
Regarding the additional limitation “extracting structured maintenance action information from an authoritative maintenance source, the authoritative maintenance source defining a plurality of faults for a system and a respective set of one or more maintenance actions for each of the plurality of faults”, the examiner submits that this is directed to an insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, extracting information from a data source amounts to mere data gathering (MPEP § 2106.05(g)(3)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) do not add anything that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations “a computer-readable storage medium” / “one or more computer processors” (from claim 8) and “a memory storing an authoritative maintenance source and maintenance records” / “one or more processors” (from claim 15), are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the component is anything other than generic processors.
Regarding the additional limitation “extracting structured maintenance action information from an authoritative maintenance source, the authoritative maintenance source defining a plurality of faults for a system and a respective set of one or more maintenance actions for each of the plurality of faults”, this is a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity because obtaining data is recognized by the office as a WURC function (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Therefore, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well‐understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
Claims 2/9/16 describe a type of data source and do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3/10/17 and 4/11 describe natural language processing, which is further directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/8/15 (e.g. person analyzes text for keywords).
Claims 5/12/18 describe determining fault information in relation to a predictive alert, which is further directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/8/15 (e.g. person predicts faults based on predictive information).
Claims 6/13/19 describe identifying information in maintenance documentation, which is further directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/8/15 (e.g. person identifies a part number).
Claims 7/14/20 describe comparing a likelihood, which is further directed to the previously discussed mental process from claims 1/8/15 (e.g. person evaluates confidence level).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims 8-14 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a computer readable medium that covers signals per se.
Independent claim 8 recites “A computer program product comprising: a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to perform an operation”. The usage of the phrase “…computer-readable storage medium…” is broad enough to include both “non-transitory” and “transitory” (moving electrons, etc) media. The specification does not clearly limit the utilization of a non-transitory computer readable medium and, thus does not constitute functional descriptive material. Therefore, when the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach: A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim.
Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lake et al. (US20200380794A1; hereinafter Lake) in view of Minisankar et al. (US20220365525A1; hereinafter Minisankar).
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 8, and 15, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Lake discloses a system for providing maintenance recommendations (see at least Abstract) comprising:
(claim 1) a method / (claim 8) a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to perform an operation / (claim 15) a memory storing an authoritative maintenance source and maintenance records; and one or more processors (Paragraphs 0067-0068, “Fig. 8 depicts a processing system 800 that may be used to perform methods described herein…Processing system 800 includes a CPU 802 connected to a data bus 812. CPU 802 is configured to process computer-executable instructions, e.g., stored in memory 808 or storage 810, and to cause processing system 800 to perform methods as described herein…”);
extracting structured maintenance action information from an authoritative maintenance source, the authoritative maintenance source defining a plurality of faults for a system and a respective set of one or more maintenance actions for each of the plurality of faults (Paragraph 0035, “…maintenance engine 122 retrieves fault code data 126 from another local or remote source, such as from a fault isolation manual (FIM). A FIM is a manual that contains information necessary for a trained mechanic to perform servicing for particular fault codes of a vehicle. In certain embodiments, maintenance engine 122 automatically extracts fault code data 126 from one or more FIMs, such as based on keywords and/or structure in the FIMs…”);
generating, for at least one fault of the plurality of faults, a respective first map of the fault to one or more relevant portions of the structured maintenance action information (Paragraph 0039, “Maintenance engine 122 analyzes fault code data 126 to determine unique parameters of fault codes, and uses the unique parameters to identify correlations between fault records 127 and maintenance records 128”).
While Lake further discloses features for analyzing maintenance records to identify maintenance actions (Paragraph 0026, “…maintenance systems analyze maintenance records and faults to identify maintenance actions”), Lake does not explicitly recite: generating, for a received predictive alert, a second map of one or more related faults identified from the plurality of faults; and identifying, based on the first maps, the second map, and maintenance records analyzed according to the structured maintenance action information, a maintenance action that is most likely indicated by the predictive alert.
Nevertheless, Minisankar teaches features for predicting faults (see at least Abstract) comprising:
generating, for a received predictive alert, a second map of one or more related faults identified from the plurality of faults (Paragraph 0064 describes predicting faults based on predictive information (“…the machine learning engine 141 may predict statuses (e.g., faults) associated with the equipment 125 based on prediction key performance indicators (KPIs) (also referred to herein as prediction KPIs) associated with the predicted performance data”);
identifying, based on the first maps, the second map, and maintenance records analyzed according to the structured maintenance action information, a maintenance action that is most likely indicated by the predictive alert (Paragraph 0093, “…the server 110 (e.g., the diagnostics tool or application implemented at the server 110 and/or a communication device 105) may identify the most probable recommendations for addressing the predicted fault (e.g., operator actions, maintenance actions, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lake invention to expand the features for identifying maintenance actions based on maintenance records and fault information (Paragraph 0026) to consider predicted faults, as taught by Minisankar, for the benefit of improving maintenance efficiency through faster notifications (Minisankar, Paragraph 0083) which can allow repairs to be scheduled at optimal times.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Lake as currently modified teaches claims 1, 8, and 15. Lake further discloses:
wherein the system comprises an aircraft, and wherein the authoritative maintenance source comprises a fault isolation manual (FIM) (Paragraph 0035, “…maintenance engine 122 retrieves fault code data 126 from another local or remote source, such as from a fault isolation manual (FIM). A FIM is a manual that contains information necessary for a trained mechanic to perform servicing for particular fault codes of a vehicle” ; Paragraph 0040, “…vehicles such as aircrafts…”).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, 18, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Lake as currently modified teaches claims 1, 8, and 15. Lake does not explicitly recite: wherein identifying one or more related faults for the predictive alert comprises one of the following: determining that the predictive alert directly predicts a fault; determining that the predictive alert predicts a common cause of the fault; and determining that the predictive alert predicts a common effect of the fault.
Nevertheless, Minisankar further teaches:
wherein identifying one or more related faults for the predictive alert comprises one of the following: determining that the predictive alert directly predicts a fault; determining that the predictive alert predicts a common cause of the fault; and determining that the predictive alert predicts a common effect of the fault (Paragraph 0186, “…the server 110 may identify a predicted fault based on whether any predicted future values satisfy criteria associated with a KPI (e.g., a first KPI and/or a second KPI as described herein). In some aspects, at 345, the server 110 may generate a fault diagnosis associated with the predicted fault and/or a generate recommendations for addressing the predicted fault (e.g., as described at 265 with reference to FIG. 2). In an example, a fault diagnosis may include an indication of a root cause associated with a predicted fault”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Lake invention to expand the features for identifying maintenance actions based on maintenance records and fault information (Paragraph 0026, “…maintenance systems analyze maintenance records and faults to identify maintenance actions”) to consider KPIs capable of identifying at least a root cause, as taught by Minisankar, for the benefit of optimizing maintenance (Minisankar, Paragraph 0024).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, 19, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Lake as currently modified teaches claims 1, 8, and 15. Lake further discloses:
wherein analyzing the maintenance records comprises identifying one or more of the following within individual maintenance records: one or more references to the authoritative maintenance source; one or more part numbers; one or more serial numbers; and one or more installation indicators or removal indicators (Figure 3 and Paragraph 0036,” Parameters of a fault code include a number of parameter types such as, for example, parts (e.g., names of parts that may relate to the fault code), flight deck effects (FDEs), which generally refer to indications of systems of a vehicle that relate to faults, message text (e.g., that is displayed on a client system with the fault occurs), and message numbers (e.g., a unique number associated with the message that is displayed on the client device when the fault occurs), as described in more detail below with respect to FIG. 3”; Examiner notes that FDEs and part names are indicative of at least part numbers (e.g. see “ENG EEC C1 L”, “ENG L IGNITER 2”, “Engine 1”, “Altimeter 1”, etc.)).
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lake in view of Minisankar and Rimell et al. (US20230401544A1; hereinafter Rimell).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Lake as currently modified teaches claims 1, 8, and 15. While Lake discloses generating the respective first map of the fault to the one or more relevant portions (Paragraph 0039, “Maintenance engine 122 analyzes fault code data 126 to determine unique parameters of fault codes, and uses the unique parameters to identify correlations between fault records 127 and maintenance records 128”), Lake does not explicitly recite wherein generating the respective first map of the fault to the one or more relevant portions comprises: performing natural language processing on the structured maintenance action information to identify a set of keywords and a relative frequency of each keyword in the set.
Nevertheless, Rimell teaches maintenance management with features for performing text analysis (see at least Abstract) comprising:
performing natural language processing on the structured maintenance action information to identify a set of keywords and a relative frequency of each keyword in the set (Paragraphs 0096-0098 describe using a natural language processing algorithm (Latent Dirichlet Allocation / LDA) for identifying frequency of keywords , “The output from the LDA algorithm…The results from the maintenance report analysis are shown in FIG. 5…The list of terms shows the frequency of occurrence of the top 30 most salient terms across the whole set of words appearing in the classified documents”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Lake invention to expand the features for processing keywords (Paragraph 0035, “…extracts fault code data 126 from one or more FIMs, such as based on keywords”) and correlating fault records with maintenance records to generate correlations between faults and maintenance actions (Paragraph 0039) to include natural language processing algorithms, as taught by Rimell, for the benefit of identifying patterns in free text records (Rimell, Paragraph 0098).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Lake as currently modified teaches claims 3 and 10. Lake does not explicitly recite: wherein generating the respective first map of the fault to the one or more relevant portions comprises: identifying, from the set of keywords, a subset of one or more keywords having a highest relative frequency.
Nevertheless, Rimell further teaches:
wherein generating the respective first map of the fault to the one or more relevant portions comprises: identifying, from the set of keywords, a subset of one or more keywords having a highest relative frequency (Paragraph 0098, “The results from the maintenance report analysis are shown in FIG. 5…The list of terms shows the frequency of occurrence of the top 30 most salient terms across the whole set of words appearing in the classified documents”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Lake invention to expand the features for processing keywords (Paragraph 0035, “…extracts fault code data 126 from one or more FIMs, such as based on keywords”) and correlating fault records with maintenance records to generate correlations between faults and maintenance actions (Paragraph 0039) to include natural language processing algorithms configured to identify the most frequently used words, as taught by Rimell, for the benefit of identifying most relevant keywords (Rimell, Paragraph 0098).
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lake in view of Minisankar and Cooper et al. (US20160307100A1; hereinafter Cooper).
Regarding Claims 7, 14, 20, which recite substantially similar subject matter, Lake as currently modified teaches claims 1, 8, and 15. Lake does not explicitly recite: comparing a likelihood of the identified maintenance action with a threshold value; and inferring, when the likelihood does not exceed the threshold value, that the predictive alert did not result in a maintenance action.
Nevertheless, Cooper teaches features for monitoring aircraft equipment (see at least Abstract) comprising:
comparing a likelihood of the identified maintenance action with a threshold value; and inferring, when the likelihood does not exceed the threshold value, that the predictive alert did not result in a maintenance action (Paragraph 0011 describes a confidence rating for identifying the correct “action” in response to an alert (e.g. regarding the monitored equipment) and comparing the confidence rating to a threshold value before determining whether the action will take place (“…classify alerts using the rules and/or algorithms stored in data store 150, and take action. The action would be determined based on the rules and/or algorithms based on the classification results having a confidence rating above a pre-determined threshold indicating that the correct action has been determined. If the threshold is not met…the alert can remain unclassified if there are no applicable rules and/or algorithms”); Examiner notes that when the confidence rating for a determined “action” is not greater than the “pre-determined threshold” value, then the alert remains unclassified, and therefore no action was taken (e.g. unclassified alerts do not result in an “action” being performed)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the Lake invention to expand the features for identifying maintenance actions based on maintenance records and fault information (Paragraph 0026, “…maintenance systems analyze maintenance records and faults to identify maintenance actions”) to consider a confidence rating, as taught by Cooper, for the benefit of providing further validation that a determination is correct (Cooper, Paragraph 0011).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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 Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights