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 . Claims 1-6, 9-17, 20, and 22-24 have been reviewed and are under consideration by this office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/18/2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Non-Final Office action. Applicant amended claims, previously cancelled claim 7, cancelled claims 8, 19, and 21 and added claims 22-24. Claims 1-6, 9-17, 20, and 22-24 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are received and acknowledged.
Applicant amended Claim 20 to include the limitations from the prior independent claims that was deemed to overcome the known prior art. The 103 Rejections are overcome and therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the inclusion of a mathematical formula does not mean the claim is directed to that judicial exception if the claims improve the functioning of a computer and candidate statistical selection process.
Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive as the claims are directed towards mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, and further mathematical concepts as described below. Further the claims merely recite the additional elements of a computing device; A computing device for monitoring a fleet of aircraft, the computing device comprising: processing circuitry and memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuity whereby the computing device is configured to:; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program product for controlling a computing device, the computer program product comprising software instructions that, when run on the computing device, cause the computing device; and sending/outputting an alert which are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant further contends with respect to the candidate distribution refinement process, that the system uses Bayesian approach to estimate parameters so fewer operations data is required. Applicant further asserts that the use of conjugate priors distill the evolution of prior to posterior as an algebraic relation which reduces computational loading.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The MPEP makes clear “an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” and that “[m]ere automation of manual processes” is not an improvement in computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Further the Examiner points to the MPEP which states "if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." MPEP 2106.04(d)(1). Lastly the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(f) - Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363.
Applicant further contends with respect to the candidate distribution selection process which uses recursive approximation further reducing computational burden
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The MPEP makes clear “an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology” and that “[m]ere automation of manual processes” is not an improvement in computer technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Further the Examiner points to the MPEP which states "if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
The 101 Rejection is updated and maintained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-17, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claim(s) is/are directed to statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One – The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely in independent claims recite a series of steps for the abstract idea recited below.
Regarding Claim(s) 1;, (additional elements bolded)
A method implemented by a computing device of monitoring a fleet of aircraft, the method comprising: receiving a plurality of candidate statistical distributions for the fleet of aircraft, each of the plurality of candidate statistical distributions describes a first operations data and a second operations data characterizing one or more aspects of at least one aircraft of the fleet of aircraft;
refining the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based, at least in part, on Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) estimates, wherein the refining comprises:
generating the MAP estimates using a conjugate prior P(θ), wherein the conjugate prior is a prior probability distribution;
generating, based on the conjugate prior P(θ), a posterior probability distribution P(θ׀D);
updating the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based on a combination of the first operations data and the second operations data and the MAP estimates; and;
comparing the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based on a combination of the first and second operations data;
selecting from the plurality of candidate statistical distributions a baseline statistical distribution based on the comparing;
wherein the selecting is recursively performed
PNG
media_image1.png
245
492
media_image1.png
Greyscale
outputting the baseline statistical distribution,
wherein the baseline statistical distribution is predicted to best describe both the first operations data and the second operations data; and
sending an alert to indicate the baseline statistical distribution that was discovered trigger an alert to indicate the baseline statistical distribution;
Regarding Claim(s) 12, teaches: A computing device for monitoring a fleet of aircraft, the computing device comprising: processing circuitry and memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuity whereby the computing device is configured to:
receive a plurality of candidate statistical distributions for the fleet of aircraft, each of the plurality of candidate statistical distributions describes a first operations data and a second operations data characterizing one or more aspects of at least one aircraft of the fleet of aircraft;
refine the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based, at least in part, on Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) estimates, wherein the refining comprises:
generate the MAP estimates using a conjugate prior P(θ), wherein the conjugate prior is a prior probability distribution;
generate, based on the conjugate prior P(θ), a posterior probability distribution P(θ׀D);
update the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based on a combination of the first operations data, the second operations data, and the MAP estimates; and;
compare the updated plurality of candidate statistical distributions based on a combination of the first and second operations data;
select from the updated plurality of candidate statistical distributions a baseline statistical distribution based on the comparing, wherein the baseline statistical distribution is predicted to best describe both the first operations data and the second operations data; and
wherein selecting from the updated plurality of candidate statistical distributions is recursively performed according to selecting
PNG
media_image2.png
117
494
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
114
452
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and;
output an alert indicating the baseline statistical distribution.
Further regarding Claim(s) 20, teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program product for controlling a computing device, the computer program product comprising software instructions that, when run on the computing device, cause the computing device to:
receive a plurality of candidate statistical distributions for a fleet of aircraft, each of the plurality of candidate statistical distributions describes a first operations data and a second operations data characterizing one or more aspects of at least aircrafts of the fleet of aircraft;
refine the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based, at least in part, on Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) estimates, wherein to refine the plurality of statistical distributions, the processing circuitry is configured to:
generate the MAP estimates using a conjugate prior P(θ), wherein the conjugate prior is a prior probability distribution;
generate, based on the conjugate prior P(θ), a posterior probability distribution P(θ׀D):
update the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based on a combination of the first operations data and the second operations data, and the MAP estimates; and
compare the updated plurality of candidate statistical distributions based on a combination of the first and second operations data;
select from the updated plurality of candidate statistical distributions a baseline statistical distribution based on the comparing;
trigger an alert to indicate the baseline statistical distribution; and
wherein the baseline statistical distribution is predicted to best describe both the first operations data and the second operations data, and
wherein selecting from the updated plurality of candidate statistical distributions is recursively performed according to
PNG
media_image4.png
212
529
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind” (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as the claims are directed towards receiving a plurality of candidate statistical distributions, updating the plurality of distributions, comparing the distributions, selecting a baseline distribution, and outputting a baseline distribution all of which are concepts capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. via pen and paper).
Further the claims are directed towards the abstract idea grouping of “Certain methods of organizing human activity” — commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) as the claims are directed towards expressing KPIs in functions or statistical distributions regarding management of vehicle fleets (See Specification, [02]).
As drafted, this is, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, within the Abstract idea groupings of “Mathematical concepts” – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; as the claims recite at least updating the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based on a combination of the first operations data and the second operations data; comparing the plurality of candidate statistical distributions based on a combination of the first and second operations data; selecting from the plurality of candidate statistical distributions a baseline statistical distribution based on the comparing.
Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims utilize at least the additional elements bolded above. The additional elements are performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B - The claim does 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 elements are just “apply it” on a computer. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception – “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element of sending an alert is further is an activity that has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(d) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362)
Regarding Claims 2-5, 9-11, 13-16, 20, and 22-24, the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Regarding Claims 6 and 17 the claims further recite the additional element(s) of real-time (implies the use of a general purpose computer). This element(s) is performing the steps would be no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) in Steps 2A-Prong 2 and 2B.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examining Claims with Respect to Prior Art
Claims 1-6, 9-17, 20, and 22-24 though directed to non-statutory subject matter, are deemed to define over the currently known prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103. Examiner interprets Claims 1, 12, and 20 based upon the claim limitations that there is no currently known prior art that discloses the features relating to: “wherein the selecting from the plurality of candidate distributions is recursively performed according to selecting candidate j associated with a largest P(Dx+1|M)) where P(.|Mj) is the evidence of model Mj, Dk is the second operations data and Dk+1, is the first operations data, 0k: and 0k+1 are the parameters of model Mj, and λ a constant geometric forgetting factor:
PNG
media_image5.png
101
399
media_image5.png
Greyscale
”
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-6, 9-17, 20, and 22-24 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
The closest prior arts of record are of as follows:
US 20210133010 A1 Bhag et al.
US20240241223A1 Stanley et al.
US 20190294157 A1 Miyagi et al.
US 20110047000 A1 Perry et al.
US 20140163903 A1 Klein et al.
US 20100217650 A1 Hartnell et al.
US 20180047224 A1 Clark et al.
US 20090265118 A1 Guenther et al.
US 4868871 A Watson et al.
However, the prior art neither alone nor in combination teaches the above limitations.
The closest foreign reference of record are as follows:
CN113157448B Shen et al.
However, the prior art neither alone nor in combination teaches the above limitations.
The closest non-patent literature of reference are as follows:
Y. Tang, S. Zhao, C. -W. Ten, K. Zhang and T. Logenthiran, "Establishment of Enhanced Load Modeling by Correlating With Occupancy Information," in IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 1702-1713, March 2020
However, the prior art neither alone nor in combination teaches the above limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY L GUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:30-4:30.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at (571) 272-6787. 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.
/JEREMY L GUNN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights