Acknowledgement
This Final Office Action is in response to amendments 12/5/2025.
Claims 1, 8, 12, 16, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 7 and 20 have been canceled.
Claim 21 is a new claim.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On page 11 of Remarks filed 12/5/2025, the Applicant contends that the claims recite an unconventional approach to improving management systems by updating the first component parameter of the first component each time the component is used in different engines.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not include limitations in which the “first component” is operated in different engines. For example, in claim 1, the number of component hours, number of flight hours, and number of engine startups on the first component of the first engine are merely describing the type of generally recited data that is normalized and does not require operation of the first component installed in the first engine. The Applicant is advised to include limitations in which the engine including the component is operated in order to generate the parameters. Limitations such as “if the first component was operated in a different engine” in claim 1 do not require actual operation. The overall claim is merely determining generally recited data using other generally recited data, where the aircraft system(s) and engine(s) contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation) and are merely objects on which the method operates.
The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated in the present Office Action, due to the amendments filed 12/5/2025.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
Due to the amendments filed 12/5/2025, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn, and allowable subject matter has been indicated below. The novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(I).
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly in regards to after final amendments that would overcome the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the fifteenth and nineteenth lines of claim 17, the limitation of “information of first component” should recite “information of the first component” to clearly reference the defined first component.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A method for component management, comprising:
receiving a first output signal from a first aircraft system at a component management system, the first aircraft system including a first engine and a first component installed in the first engine, and the first output signal communicating identification data for the first engine and a first operating parameter for the first engine;
determining a first correction factor based on the identification data for the first engine;
determining a first component parameter for the first component based on the identification data for the first engine and the first operating parameter for the first engine; and
updating a record for the first component in the component management system using the first component parameter for the first component;
wherein the determining of the first component parameter for the first component comprises modifying an uncorrected first component parameter, obtained using the first operating parameter for the first engine, based on the first correction factor to provide the first component parameter for the first component; and
wherein the first correction factor is tailored to normalize a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups on the first component of the first engine to be equivalent to a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups if the first component was operated in a different engine having a different output power than the first engine.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of determining a first correction factor based on the identification data for the first engine. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “first correction factor” is data representative of a correction. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “identification data,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to the identity of the engine. Particular operations performed by the engine and particular engine-related sensors for acquiring the data are not claimed. Generally recited data is merely determined based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. identification data and first operating parameter) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a first correction factor). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determining a first component parameter for the first component based on the identification data for the first engine and the first operating parameter for the first engine. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “first component parameter” is data related to a component of an engine, and the “first operating parameter” is data related to operation of the engine. While the “first operating parameter” is recited as being “for the first engine,” particular operations performed by the engine are not claimed; the limitation of “for the first engine” is merely describing an intended use of the generally recited data (i.e. “first operating parameter”). Generally recited data is merely determined using other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. identification data and first operating parameter) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a first component parameter). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of modifying an uncorrected first component parameter, obtained using the first operating parameter for the first engine, based on the first correction factor to provide the first component parameter for the first component. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of an “uncorrected first component parameter” is data representative of uncorrected data (i.e. “first component parameter”). As discussed above, while the “first operating parameter” is recited as being “for the first engine,” particular operations performed by the engine are not claimed; the limitation of “for the first engine” is merely describing an intended use of the generally recited data (i.e. “first operating parameter”). Generally recited data is merely modified using other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first correction factor and uncorrected first component factor) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. modifying an uncorrected first component parameter to provide the first component parameter). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of the first correction factor is tailored to normalize a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups on the first component of the first engine to be equivalent to a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups if the first component was operated in a different engine having a different output power than the first engine.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “number of component hours,” “number of flight hours,” and “number of engine startups” are merely data representative of the number of component hours, number of flight hours, and number of engine startups associated with the “first component.” The limitation of “if the first component was operated in a different engine having a different output power than the first engine” does not require operation of the first component and merely describes the generally recited data. Generally recited data is merely tailored to normalize other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first correction factor, number of component hours, number of flight hours, and number of engine startups) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. tailor the first correction factor to normalize the number of component hours, number of flight hours, and number of engine startups). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of
receiving a first output signal from a first aircraft system at a component management system, the first aircraft system including a first engine and a first component installed in the first engine, and the first output signal communicating identification data for the first engine and a first operating parameter for the first engine;
updating a record for the first component in the component management system using the first component parameter for the first component.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “first output signal” is data pertaining to output from an aircraft system. Particular sensors and aircraft-related operations are not claimed.
The “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of a first output signal) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “updating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general updating of a record) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “record” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “updating” step, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “component management system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The component management system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the receiving and updating steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “first aircraft system” defined as including the “first engine” contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., receiving a first output signal from a first aircraft system); therefore, the aircraft system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving and updating were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the aircraft system components and component management systems are known in the art, and the specification does not provide any indication that the record is anything other than conventional memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere receiving or transmitting of data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-15, and 21
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-15, and 21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of the component management system comprises a cloud-based server.
As discussed above, the “component management system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The component management system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the receiving and updating steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further limiting the component management system to include a “cloud-based server” represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the component management system to include a cloud-based server does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “cloud-based server” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the cloud-based server is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of the identification data for the first engine is indicative of a model of the first engine.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “model of the first engine” is data representative of the first engine. No particular controlled operations of the first engine are claimed. The model of the first engine is merely used to describe the generally recited data (i.e. “identification data”).
Further limiting the identification data to be indicative of a model of the first engine represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the identification data to be indicative of a model of the first engine does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of the identification data for the first engine is indicative of an identification number of the first engine.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “identification number of the first engine” is data representative of an identification number of the first engine. No particular controlled operations of the first engine are claimed. The identification number of the first engine is merely used to describe the generally recited data (i.e. “identification data”).
Further limiting the identification data to be indicative of an identification number of the first engine represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the identification data to be indicative of an identification number of the first engine does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of:
the first operating parameter for the first engine is indicative of a period of time of operation of the first engine; and
the first component parameter for the first component is indicative of a period of time of operation of the first component corrected based on the identification data for the first engine.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “period of time of operation of the first engine” and “period of time of operation of the first component” are data representative of time periods of operation the first engine and first component, respectively. No particular controlled operations of the first engine or first component are claimed. The period of time of operation of the first engine is merely used to describe the generally recited data (i.e. “first operating parameter”), and the period of time of operation of the first component is merely used to describe the generally recited data (i.e. “first component parameter”).
Further limiting the first operating parameter to be indicative of a period of time of operation of the first engine and the first component parameter to be indicative of a period of time of operation of the first component corrected based on the identification data represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the first operating parameter to be indicative of a period of time of operation of the first engine and the first component parameter to be indicative of a period of time of operation of the first component corrected based on the identification data does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of:
the first operating parameter for the first engine is indicative of a number of operating cycles of the first engine; and
the first component parameter for the first component is indicative of a number of operating cycles of the first component corrected based on the identification data for the first engine.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “number of operating cycles of the first engine” and “number of operating cycles of the first component” are data representative of the first engine and first component, respectively. No particular controlled operations of the first engine or first component are claimed. The period of time of operation of the first engine is merely used to describe the generally recited data (i.e. “first operating parameter”), and the period of time of operation of the first component is merely used to describe the generally recited data (i.e. “first component parameter”).
Further limiting the first operating parameter to be indicative of a number of operating cycles of the first engine and the first component parameter to be indicative of a number of operating cycles of the first component corrected based on the identification data for the first engine represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the first operating parameter to be indicative of a number of operating cycles of the first engine and the first component parameter to be indicative of a number of operating cycles of the first component corrected based on the identification data for the first engine does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of:
receiving a second output signal from a second aircraft system at the component management system, the second aircraft system including a second engine and the first component where the first component was removed from the first engine following the receiving of the first output signal and installed in the second engine, and the second output signal communicating identification data for the second engine and a second operating parameter for the second engine;
determining a second correction factor based on the identification data for the second engine;
modifying an uncorrected second component parameter, obtained using the second operating parameter for the second engine, based on the second correction factor to provide a second component parameter for the first component; and
updating the record for the first component in the component management system using the second component parameter for the first component.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “uncorrected second component parameter” is data representative of a uncorrected data (i.e. “second component parameter”). While the “second operating parameter” is recited as being “for the second engine,” particular operations performed by the engine are not claimed; the limitation of “for the second engine” is merely describing an intended use of the generally recited data (i.e. “second operating parameter”). Generally recited data is merely determined or modified using other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation of determining a second correction factor based on the identification data for the second engine, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. identification data) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determining a second correction factor). The limitation of modifying an uncorrected second component parameter based on the second correction factor to provide a second component parameter for the first component, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second correction factor and uncorrected second component parameter) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. modifying the uncorrected second component parameter to provide a second component parameter). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation defining the manner in which the uncorrected first component parameter is “obtained using the second operating parameter for the second engine” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general obtaining of an uncorrected second component parameter) and amounts to mere data gathering based upon a generally recited condition (i.e. second operating parameter), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving a second output signal) and amounts to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “updating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general updating the record for the first component) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “record” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “updating” step, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “component management system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The component management system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “receiving” and “updating” steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “second aircraft system” defined as including a “second engine” contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., receiving a second output signal from a second aircraft system); therefore, the second aircraft system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of:
the second engine is a different model of engine than the first engine; and
the second correction factor is different than the first correction factor.
Further limiting the second engine to be a different model than the first engine and the second correction factor to be different than the first correction factor represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the second engine to be a different model than the first engine and the second correction factor to be different than the first correction factor does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 9 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 10 recites the additional element of the record for the first component in the component management system accounts for operation of the first component in the first engine and the second engine.
The limitation in which the “record” is defined as “account[ing] for operation of the first component in the first engine and second engine” does not require controlled operations of the engines and merely describes the generally recited data stored in a generic computer element (i.e. “record”).
Further limiting the record to account for operation of the first component in the first engine and the second engine represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the record to account for operation of the first component in the first engine and the second engine does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 10 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of:
receiving a second output signal from a second aircraft system at the component management system, the second aircraft system including a second engine and a second component installed in the second engine, and the second output signal communicating identification data for the second engine and a second operating parameter for the second engine;
determining a second component parameter for the second component based on the identification data for the second engine and the second operating parameter for the second engine; and
updating a record for the second component in the component management system using the second component parameter for the second component.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “second component parameter” is data related to a component of an engine, and the “second operating parameter” is data related to operation of the engine. The “determination” step is based upon a generally recited receipt of data (i.e. identification data and second operation parameter). Further explanations of the additional limitations are provided above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, the limitation of determining a second component parameter for the second component based on the identification data for the second engine and the second operating parameter for the second engine, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. identification data and second operating parameter) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a second component parameter). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of a second output signal) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “updating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general updating of a record) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “record” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “updating” step, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “component management system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The component management system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the “receiving” and “updating” steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “second aircraft system” defined as including the “second engine” contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., receiving a second output signal from a second aircraft system); therefore, the aircraft system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 11 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of:
processing the first operating parameter for the first engine and the first correction factor to provide the first component parameter for the first component; and
determining a second correction factor based on the identification data for the second engine, wherein the determining of the second component parameter for the second component comprises processing the second operating parameter for the second engine and the second correction factor to provide the second component parameter for the second component.
As similarly discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, while parameters are defined “for the first engine” and “for the second engine,” particular operations performed by the engines are not claimed; the limitations of “for the first engine” and “for the second engine” are merely describing an intended use of the generally recited data (i.e. “first component parameter,” “identification data,” or “second operating parameter”). The “determining” step is based upon generally recited data (i.e. identification data), and the “processing” steps are based upon generally recited data (i.e. first and second correction factors and first and second operating parameters).
Therefore, the limitation of processing the first operating parameter for the first engine and the first correction factor to provide the first component parameter for the first component, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first operating parameter and first correction factor) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. providing the first component parameter). The limitation of determining a second correction factor based on the identification data for the second engine, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. identification data) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determining a second correction factor). The limitation of processing the second operating parameter for the second engine and the second correction factor to provide the second component parameter for the second component, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second operating parameter and second correction factor) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. providing the second component parameter). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 12 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of:
the second engine is a different model of engine than the first engine; and
the second correction factor is different than the first correction factor.
Further limiting the second engine to be a different model than the first engine and the second correction factor to be different than the first correction factor represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the second engine to be a different model than the first engine and the second correction factor to be different than the first correction factor does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 13 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of the first component and the second component are a common model of component.
Further limiting the first component and the second component to be a common model represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the first component and the second component to be a common model does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 14 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of the first component is a fuel nozzle.
Further limiting the first component to be a fuel nozzle represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the first component to be a fuel nozzle does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 15 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 21 recites the additional element of the second correction factor is tailored to normalize a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups on the first component of the second engine to be equivalent to a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups if the first component was operated in a different engine having a different output power than the second engine.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “number of component hours,” “number of flight hours,” and “number of engine startups” are merely data representative of the number of component hours, number of flight hours, and number of engine startups associated with the “first component.” The limitation of “if the first component was operated in a different engine having a different output power than the second engine” does not require operation of the first component and merely describes the generally recited data. Generally recited data is merely tailored to normalize other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second correction factor, number of component hours, number of flight hours, and number of engine startups) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. tailor the second correction factor to normalize the number of component hours, number of flight hours, and number of engine startups). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Therefore, dependent claim 21 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-15, and 21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 16
Claim 16. A method for component management, comprising:
receiving a first output signal from a first aircraft system of an aircraft at a component management system located remote from the aircraft, the first aircraft system including a first engine and a first component, and the first output signal indicative of a first operating parameter for the first engine;
determining a first correction factor based on an identity of the first engine;
modifying an uncorrected first component parameter, determined using the first operating parameter for the first engine, based on the first correction factor to provide a first component parameter for the first component;
updating a history of the first component in the component management system based on the first component parameter for the first component;
receiving a second output signal from a second aircraft system at the component management system, the second aircraft system including a second engine and the first component where the first component was removed from the first engine following the receiving of the first output signal and installed in the second engine, and the second output signal communicating identification data for the second engine and a second operating parameter for the second engine;
determining a second correction factor based on the identification data for the second engine;
modifying an uncorrected second component parameter, determined using the second operating parameter for the second engine, based on the second correction factor to provide a second component parameter for the first component; and
updating the history for the first component in the component management system using the second component parameter for the first component;
wherein the second correction factor is different than the first correction factor.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of determining a first correction factor based on an identity of the first engine. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “first correction factor” is data representative of a correction. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “identification data,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to the identity of the engine. Particular operations performed by the engine and particular engine-related sensors for acquiring the data are not claimed. Generally recited data is merely determined based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. identification data) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a first correction factor). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of modifying an uncorrected first component parameter, determined using the first operating parameter for the first engine, based on the first correction factor to provide a first component parameter for the first component. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of an “uncorrected first component parameter” is data representative of uncorrected data (i.e. “first component parameter”). As discussed above, while the “first operating parameter” is recited as being “for the first engine,” particular operations performed by the engine are not claimed; the limitation of “for the first engine” is merely describing an intended use of the generally recited data (i.e. “first operating parameter”). Generally recited data is merely modified using other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first correction factor and uncorrected first component parameter) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. modifying an uncorrected first component parameter to provide the first component parameter). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determining a second correction factor based on the identification data for the second engine. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of a “second correction factor” is data representative of a correction. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “identification data,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data pertaining to the identity of the engine. Particular operations performed by the engine and particular engine-related sensors for acquiring the data are not claimed. Generally recited data is merely determined based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. identification data) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a second correction factor). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of modifying an uncorrected second component parameter, determined using the second operating parameter for the second engine, based on the second correction factor to provide a second component parameter for the first component. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of an “uncorrected second component parameter” is data representative of uncorrected data (i.e. “second component parameter”). As discussed above, while the “second operating parameter” is recited as being “for the second engine,” particular operations performed by the engine are not claimed; the limitation of “for the second engine” is merely describing an intended use of the generally recited data (i.e. “second operating parameter”). Generally recited data is merely modified using other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second correction factor and uncorrected second component factor) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. modifying an uncorrected second component parameter to provide the second component parameter). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
receiving a first output signal from a first aircraft system of an aircraft at a component management system located remote from the aircraft, the first aircraft system including a first engine and a first component, and the first output signal indicative of a first operating parameter for the first engine;
updating a history of the first component in the component management system based on the first component parameter for the first component.
receiving a second output signal from a second aircraft system at the component management system, the second aircraft system including a second engine and the first component where the first component was removed from the first engine following the receiving of the first output signal and installed in the second engine, and the second output signal communicating identification data for the second engine and a second operating parameter for the second engine;
updating the history for the first component in the component management system using the second component parameter for the first component;
wherein the second correction factor is different than the first correction factor.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “first output signal” and “second output signal” are data pertaining to output from a first aircraft system and second aircraft system, respectively. Particular sensors and aircraft-related operations are not claimed. While the “receiving” step is defined as occurring before “the first component was removed from the first engine” and “installed in the second engine,” no particular aircraft-related sensors or control operations are claimed for generating the “output signals.” The particular engine in which the “first component” is installed does not require operation by the engine that influences the generally recited data.
The first “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of a first output signal) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The first “updating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general updating of a history) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “history” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “updating” step, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The second “receiving” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general receiving of a second output signal) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The second “updating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general updating of a history) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “history” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “updating” step, is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limiting the “second correction factor” to be different than the first correction factor represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the second correction factor to be different than the first correction factor does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
The “component management system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The component management system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the receiving and updating steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “first aircraft system” defined as including the “first engine” and the “second aircraft system” defined as including the “second engine” contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., receiving a first output signal from a first aircraft system and receiving a second output signal from a second aircraft system); therefore, the aircraft systems do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving and updating steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the aircraft system components and component management systems are known in the art, and the specification does not provide any indication that the history is anything other than conventional memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere receiving or transmitting of data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Claim 17
Claim 17. A method for component management, comprising:
determining a first component parameter for a first component installed in a first aircraft engine;
updating a record for the first component in a component management system using the first component parameter for the first component;
determining a second component parameter for the first component installed in a second aircraft engine, wherein the first component was removed from the first engine following the determination of the first component parameter and subsequently installed in the second engine, wherein the second aircraft engine has a different configuration than the first aircraft engine, and wherein the second component parameter and the first component parameter are of a common parameter type; and
updating the record for the first component in the component management system using the second component parameter for the first component;
wherein the first component parameter for the first component is determined using a first correction factor, and the first correction factor is based on information of first component while installed in the first aircraft engine and information of the first aircraft engine; and
wherein the second component parameter for the first component is determined using a second correction factor that is different than the first correction factor, and the second correction factor is based on information of first component while installed in the second aircraft engine and information of the second aircraft engine.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of determining a first component parameter for a first component installed in a first aircraft engine. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “first component parameter” is data related to a component of an engine. Particular operations performed by the engine are not claimed.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a first component parameter). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of determining a second component parameter for the first component installed in a second aircraft engine. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “second component parameter” is data related to a component of an engine. Particular operations performed by the engine are not claimed.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a second component parameter). Such evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The mere recitations that define the “first component” as being “removed from the first engine following the determination of the first component parameter and subsequently installed in the second engine,” the “second aircraft engine” as having a “different configuration than the first aircraft engine,” and the “second component parameter” as being common with the “first component parameter” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
The claim recites the limitation of the first component parameter for the first component is determined using a first correction factor. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “first correction factor” is data representative of a correction. Particular aircraft-related sensors or operations for determining the generally recited data are not claimed.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. first correction factor) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a first component parameter). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The claim recites the limitation of the second component parameter for the first component is determined using a second correction factor that is different than the first correction factor. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “second correction factor” is data representative of a correction. Particular aircraft-related sensors or operations for determining the generally recited data are not claimed.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. second correction factor) and forming a simple evaluation (i.e. determine a second component parameter). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
updating a record for the first component in a component management system using the first component parameter for the first component;
updating the record for the first component in the component management system using the second component parameter for the first component;
the first correction factor is based on information of first component while installed in the first aircraft engine and information of the first aircraft engine;
the second correction factor is based on information of first component while installed in the second aircraft engine and information of the second aircraft engine.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “information of first component,” “information of the first aircraft engine,” and “information of the second aircraft engine” are data pertaining to a first component, first aircraft engine, and second aircraft engine, respectively. While the limitation of “first correction factor is based on information of first component” is recited as being “while installed in the first aircraft engine,” and the limitation of “second correction factor is based on information of first component” is recited as being “while installed in the second aircraft engine,” particular operations performed by the engine are not claimed. Generally recited data is merely determined using other generally recited data.
The “updating” steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general updating of a record) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No technological details are recited with respect to the “record” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the “updating” steps are found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “component management system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The component management system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the receiving and updating steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “first aircraft engine” and “second aircraft engine” contribute only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., determining a first and second component parameter for a component installed in a first and second aircraft engine); therefore, the aircraft engines do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Further limiting the “first component” to be “removed from the first engine following the determination of the first component parameter and subsequently installed in the second engine” represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Further limiting the “second aircraft engine” to have “a different configuration than the first aircraft engine” represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Further limiting the “second component parameter” and the “first component parameter” to be of a “common type” represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Further limiting the “first correction factor” to be based on information of first component while installed in the first aircraft engine and information of the first aircraft engine represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the first correction factor to be based on information of first component while installed in the first aircraft engine and information of the first aircraft engine does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Similarly, further limiting the “second correction factor” to be based on information of first component while installed in the second aircraft engine and information of the second aircraft engine represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the second correction factor” to be based on information of first component while installed in the second aircraft engine and information of the second aircraft engine does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the updating and determining steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the aircraft system components and component management systems are known in the art, and the specification does not provide any indication that the record is anything other than conventional memory. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere receiving or transmitting of data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 18 and 19
Dependent claims 18 and 19 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 18 recites the additional element of the second aircraft engine is a different type of gas turbine engine than the first aircraft engine.
Further limiting the second aircraft to be a different type of gas turbine engine than the first aircraft engine represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the second aircraft to be a different type of gas turbine engine than the first aircraft engine does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claim 18 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 17.
Claim 19 recites the additional element of the component management system comprises a cloud-based server located remote from the first aircraft engine and the second aircraft engine.
As discussed above, the “component management system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The component management system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automating the receiving and updating steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further limiting the component management system to include a cloud-based server located remote from the first aircraft engine and the second aircraft engine represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the component management system to include a cloud-based server located remote from the first aircraft engine and the second aircraft engine does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
No technological details are recited with respect to the “cloud-based server” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the cloud-based server is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, dependent claim 19 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 17.
Therefore, dependent claims 18 and 19 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 17.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Per MPEP 2106.05(I), the novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Claims 1-6, 8-19, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
With respect to claim 1, the closest prior art of record, DellaVilla, Jr. et al. (US 2007/0016818 A1), hereinafter DellaVilla, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed method for component management, comprising:
receiving a first output signal from a first aircraft system at a component management system, the first aircraft system including a first engine and a first component installed in the first engine, and the first output signal communicating identification data for the first engine and a first operating parameter for the first engine;
determining a first correction factor based on the identification data for the first engine;
determining a first component parameter for the first component based on the identification data for the first engine and the first operating parameter for the first engine; and
updating a record for the first component in the component management system using the first component parameter for the first component;
wherein the determining of the first component parameter for the first component comprises modifying an uncorrected first component parameter, obtained using the first operating parameter for the first engine, based on the first correction factor to provide the first component parameter for the first component; and
wherein the first correction factor is tailored to normalize a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups on the first component of the first engine to be equivalent to a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups if the first component was operated in a different engine having a different output power than the first engine.
Specifically, while DellaVilla teaches a similar method for component management (see ¶0021-0022, with respect to Figure 1), as described in detail in the Office Action mailed 9/5/2025, the K-Factors (i.e. “first correction factor”) of DellaVilla represent the total life consumed by a part with respect to full, partial, and trip cycles (see ¶0023-0025), and it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the K-Factors of DellaVilla to be tailored to normalize a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups on the first component of the first engine to be equivalent to a number of component hours, a number of flight hours, and a number of engine startups if the first component was operated in a different engine having a different output power than the first engine, as claimed. No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
With respect to claim 16, the closest prior art of record, DellaVilla, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed method for component management, comprising:
receiving a first output signal from a first aircraft system of an aircraft at a component management system located remote from the aircraft, the first aircraft system including a first engine and a first component, and the first output signal indicative of a first operating parameter for the first engine;
determining a first correction factor based on an identity of the first engine;
modifying an uncorrected first component parameter, determined using the first operating parameter for the first engine, based on the first correction factor to provide a first component parameter for the first component;
updating a history of the first component in the component management system based on the first component parameter for the first component,
receiving a second output signal from a second aircraft system at the component management system, the second aircraft system including a second engine and the first component where the first component was removed from the first engine following the receiving of the first output signal and installed in the second engine, and the second output signal communicating identification data for the second engine and a second operating parameter for the second engine;
determining a second correction factor based on the identification data for the second engine;
modifying an uncorrected second component parameter, determined using the second operating parameter for the second engine, based on the second correction factor to provide a second component parameter for the first component; and
updating the history for the first component in the component management system using the second component parameter for the first component;
wherein the second correction factor is different than the first correction factor.
As similarly discussed in the allowable subject matter of the Office Action mailed 9/5/2025, the K-factors (i.e. “correction factors”) of DellaVilla are specific to each part (see ¶0022, ¶0030), and DellaVilla cannot be reasonably modified to provide a “first correction factor” and “second correction factor” for modifying different operating parameters for different engines in which the first component is installed, so as to provide distinct component parameters for the first component, in light of the overall claim. No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
With respect to claim 17, the closest prior art of record, DellaVilla, taken alone or in combination, does not teach that the claimed method for component management, comprising:
determining a first component parameter for a first component installed in a first aircraft engine;
updating a record for the first component in a component management system using the first component parameter for the first component;
determining a second component parameter for the first component installed in a second aircraft engine, wherein the first component was removed from the first engine following the determination of the first component parameter and subsequently installed in the second engine, wherein the second aircraft engine has a different configuration than the first aircraft engine, and wherein the second component parameter and the first component parameter are of a common parameter type; and
updating the record for the first component in the component management system using the second component parameter for the first component,
wherein the first component parameter for the first component is determined using a first correction factor, and the first correction factor is based on information of first component while installed in the first aircraft engine and information of the first aircraft engine; and
wherein the second component parameter for the first component is determined using a second correction factor that is different than the first correction factor, and the second correction factor is based on information of first component while installed in the second aircraft engine and information of the second aircraft engine.
As similarly discussed in the allowable subject matter of the Office Action mailed 9/5/2025, the K-factors (i.e. “correction factors”) of DellaVilla are specific to each part (see ¶0022, ¶0030), and DellaVilla cannot be reasonably modified to provide a “first correction factor” and “second correction factor” for determining the different component parameters for the first component when installed in different engines, in light of the overall claim. No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Adibhatla (US 2018/0297718 A1) teaches monitoring aircraft engine components to prevent premature replacement (see ¶0022), Andersson et al. (US 2015/0234951 A1) teaches predicting the life consumption of a part of a jet engine based on data recorded during flight and stored in a remote database (see ¶0042), Bacon et al. (US 2005/0027586 A1) teaches estimating a remaining parts life based on the type of gas turbine engine (see claim 7) which may be applicable to aircraft (see ¶0019), Clark, IV et al. (US 2018/0047224 A1) teaches the accumulation of parameters throughout a component’s history (see ¶0056), where the component may be installed on an engine (see ¶0057), Hable et al. (US 2024/0255940 A1) teaches determining a remaining useful life of a component of an engine based on sensor data corresponding to the component and engine data (see abstract), and Joshi et al. (US 2005/0043870 A1) teaches the use of information storage devices provided on components of turbine engines to record operating data, so as to maintain data even as the components are replaced (see abstract).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661