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 . This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 1/2/2026.
Claims 1-9 and 12-22 are pending.
Response to Amendments
Amendments filed on 1/2/2026 are under consideration. Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-14, and 16-18 are amended. Claims 10 and 11 are cancelled. New claims 19-22 have been added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/2/2026 has been entered.
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 1-9 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-5, 11-14, and 20 are directed to a structural integrity management system for an aircraft (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-5, 11-14, and 20 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 6-10, 15-19, and 21-22 are directed to a method of maintaining an aircraft (i.e., a method). Therefore, claims 6-10, 15-19, and 21-22 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (mental process) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Independent claims 1 and 6 recite:
an electronic processor configured to receive, from one or more sensors, information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft, update a digital twin model associated with the aircraft based on the received information, perform a rapid structural analysis using the updated digital twin model, and a future usage profile indicative of future intended use of the aircraft, determine , based on the results of the rapid structural analysis, an actionable direction including a command, and implement the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft, wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation constitutes a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a mental process . For example, “perform a rapid structural analysis using the updated digital twin model.” In the context of this claim after obtaining information regarding damage to an aircraft this step is simply comprising of computing various mathematical formulas within the claim to determine whether or not to send the alert or actionable direction to the maintenance computer. The other example, “determine… an actionable direction including a command, and implement the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft, wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft” and “and determining one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair” In the context of this claim after obtaining information regarding damage to an aircraft and after performing a rapid structural analysis this determining step lies within the claim to determine if a repair should be made as only an addressing or suggesting of a repair is made, which can be done with the aid of pen and paper, and similarly the second quote is simply notifying an operator as to how a repair should be made and thus can be done with the aid of pen and paper. Essentially, this system is collecting data to plug into a mathematical formula to determine whether or not the aircraft is compromised. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (Where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
an electronic processor configured to receive, from one or more sensors, information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft, update a digital twin model associated with the aircraft based on the received information, perform a rapid structural analysis using the updated digital twin model, and a future usage profile indicative of future intended use of the aircraft, determine , based on the results of the rapid structural analysis, an actionable direction including a command, and implement the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft, wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an electronic processor configured to receive information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft,”, “update a digital twin model associated with the aircraft based on the received information.”, “from one or more sensors” and “transmit the future usage profile, as modified, to a computing device associated with the aircraft.” These two limitations merely are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (electronic processor) to perform the system’s configuration. In particular, the step of receiving information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, “based on the results of the rapid structural analysis”, “based on the level of maintenance” , and the step of updating a digital twin model associated with the aircraft based on the received information are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle data for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer implemented method is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the calculating step.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing 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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using an electronic processor to perform the receiving and updating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of “…to receive…”, “…updating…”, and “…transmit…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
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 of “…to receive…”, “…updating…”, and “…transmit…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle and the data transferring over a network is done through well understood and routine communication pathways. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, as well as, transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claims 2-5, and 7-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2 and 7 mention “…perform the actionable direction by transmitting, via a transceiver, a request for maintenance intervention to a remote electronic communications device…” which would fail under Step 2A prong 2 for being insignificant extra solution activities that merely use generic computer components and would not allow claim 2 or 7 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 3 and 8 mention “…generate a digital overlay of a repair to address the damage on the digital twin; and transmit via a transceiver, with the request, the digital overlay” which would fail under Step 2A prong 2 for being insignificant extra solution activities that merely use generic computer components and would not allow claim 3 or 8 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 4 and 9 mention “…wherein the determination of an actionable direction is further based on a residual structural strength determination assessment” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for utilizing mathematical formulas and would not allow claim 4 or 9 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 5 and 10 mention “wherein the future usage profile includes at least one selected from a group consisting of environmental information, duration, altitude range, and destination” which would fail under Step 2A prong 2 for being insignificant extra solution activities that is merely data gathering and would not allow claim 5 or 10 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 11 and 15 mentions “information regarding damage to a component” which would fail under step 2a prong 2 as it is insignificant extra solution activity as this limitation is merely further explaining the received data from the limitation regarding the damage to the aircraft that was outlined as data gathering in claim 1 and thus would not make claims 11 or 15 eligible subject matter. Claims 12 and 16 mention “…modify…the future usage profile” which would fail under Step 2A prong 1 for being a mental process as the modification is a determination whether or not to allow an aircraft to go upon a mission after determining the damage to the vehicle and would not allow claim 12 and 16 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 13 and 17 mentions “…comparing the severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft to a predetermined threshold.…” which would fail under step 2a prong 1 as being a mental process and a determination is made about the damage to the aircraft and then compared to a setpoint of damage that can be experienced which can be done with the aid of pen and paper and thus would not allow claims 13 or 17 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claims 14 and 18 mention “…receive an indication that the damage to the component has been repaired…” which would fail under step 2a prong 2 as it is insignificant extra solution activity as this limitation is merely further explaining a reception of data and thus would not make claims 14 or 18 eligible subject matter. Claim 19 mentions, “based on the level of maintenance, one of the plurality of devices to receive the notification includes transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices” which would fail under Step 2A prong 2 for being insignificant extra solution activities that is merely data gathering and would not allow claim 19 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 20 mentions “transmit at least one digital overlay” which would fail under Step 2A prong 2 for being insignificant extra solution activities that is merely data gathering and would not allow claim 20 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 21 mentions “based on the actionable direction ” which would fail under Step 2A prong 2 for being insignificant extra solution activities that is merely data gathering and would not allow claim 21 to be considered eligible subject matter. Claim 22 mentions “based on the results of the rapid structural analysis.” which would fail under Step 2A prong 2 for being insignificant extra solution activities that is merely data gathering and would not allow claim 22 to be considered eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, 12, 15-16, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (CN116588347A) and in view of Hershey et al. (US 10,404,569 B2) and in further view of Saito (JP 6720101 B2)
Regarding Claim 1 Yao teaches A structural integrity management system for an aircraft, (Pg. 7- Description – “Digital twins and intelligent repair methods and systems for aviation composite material repair.”) the system comprising: an electronic processor configured to receive, from one or more sensors, information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft, (Pg. 11 – [n0021]– “A processor for executing the intelligent emergency repair method for repairing a digital twin using aviation composite materials as claimed in the claim;” & See Also Pg. 9 – [n0007] – “The repair elements of the aviation composite repair entity acquired in real time…” & See Also Pg. 26 – [n0095] – “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the real-time data transmission module 310 includes: a damage scanning and identification module and a sensor.” (equates to the system comprising: an electronic processor configured to receive information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft as the processor is shown in the first quote used for executing the entirety of the method described in the prior art and the second quote shows the repairs entities or the damage of an aircraft component being received in real time )) update a digital twin model associated with the aircraft based on the received information, (Pg. 15 – [n0045] – “According to the embodiments of the present disclosure, the aviation composite material repair digital twin (referred to as "digital twin") provided by the present disclosure is a group of virtual objects composed of information technology, which can imitate the structure, environment and behavior of the composite material repair entity, dynamically update it during the entire life cycle of the digital twin by using the repair data of the repair entity” & See Also Pg. 9 – [n0007] – “The repair elements of the aviation composite repair entity acquired in real time…” (equates to update a digital twin model associated with the aircraft based on the received information as the first quote includes the updating of the digital twin and the second quote shows how data about the vehicle is collected in real time and thus that data would be used to update the digital twin. )) perform a rapid structural analysis using the updated digital twin model, (Pg. 16 & 17 – [n0050] – “Among them, the repair process parameter combination includes at least one combination of temperature, pressure, size, time, curing degree, and tool path; the key performance includes at least one of curing degree, deformation, strain, stress, tensile strength, bearing strength, hardness, plasticity, and toughness.”) determine based on the results of the rapid structural analysis an actionable direction including a command, and implement the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft, Pg. 17 – [n0051] – “…three-dimensional full-field real-time display and analysis of the repair entity based on the full-field distribution information of the key performance of the repaired entity after repair based on the repair process parameters acquired in real time and the initial visualized digital model; and transmits the target repair process parameters to the repair tool through the digital twin,” & See Also Pg. 16 & 17 – [n0050] – “Among them, the repair process parameter combination includes at least one combination of temperature, pressure, size, time, curing degree, and tool path; the key performance includes at least one of curing degree, deformation, strain, stress, tensile strength, bearing strength, hardness, plasticity, and toughness.” (equates to determine based on the results of the rapid structural analysis an actionable direction including a command, and implement the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft as the first quote shows a rapid structural analysis and the second showing the repair process parameter being any structural determination concerning integrity of the aircraft wherein a repair may be made or actionable direction given to the aircraft’s condition.)) one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair ( Pg. 4 – [n0010] – “and the received target repair process parameters are transmitted to the repair tool;” & See Also Pg. 35 – [n0141] - “The program code may execute entirely on the user's computing device, partly on the user's computing device, partly on a remote computing device, or entirely on the remote computing device or server”. (equates to one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair as the first quote shows the transmission of the notification to about the repair elements wherein the second quote shows the plurality of devices in which would enact this method and thus the transmission of the notification would go to either device dependent on scenario. ))
Yet fails to and a future usage profile indicative of future intended use of the aircraft and wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair
Hershey teaches and a future usage profile indicative of future intended use of the aircraft (Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” & See Also Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” (equates to and a future usage profile indicative of future intended use of the aircraft as the first quote shows how an ecosystem simulator acts as a physical and digital layer for allowing changes to the aircraft to be made. Quote 2 shows how a recommendation is made to intervene the controls of the aircraft and thus can block or release the aircraft for the designated mission.)) transmit the future usage profile, as modified, to a computing device associated with the aircraft (Pg. 4 – Fig. 1B – S140 – “Transmit Information Associated With A Result Generated By The Computer Processor” & See Also Pg. 24 – Col. 5 – lines 4 – 10 – “The digital twin of twinned physical system 150 may, according to some embodiments, access the data store 110, and utilize a probabilistic model creation unit to automatically create a predictive model that may be used by a digital twin modeling software and processing platform to create a prediction and/or result that may be transmitted to various user platforms 170 as appropriate (e.g., for display to a user).” (equates to transmit the future usage profile, as modified, to a computing device associated with the aircraft as the first quote shows how a result is generated and transmitted to a user as seen by quote 2 and thus is transmitted to a device associated with the aircraft. ))
Yet Yao-Hershey fails to teach wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair.
Saito teaches wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft, (Pg. 2 - “The present invention provides a fatigue estimating means for estimating a fatigue life of a predetermined area based on a damage level in a predetermined area of a body of an aircraft in operation, and the estimated fatigue life comes after a predetermined period has elapsed from the present” (equates to wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft as the quote shows a level of damage and thus a level of maintenance needed for the aircraft to undergo based on the damage assessment.)) based on the level of maintenance (Pg. 2 – “fatigue life of the aircraft is estimated based on the damage level in a predetermined region of the aircraft being operated,”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system described by Yao-Hershey to include wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft, as this allows a specific amount of damage to be measured and then conveyed to the operator for understanding the system’s shortcomings and potential mission changes needed for the aircraft.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft as this allows a repair or mission change to be better understood in the moment as what is most effective for the current use of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 2 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The system of claim 1, (Yao Discloses the following limitations:) wherein the plurality of devices includes an electronic device of an operator of the aircraft and a remote electronic device, (Pg. 35 – [n0141] - “The program code may execute entirely on the user's computing device, partly on the user's computing device, partly on a remote computing device, or entirely on the remote computing device or server”) electronic processor is further configured to transmit, via a transceiver the notification to the determined one of the plurality of devices ( Pg. 4 – [n0010] – “and the received target repair process parameters are transmitted to the repair tool;” & See Also Pg. 35 – [n0141] - “The program code may execute entirely on the user's computing device, partly on the user's computing device, partly on a remote computing device, or entirely on the remote computing device or server”. (equates to electronic processor is further configured to transmit, via a transceiver the notification to the determined one of the plurality of devices as the first quote shows the transmission of the notification to about the repair elements wherein the second quote shows the plurality of devices in which would enact this method and thus the transmission of the notification would go to either device dependent on scenario. ))
Regarding Claim 4 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The system of claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yao fails to teach wherein the electronic processor configured to modify the future usage profile based on a residual structural strength determination assessment wherein the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified.
Hershey teaches configured to modify the future usage profile based on a residual structural strength determination assessment. (Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid 55 dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” & See Also Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” (equates to wherein the modifying of the future usage profile is further based on a residual structural strength determination assessment as the first quote shows the result being one of a rapid structural analysis including stress and fatigue models wherein the remaining quotes show the modifying of the future profile as it relates to the mission planning, for use of the physical system.)) wherein the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified. ((Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” & See Also Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” (equates to wherein the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified as the second quote shows the intervention with controls operation based on the structural determination to the system and thus the operation of the aircraft is controlled by usage profile as determined.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao to include wherein the modifying of the future usage profile is further based on a residual structural strength determination assessment wherein the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified as this limitation ensures the mission being modified is being based on a strength analysis of the vehicle ensuring the vehicle can structurally withstand the mission it is about to be placed on.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the modifying of the future usage profile is further based on a residual structural strength determination assessment wherein the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified as this limitation grounds the digital twin analysis to be based specifically on structural analysis performed and ensuring the modification of the usage profile or the mission assignment is based on the strength assessment.
Regarding Claim 5 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches (Yao Discloses the following limitations:) The system of claim 1, wherein the future usage profile includes at least one selected from a group consisting of environmental information, duration, altitude range, and destination. (Pg. 17 – [n0053] – “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the intelligent emergency repair method for aviation composite materials further includes: using a digital twin to monitor in real time parameter changes of the repaired repair entity during the service phase. It can be understood that after the digital twin completes the repair of the repair entity, the digital twin continues to receive the same load, environmental parameters” (equates to wherein the future usage profile includes at least one selected from a group consisting of environmental information, duration, altitude range, and destination as the environmental parameters of the vehicle are taken into account thus the environment of where the vehicle is and where it will be going it taken into account within the digital twin.))
Regarding Claim 6 Yao teaches A method of maintaining an aircraft, (Pg.1 – Title – “Method and system for repairing digital twinborn body by aviation composite material and intelligent first-aid repair”) the method comprising: receiving, at an electronic processor, from one or more sensors, information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft; (Pg. 11 – [n0021]– “A processor for executing the intelligent emergency repair method for repairing a digital twin using aviation composite materials as claimed in the claim;” & See Also Pg. 9 – [n0007] – “The repair elements of the aviation composite repair entity acquired in real time…”& See Also Pg. 26 – [n0095] – “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the real-time data transmission module 310 includes: a damage scanning and identification module and a sensor.” (equates to the method comprising: an electronic processor configured to receive information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft as the processor is shown in the first quote used for executing the entirety of the method described in the prior art and the second quote shows the repairs entities or the damage of an aircraft component being received in real time )) updating a digital twin model associated with the aircraft based on the received information; (Pg. 15 – [n0045] – “According to the embodiments of the present disclosure, the aviation composite material repair digital twin (referred to as "digital twin") provided by the present disclosure is a group of virtual objects composed of information technology, which can imitate the structure, environment and behavior of the composite material repair entity, dynamically update it during the entire life cycle of the digital twin by using the repair data of the repair entity” & See Also Pg. 9 – [n0007] – “The repair elements of the aviation composite repair entity acquired in real time…” (equates to updating a digital twin model associated with the aircraft based on the received information as the first quote includes the updating of the digital twin and the second quote shows how data about the vehicle is collected in real time and thus that data would be used to update the digital twin. )) performing, via the electronic processor, a rapid structural analysis using the updated digital twin model; (Pg. 16 & 17 – [n0050] – “Among them, the repair process parameter combination includes at least one combination of temperature, pressure, size, time, curing degree, and tool path; the key performance includes at least one of curing degree, deformation, strain, stress, tensile strength, bearing strength, hardness, plasticity, and toughness.”) based on the results of the rapid structural analysis and a future usage profile of the aircraft,. (Pg. 17 – [n0051] – “…three-dimensional full-field real-time display and analysis of the repair entity based on the full-field distribution information of the key performance of the repaired entity after repair based on the repair process parameters acquired in real time and the initial visualized digital model; and transmits the target repair process parameters to the repair tool through the digital twin,” & See Also Pg. 16 & 17 – [n0050] – “Among them, the repair process parameter combination includes at least one combination of temperature, pressure, size, time, curing degree, and tool path; the key performance includes at least one of curing degree, deformation, strain, stress, tensile strength, bearing strength, hardness, plasticity, and toughness.” & See Also Pg. 17 – [n0053] – “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the intelligent emergency repair method for aviation composite materials further includes: using a digital twin to monitor in real time parameter changes of the repaired repair entity during the service phase. It can be understood that after the digital twin completes the repair of the repair entity, the digital twin continues to receive the same load, environmental parameters” (equates to based on the results of the rapid structural analysis and a future usage profile of the aircraft, as the first quote shows analysis being performed wherein the second quote shows how the analysis includes structural determinations such as stress and strain considerations..) ) determining, via the electronic processor, based on the results of the rapid structural analysis, an actionable direction including a command; and implementing, via the electronic processor, the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft, ( Pg. 17 – [n0051] – “…three-dimensional full-field real-time display and analysis of the repair entity based on the full-field distribution information of the key performance of the repaired entity after repair based on the repair process parameters acquired in real time and the initial visualized digital model; and transmits the target repair process parameters to the repair tool through the digital twin,” & See Also Pg. 16 & 17 – [n0050] – “Among them, the repair process parameter combination includes at least one combination of temperature, pressure, size, time, curing degree, and tool path; the key performance includes at least one of curing degree, deformation, strain, stress, tensile strength, bearing strength, hardness, plasticity, and toughness.” (equates to determine based on the results of the rapid structural analysis an actionable direction including a command, and implement the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft as the first quote shows a rapid structural analysis and the second showing the repair process parameter being any structural determination concerning integrity of the aircraft wherein a repair may be made or actionable direction given to the aircraft’s condition.)) one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair ( Pg. 4 – [n0010] – “and the received target repair process parameters are transmitted to the repair tool;” & See Also Pg. 35 – [n0141] - “The program code may execute entirely on the user's computing device, partly on the user's computing device, partly on a remote computing device, or entirely on the remote computing device or server”. (equates to one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair as the first quote shows the transmission of the notification to about the repair elements wherein the second quote shows the plurality of devices in which would enact this method and thus the transmission of the notification would go to either device dependent on scenario. ))
Yet Yao fails to teach and a future usage profile indicative of future intended use of the aircraft , wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining, based on the level of maintenance,
Hershey teaches and a future usage profile indicative of future intended use of the aircraft (Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” & See Also Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” (equates to and a future usage profile indicative of future intended use of the aircraft as the first quote shows how an ecosystem simulator acts as a physical and digital layer for allowing changes to the aircraft to be made. Quote 2 shows how a recommendation is made to intervene the controls of the aircraft and thus can block or release the aircraft for the designated mission.))
Yet Yao-Hershey fails to teach wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining, based on the level of maintenance,
Saito teaches wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft, (Pg. 2 - “The present invention provides a fatigue estimating means for estimating a fatigue life of a predetermined area based on a damage level in a predetermined area of a body of an aircraft in operation, and the estimated fatigue life comes after a predetermined period has elapsed from the present” (equates to wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft as the quote shows a level of damage and thus a level of maintenance needed for the aircraft to undergo based on the damage assessment.)) based on the level of maintenance (Pg. 2 – “fatigue life of the aircraft is estimated based on the damage level in a predetermined region of the aircraft being operated,”) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system described by Yao-Hershey to include wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft, as this allows a specific amount of damage to be measured and then conveyed to the operator for understanding the system’s shortcomings and potential mission changes needed for the aircraft.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft as this allows a repair or mission change to be better understood in the moment as what is most effective for the current use of the aircraft.
Regarding Claim 7 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The method of claim 6, (Yao discloses the following limitations:) wherein the plurality of devices includes an electronic device of an operator of the aircraft and a remote electronic device and, ((Pg. 35 – [n0141] - “The program code may execute entirely on the user's computing device, partly on the user's computing device, partly on a remote computing device, or entirely on the remote computing device or server”)) further including transmitting, via a transceiver the notification to the determined one of the plurality of devices ( Pg. 4 – [n0010] – “and the received target repair process parameters are transmitted to the repair tool;” & See Also Pg. 35 – [n0141] - “The program code may execute entirely on the user's computing device, partly on the user's computing device, partly on a remote computing device, or entirely on the remote computing device or server”. (equates to electronic processor is further configured to transmit, via a transceiver the notification to the determined one of the plurality of devices as the first quote shows the transmission of the notification to about the repair elements wherein the second quote shows the plurality of devices in which would enact this method and thus the transmission of the notification would go to either device dependent on scenario. ))
Regarding Claim 9 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The method of claim 6, as previously mapped above.
Yao fails to teach further comprising modifying the future usage profile based on a residual structural strength determination assessment and operating the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified.
Hershey teaches wherein the modifying of the future usage profile is further based on a residual structural strength determination assessment. (Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid 55 dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” & See Also Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” (equates to wherein the modifying of the future usage profile is further based on a residual structural strength determination assessment as the first quote shows the result being one of a rapid structural analysis including stress and fatigue models wherein the remaining quotes show the modifying of the future profile as it relates to the mission planning, for use of the physical system.)) and operating the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified. ((Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” & See Also Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” (equates to wherein the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified as the second quote shows the intervention with controls operation based on the structural determination to the system and thus the operation of the aircraft is controlled by usage profile as determined.) ) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao to include wherein the modifying of the future usage profile is further based on a residual structural strength determination assessment wherein the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified as this limitation ensures the mission being modified is being based on a strength analysis of the vehicle ensuring the vehicle can structurally withstand the mission it is about to be placed on.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the modifying of the future usage profile is further based on a residual structural strength determination assessment wherein the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified as this limitation grounds the digital twin analysis to be based specifically on structural analysis performed and ensuring the modification of the usage profile or the mission assignment is based on the strength assessment.
Regarding claim 12 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The system of claim 4, as previously mapped above.
Yet Yao fails to teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify , the future usage profile evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft.
Hershey teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify, the future usage profile by evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft. (Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” & See Also Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” & See Also Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 32-35 – “The system structure 256 may also specify how the components react to input conditions that include environmental data, operational controls, and/or externally applied forces” & See Also Pg. 32 – Col. 21 – lines 56-58 – “The processor 1510 performs instructions of the programs 1512, 1514, and thereby operates in accordance with any of the embodiments described herein” (equates to wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify , the future usage profile evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft. as the first and second quote shows the modifying of the future usage profile as the second quote shows a recommendation provided to intervene with control operations or not allow the craft to go on the said mission and the first quote showing this can affect the physical layer. The third quote shows the rapid structural analysis where the fourth specifically shows the system considering externally applied forces. Finally the last quote showing a processor being configured to execute any embodiment of the art and thus be able to perform system configuration. )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao to include wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify , the future usage profile evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft as this limitation allows for a specific modification of the aircraft’s ability to perform a mission via the external forces applied to the craft and thus ensuring the aircrafts structural integrity when dealing with the mission conditions.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify , the future usage profile evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft as this ensures the aircraft can handle external applied forces for the given mission and properly modifying the aircraft’s ability to perform the future usage based on determined forces.
Regarding claim 15 Yao-Hershey teaches The method of claim 6, as previously mapped above .
Yet Yao fails to teach wherein the information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft includes a magnitude and distribution of force on an airframe of the aircraft.
Hershey teaches wherein the information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft includes a magnitude and distribution of force on an airframe of the aircraft. (Pg. 25 – [Col. 8] – lines 19-22 – “Other inputs may include tolerance envelopes (that specify time and magnitude regions that are acceptable regions of differences between actual sensor values and their predictions by the digital twin),” & See Also Pg. 25 – [Col. 7] – “The digital twin 250 may also include a system structure 256 which specifies the components of the twinned physical 30 system and how the components are connected or interact with each other. The system structure 256 may also specify how the components react to input conditions that include environmental data, operational controls, and/or externally applied forces.” & See Also Pg. 22 – [Col. 1] – Lines 22 – 30 – “Note that a real world physical system might be associated with system components, such as sensors and actuators. Increasingly, systems are becoming spatially distributed and these systems therefore include components that are significantly spatially distributed. As a consequence, there may be a need to provide an information transportation fabric that serves to sense, transport data, and control the spatially distributed components in order for the system to function efficiently and safely.” & See Also Pg. 23 – Col. 4 – lines 41-42 – “outputs which could include sensor measurement estimates or asset states (part life damage states, etc.).” (equates to wherein the information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft includes a magnitude and distribution of force on an airframe of the aircraft as the first quote shows the magnitude of sensor values being accounted for, the second quote showing the sensor data being force values, the third quote showing how the digital twin has spatially distributed data being accounted for thus the force data can be spatially distributed, and the last quote showing the fact the sensor measurements include part damage.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao to include wherein the information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft includes a magnitude and distribution of force on an airframe of the aircraft as this limitation allows for damage upon the aircraft to be based upon force values by sensors that would represent the physical system in a digital twin configuration wherein multiple points across the aircraft can be considered simultaneously thus allowing a full understanding of forces endured by the aircraft before it embarks upon its mission.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the information regarding damage to a component of the aircraft includes a magnitude and distribution of force on an airframe of the aircraft as this limitation allows for a range of force values to be interpreted by the system, ensuring either direction of force applied is considered as well as a spatial distribution covering a range of the aircraft is kept track of allowing a large portion to be monitored at once.
Regarding claim 16 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The method of claim 9, as previously mapped above.
Yet Yao fails to teach wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify, , the future usage profile includes evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft.
Hershey teaches wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify, , the future usage profile includes evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft. (Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” & See Also Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” & See Also Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 32-35 – “The system structure 256 may also specify how the components react to input conditions that include environmental data, operational controls, and/or externally applied forces” & See Also Pg. 32 – Col. 21 – lines 56-58 – “The processor 1510 performs instructions of the programs 1512, 1514, and thereby operates in accordance with any of the embodiments described herein” (equates to wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify, , the future usage profile includes evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft. as the first and second quote shows the modifying of the future usage profile as the second quote shows a recommendation provided to intervene with control operations or not allow the craft to go on the said mission and the first quote showing this can affect the physical layer. The third quote shows the rapid structural analysis where the fourth specifically shows the system considering externally applied forces. Finally the last quote showing a processor being configured to execute any embodiment of the art and thus be able to perform system configuration. )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao to include wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify, , the future usage profile includes evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft. as this limitation allows for a specific modification of the aircraft’s ability to perform a mission via the external forces applied to the craft and thus ensuring the aircrafts structural integrity when dealing with the mission conditions.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the electronic processor is configured to modify, , the future usage profile includes evaluating a load applied to the component of the aircraft as this ensures the aircraft can handle external applied forces for the given mission and properly modifying the aircraft’s ability to perform the future usage based on determined forces.
Regarding Claim 19 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The method of claim 6, as previously mapped above.
Yet Yao-Hershey fail to teach wherein the determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of the plurality of devices to receive the notification includes transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to an operator of the aircraft in response to determining that the maintenance is correctable by the operator and transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to a maintenance operator/engineer in response to determining that the maintenance is not correctable by the operator of the aircraft.
Saito teaches wherein the determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of the plurality of devices to receive the notification includes transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to an operator of the aircraft in response to determining that the maintenance is correctable by the operator and transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to a maintenance operator/engineer in response to determining that the maintenance is not correctable by the operator of the aircraft. ( Pg. 2 - “The present invention provides a fatigue estimating means for estimating a fatigue life of a predetermined area based on a damage level in a predetermined area of a body of an aircraft in operation, and the estimated fatigue life comes after a predetermined period has elapsed from the present” & See Also Pg. 6 – “At least one of the items required for repair (eg, parts of the machine to be repaired, equipment, etc.) and human resources in charge of repair (eg, name of worker involved in work, attribute information of worker, etc.) is presented. By doing so, it is possible to arrange items and human resources needed for repair before the aircraft in flight arrives. As a result, the aircraft can be promptly repaired after it arrives, and downtime of the aircraft can be reduced” (equates to determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of the plurality of devices to receive the notification includes transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to an operator of the aircraft in response to determining that the maintenance is correctable by the operator and transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to a maintenance operator/engineer in response to determining that the maintenance is not correctable by the operator of the aircraft as the first quote shows a level of damage to the aircraft being determined, wherein the second quote shows the transmission of damage to the aircraft to a device that is on the ground, and the second quote also showing the person in charge being selected for the appropriate repair, ie the operator assigned to the aircraft either may or may not be determined to be the one to make the repair. )) It would have been an advantageous addition to the method disclosed by Yao-Hershey to include wherein the determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of the plurality of devices to receive the notification includes transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to an operator of the aircraft in response to determining that the maintenance is correctable by the operator and transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to a maintenance operator/engineer in response to determining that the maintenance is not correctable by the operator of the aircraft as this allows for specific personnel to be designated to the repair operation allowing for an increase speed in which a repair can be done as this method disclosed by Saito includes damage received in air .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of the plurality of devices to receive the notification includes transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to an operator of the aircraft in response to determining that the maintenance is correctable by the operator and transmitting the notification to a device of the plurality of devices corresponding to a maintenance operator/engineer in response to determining that the maintenance is not correctable by the operator of the aircraft as this allows for a variety of personnel to be considered to repair the aircraft and a reduced time of repair being actualized as the level of damage of the aircraft can be assessed in flight and by the time the plane lands the proper technician can be contacted and readied to fix the aircraft by the time it lands.
Regarding claim 21 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The method of claim 6, as previously mapped above.
Yet Yao fails to teach wherein implementing, via the electronic processor, the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft includes modifying the future usage profile based on the actionable direction and controlling the aircraft based on the modification of the future usage profile.
Hershey teaches wherein implementing, via the electronic processor, the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft includes modifying the future usage profile (Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid 55 dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” & See Also Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.” (equates to wherein implementing, via the electronic processor, the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft includes modifying the future usage profile as the first quote shows the determination of damage to the aircraft via the model being run on the digital twin and the modification of the future usage profile being shown in the last quote where intervention of controlling the aircraft is given as a command. )) and controlling the aircraft based on the modification of the future usage profile. ((Pg. 24 – Col. 6 – lines 51 – 57 – “This may be implemented using a computer model having substantial number of degrees of freedom and may be associated with, as illustrated 200 in FIG. 2A, an integration of complex physical models for computational fluid 55 dynamics 202, structural dynamics 204, thermodynamic modeling 206, stress analysis modeling 210, and/or a fatigue cracking model 208” & See Also Pg. 25 – Col. 7 – lines 41-44 – “Similarly, the digital twin 250 might include an ecosystem simulator 260 that may allow all contributors to interact, not just at the physical layer, but virtually as well” & See Also Pg. 7 – Fig. 3 & See Also Pg. 26 – Col. 9 – lines 5-9 – “The recommendation 370 (e.g., to inspect, repair, and/or intervene in connection with control operations) may be used to determined simulated operations exogenous data via an ecosystem simulator.”)
Yet Yao-Hershey fail to teach based on the actionable direction.
Saito teaches based on the actionable direction (Pg. 2 - “The present invention provides a fatigue estimating means for estimating a fatigue life of a predetermined area based on a damage level in a predetermined area of a body of an aircraft in operation, and the estimated fatigue life comes after a predetermined period has elapsed from the present” (equates to based on the actionable direction as the quote shows the level of damage being assessed and thus the actionable direction is the repair being based on the level of damage as claimed in claim 1.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao-Hershey to include based on the actionable direction as this allows a specific amount of damage to be measured and then conveyed to the operator for understanding the system’s shortcomings and potential mission changes needed for the aircraft.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include based on the actionable direction as this allows a repair or mission change to be better understood in the moment as what is most effective for the current use of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 22 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches (Yao discloses the following limitation:) The method of claim 6, wherein implementing, via the electronic processor, the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft includes repairing the aircraft based on the results of the rapid structural analysis. ((Pg. 16 & 17 – [n0050] – “Among them, the repair process parameter combination includes at least one combination of temperature, pressure, size, time, curing degree, and tool path; the key performance includes at least one of curing degree, deformation, strain, stress, tensile strength, bearing strength, hardness, plasticity, and toughness.” (equates to wherein implementing, via the electronic processor, the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft includes repairing the aircraft based on the results of the rapid structural analysis as the quote shows the repair parameter being based on a performance parameter including stress in which stress is determined via a rapid structural analysis)))
Claims 3, 8, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao-Hershey-Saito as mapped above and in further view of Brown (CN 116136923 A)
Regarding Claim 3 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The system of claim 1, (Yao Discloses the following limitations:) wherein the electronic processor is further configured to generate a digital overlay of the repair on the digital twin; (Pg. 11 – [n0021]– “A processor for executing the intelligent emergency repair method for repairing a digital twin using aviation composite materials as claimed in the claim;” & See Also Pg. 16 – [n0049] – “…step S102, an initial visualized digital model is established through a digital twin according to the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity, and the repair entity is converted into a virtual object for visual display, so as to describe the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity.” (equates to electronic processor is further configured to generate a digital overlay of a repair to address the damage on the digital twin as the processor of the first quote carries out the entirety of the method as described in the prior art and the second quote shows the repair entity containing the damage parameter being displayed on the digital twin. )) and transmit via the transceiver, with the notification, (Pg. 9 & 10 – [n0013] - “A real-time data transmission module is used to transmit the repair elements of the aviation composite repair entity acquired in real time to the aviation composite repair digital twin, wherein the repair elements include damage parameters, repair process parameters and structural parameters” & See Also Pg. 16 – [n0049] – “…step S102, an initial visualized digital model is established through a digital twin according to the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity, and the repair entity is converted into a virtual object for visual display, so as to describe the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity.” (Equates to and transmit via a transceiver, with the request, the digital overlay as the transmission module transmits the repair entity and quote 2 shows how this can be displayed addressing the damage.))
Yet Yao-Hershey-Saito fails to teach the digital overlays request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model
Brown teaches the digital overlays request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model (Pg. 11 – “If the component is replaced, the maintenance processor may update the digital twinning to store the component identifier of the new part (assuming it is different). For example, a faulty infotainment system may be replaced by a newer model with a different serial number, as the older model may have been revoked. Updating digital twinning allows the maintenance processor to better track failure rates between old and new models.” (equates to request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model as the quote shows a replacement component being implemented and thus a repair being completed wherein the digital twin is then subsequently updated.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao-Hershey-Saito to include the digital overlays request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model as this allows a specific step indicating the repair has been completed and the operator doesn’t have to manually check and then update the system saving time and energy fro those involved.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the digital overlays request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model as this allows an immediate update of the digital twin model to be made and similarly no manual inputting of a physical change to a digital system.
Regarding Claim 8 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The method of claim 6, (Yao discloses the following limitations:) the method further comprising generating a digital overlay of the repair on the digital twin model , ; (Pg. 11 – [n0021]– “A processor for executing the intelligent emergency repair method for repairing a digital twin using aviation composite materials as claimed in the claim;” & See Also Pg. 16 – [n0049] – “…step S102, an initial visualized digital model is established through a digital twin according to the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity, and the repair entity is converted into a virtual object for visual display, so as to describe the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity.” (equates to the method is further comprising generating a digital overlay of a repair to address the damage on the digital twin as the second quote shows the repair entity containing the damage parameter being displayed on the digital twin. )) transmitting, with the notification request, the digital overlay. (Pg. 9 & 10 – [n0013] - “A real-time data transmission module is used to transmit the repair elements of the aviation composite repair entity acquired in real time to the aviation composite repair digital twin, wherein the repair elements include damage parameters, repair process parameters and structural parameters” & See Also Pg. 16 – [n0049] – “…step S102, an initial visualized digital model is established through a digital twin according to the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity, and the repair entity is converted into a virtual object for visual display, so as to describe the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity.” (Equates to and transmit via a transceiver, with the request, the digital overlay as the transmission module transmits the repair entity and quote 2 shows how this can be displayed addressing the damage.))
Yet Yao-Hershey-Saito fails to teach the digital overlays requesting confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, updating the digital twin model.
Brown teaches the digital overlays request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model (Pg. 11 – “If the component is replaced, the maintenance processor may update the digital twinning to store the component identifier of the new part (assuming it is different). For example, a faulty infotainment system may be replaced by a newer model with a different serial number, as the older model may have been revoked. Updating digital twinning allows the maintenance processor to better track failure rates between old and new models.” (equates to request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model as the quote shows a replacement component being implemented and thus a repair being completed wherein the digital twin is then subsequently updated.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao-Hershey-Saito to include the digital overlays request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model as this allows a specific step indicating the repair has been completed and the operator doesn’t have to manually check and then update the system saving time and energy fro those involved.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the digital overlays request confirmation that the damage to the component has been repaired; and upon receiving the confirmation, update the digital twin model as this allows an immediate update of the digital twin model to be made and similarly no manual inputting of a physical change to a digital system.
Regarding claim 20 Yao-Hershey-Saito-Brown teaches (Yao discloses the following limitations:) The system of claim 3, wherein generating the overlay includes receiving, at least one of the one or more sensors, (Pg. 11 – [n0021]– “A processor for executing the intelligent emergency repair method for repairing a digital twin using aviation composite materials as claimed in the claim;” & See Also Pg. 9 – [n0007] – “The repair elements of the aviation composite repair entity acquired in real time…” & See Also Pg. 26 – [n0095] – “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, the real-time data transmission module 310 includes: a damage scanning and identification module and a sensor.” (equates to wherein generating the overlay includes receiving, at least one of the one or more sensors, as the digital twin is an overlay of the physical system and the quote showing repair needed based on damage to an aircraft component in which the sensor is used to determine said repair.))an image of a damaged component, (Pg. 26 – [n0096] – “Specifically, the damage scanning and identification module obtains damage parameters by scanning the damage features of the damaged part through image recognition and processing technology, wherein the damage scanning and identification module can be an instrument related to digital images” (equates to an image of a damaged component, as image recognition is used to determine damage to an aircraft component.)) and identifying, from the image of the damaged component, an area of damage based on sensor information from the one or more sensors, (Pg. 26 – [n0096] – “Specifically, the damage scanning and identification module obtains damage parameters by scanning the damage features of the damaged part through image recognition and processing technology, wherein the damage scanning and identification module can be an instrument related to digital images, ultrasound, laser, and thermal imaging. Damage parameters can use shape functions to describe defects, use image segmentation technology to extract defect features, quickly count the types and volume fractions of defects, determine the cause of damage, and convert them into damage degree ratings as damage parameters for digital twin input.” (equates to and identifying, from the image of the damaged component, an area of damage based on sensor information from the one or more sensors, as the quote shows image recognition in determination a volume or area of damage inflicted upon the aircraft.)) and generate and transmit at least one digital overlay illustrating an intermediate stage of the repair. (Pg. 26 – [n0096] – “Specifically, the damage scanning and identification module obtains damage parameters by scanning the damage features of the damaged part through image recognition and processing technology, wherein the damage scanning and identification module can be an instrument related to digital images, ultrasound, laser, and thermal imaging. Damage parameters can use shape functions to describe defects, use image segmentation technology to extract defect features, quickly count the types and volume fractions of defects, determine the cause of damage, and convert them into damage degree ratings as damage parameters for digital twin input.” (equates to and generate and transmit at least one digital overlay illustrating an intermediate stage of the repair. As the quote shows the intermediate stage of repair being the damage done to the aircraft and thus signaling the remaining work to be done to the aircraft based on the finished repair determination. ))
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao-Hershey-Saito as previously mapped above and in further view of Beecroft et al. (US 2022/0306315 Al)
Regarding claim 13 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The system of claim 1, (Yao discloses the following limitations: )wherein the electronic processor is configured to: determining a severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft, (Pg. 15 – [n0046] – “the repaired entity is a physical component that has suffered damage during the manufacturing and/or service process, wherein the damage suffered includes but is not limited to gaps, delamination, debonding, scratches, cracks, impacts, lightning strikes, burning, etc. caused by external force impact” & See Also Pg. 16 – [n0049] – “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, in step S102, an initial visualized digital model is established through a digital twin according to the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity, and the repair entity is converted into a virtual object for visual display, so as to describe the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity” (equates to determining a severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft as the quote shows the repaired entity suffering damage wherein the damage can be of any type listed and is determined via the implementation of the repair entity utilized as seen by quote 2 )
Yet Both Yao-Hershey fail to teach determine the level of maintenance intervention for addressing the repair of the aircraft and comparing the severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft to a predetermined threshold.
Beecroft teaches and comparing the severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft to a predetermined threshold (Pg. 12 – [0074] – “the controller 60 may determine whether damage has occurred to the aircraft 10 by determining whether the amplitude in the acoustic wave data has exceeded a threshold amplitude stored in the memory” (equates to and comparing the severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft to a predetermined threshold as the quote shows the aircraft being damaged and by running an acoustic wave to test the severity there’s a threshold in which the component is them deemed “damaged”. ))
Yet Yao-Hershey-Beecroft fail to teach determine the level of maintenance intervention for addressing the repair of the aircraft.
Saito teaches determine the level of maintenance intervention for addressing the repair of the aircraft. (Pg. 2 - “The present invention provides a fatigue estimating means for estimating a fatigue life of a predetermined area based on a damage level in a predetermined area of a body of an aircraft in operation, and the estimated fatigue life comes after a predetermined period has elapsed from the present” (equates to wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft as the quote shows a level of damage and thus a level of maintenance needed for the aircraft to undergo based on the damage assessment.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system described by Yao-Hershey to include wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft, as this allows a specific amount of damage to be measured and then conveyed to the operator for understanding the system’s shortcomings and potential mission changes needed for the aircraft.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft as this allows a repair or mission change to be better understood in the moment as what is most effective for the current use of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 17 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The method of claim 6, wherein using the updated digital twin model includes: determining a severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft, (Pg. 15 – [n0046] – “the repaired entity is a physical component that has suffered damage during the manufacturing and/or service process, wherein the damage suffered includes but is not limited to gaps, delamination, debonding, scratches, cracks, impacts, lightning strikes, burning, etc. caused by external force impact” & See Also Pg. 16 – [n0049] – “According to an embodiment of the present disclosure, in step S102, an initial visualized digital model is established through a digital twin according to the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity, and the repair entity is converted into a virtual object for visual display, so as to describe the structural parameters and damage parameters of the repair entity” (equates to determining a severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft as the quote shows the repaired entity suffering damage wherein the damage can be of any type listed and is determined via the implementation of the repair entity utilized as seen by quote 2 )
Yet Both Yao-Hershey fail to teach and comparing the severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft to a predetermined threshold.
Beecroft teaches and comparing the severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft to a predetermined threshold. (Pg. 12 – [0074] – “the controller 60 may determine whether damage has occurred to the aircraft 10 by determining whether the amplitude in the acoustic wave data has exceeded a threshold amplitude stored in the memory” (equates to and comparing the severity of the damage to the component of the aircraft to a predetermined threshold as the quote shows the aircraft being damaged and by running an acoustic wave to test the severity there’s a threshold in which the component is them deemed “damaged”. ))
Yet Yao-Hershey-Beecroft fail to teach determining the level of maintenance intervention for addressing the repair of the aircraft.
Saito teaches determine the level of maintenance intervention for addressing the repair of the aircraft. (Pg. 2 - “The present invention provides a fatigue estimating means for estimating a fatigue life of a predetermined area based on a damage level in a predetermined area of a body of an aircraft in operation, and the estimated fatigue life comes after a predetermined period has elapsed from the present” (equates to wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft as the quote shows a level of damage and thus a level of maintenance needed for the aircraft to undergo based on the damage assessment.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system described by Yao-Hershey to include wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft, as this allows a specific amount of damage to be measured and then conveyed to the operator for understanding the system’s shortcomings and potential mission changes needed for the aircraft.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft as this allows a repair or mission change to be better understood in the moment as what is most effective for the current use of the aircraft.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao-Hershey-Saito as previously mapped above and in further view of Padan et al. (US 2006/0108476 Al)
Regarding claim 14 Yao-Hershey-Saito teaches The system of claim 1, as previously mapped above.
Yet Yao fails to teach future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative.
Padan teaches future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative (Pg. 6 – [0007] – “For economical efficiency, organizational and operational reasons most military aerial vehicles are designed as multi-role platforms. Consequently modern military aircraft are provided with functional versatility, such as the capability of conducting a variety of missions including offensive counterair (OCA), defensive counterair (DCA), interception (AA), combat air patrol (CAP), close air support (CAS), suppression of enemy air defenses, (SEAD), deep strike, anti-shipping (AS), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), electronic warfare (EW), reconnaissance, surveillance,” (equates to future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative as the quote shows a mission assignment in which a combative or surveillance can be selected from a group of actions.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao-Hershey-Saito to include future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative as this allows a variety of mission types to be assigned to the aircraft thus making the system versatile for a number of operations.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative as this allows for the system to best understand the repairs needed based on a diverse future usage profile for the vehicle ensuring repairs made allow for mission completion.
Regarding claim 18 Yao teaches The method of claim 6, as previously mapped above.
Yet Yao fails to teach wherein the future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative
Padan teaches future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative (Pg. 6 – [0007] – “For economical efficiency, organizational and operational reasons most military aerial vehicles are designed as multi-role platforms. Consequently modern military aircraft are provided with functional versatility, such as the capability of conducting a variety of missions including offensive counterair (OCA), defensive counterair (DCA), interception (AA), combat air patrol (CAP), close air support (CAS), suppression of enemy air defenses, (SEAD), deep strike, anti-shipping (AS), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), electronic warfare (EW), reconnaissance, surveillance,” (equates to future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative as the quote shows a mission assignment in which a combative or surveillance can be selected from a group of actions.)) It would have been an advantageous addition to the system disclosed by Yao-Hershey-Saito to include future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative as this allows a variety of mission types to be assigned to the aircraft thus making the system versatile for a number of operations.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include future usage profile includes a type of flying to complete a mission assigned to the aircraft, the type of flying including one selected from a group consisting of surveillance and combative as this allows for the system to best understand the repairs needed based on a diverse future usage profile for the vehicle ensuring repairs made allow for mission completion.
Response to Arguments
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-18, applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 1-2, “ Claims 1 - 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the Office alleges that "the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more." Office Action dated 102 25, p. 2. By this response, Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 6 and dependent claims 2 - 4 and 7 - 9 to recite subject matter similar to that discussed in the interview dated December 12, 2025 summarized above. In particular, independent claims 1 and 6 are each herein amended to clarify that electronic processor determines a level of maintenance necessary addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair based on the determined level. Dependent claims 2 and 3 and 7 and 8 each respectively clarify further actions of the electronic processor regarding notifying a user to perform the repair and confirm that the repair has been performed. Dependent claims 4 and 9 clarify that the electronic processor modifies the future usage profile based on a residual structural strength determination assessment and that the system operates the aircraft according to the future usage profile as modified. New claims 21 and 22 further clarify controlling the aircraft based on the modification of the future usage profile and that the command to address the damage to the component includes repairing the aircraft based on the results of the rapid structural analysis. Applicant accordingly respectfully submits that the pending claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. ” - As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to argue that at Step 2A Prong 1, the amended claim provided does not show how the limitations can be reasonably performed in the human mind and that the recitation of “determines a level of maintenance necessary addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair based on the determined level” wherein the limitation precludes the claim from being reasonably performed by the human mind. In Step 2A Prong 1, Examiner considers the impact of additional elements. The elements recite abstract ideas that fall into the mental process grouping. As previously stated the limitation addressing a repair of the aircraft” can be done by use of mental process as only an addressing of a repair is claimed and not specifically claiming a repair will be made. If the claim were to specifically include the aircraft being repaired in response to the previously mentioned determining steps then this would bring the claim 1 and the remaining claims out of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection currently provided.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-22 applicant’s amendments to the claim changes the scope. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 2-3, “ Amended independent claim 1 recites, in part, implement the command to address the damage to the component of the aircraft, wherein determining the actionable direction includes determining a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining, based on the level of maintenance, one of a plurality of devices to receive a notification with instructions for addressing the repair. Support for the above-cited subject matter is found in at least paragraph [0056] of the Applicant's Specification as published. Neither Yao nor Hershey, taken alone or in combination, teach or suggest the above-cited subject matter. Yao generally teaches a system for repairing a digital twin of an aerospace composite material. Yao, Abstract. While Yao generally teaches updating a repair entity (a material component that is damaged) according to repair data collected in real time to update a digital twin, Yao is silent regarding identifying a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining a device to receive instructions for addressing the repair based on the level of maintenance as recited in amended independent claim 1. Yao therefore fails to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter.
Hershey fails to cure the deficiencies of Yao. Hershey generally teaches an Internet of Things associate to facilitate implementation of a digital twin of a physical system (for example, an aircraft). While Hershey generally teaches generating a recommendation to inspect or repair a part of the physical system based on a simulation of the digital twin performed by an ecosystem simulator, Hershey does not explicitly teach or suggest identifying a level of maintenance intervention for addressing a repair of the aircraft and determining a device to receive instructions for addressing the repair based on the level of maintenance as recited in amended independent claim 1.
Therefore, Yao and Hershey, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest the subject matter of amended independent claim 1. Thus, claim 1 is allowable. Claims 2 - 5, 11 - 14, and 20 depend from claim 1, and these dependent claims are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons. ” –As to point (B) - Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues on pages 3-4, “Amended independent claim 6 recites subject matter similar to that of independent claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 6 is allowable for at least the same reasons. Claims 7 - 9, 15 - 19, 21, and 22 depend from claim 6, and these dependent claims are therefore allowable for at least the same reasons. ” – As to point (C) See point (B)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0391560 Al – “A repair system for a vehicle includes a base and a lift component movably secured to the base for lifting a portion of a frame of the vehicle. An air compressor unit is disposed on the base and has a discharge hose configured to be selectively connected to the tire for delivering compressed. A sealant reservoir is disposed on the base and filled with a flat tire sealant.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REECE ANTHONY WAKELY whose telephone number is (571)272-3783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-6:00pm 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached on (571) 270-5442. 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.
/R.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
2/26/26