DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This Final action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response of December 12, 2025.
Claims 5 and 20 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 22, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the objection to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues:
(1) The claimed features provide improvements to another technology or technical field
(a) The claimed features of "continuously capture status signals corresponding to a plurality of fault events, wherein the plurality of fault events are associated with: an electric power generating system of an aircraft; and flight leg data of a flight associated with the aircraft;" "identify a fault event having a lowest severity level among the plurality of fault events;" "count a quantity of instances of the fault event [having the lowest severity level] with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft;" "generate a second fault event associated with the fault event based on comparing the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event;" and "report the second fault event according to the higher severity level" can confer improvements in safety and reduced cost through identification of hidden faults which may otherwise go undetected and unaddressed.
(5) The claimed features add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field
(a) Through at least the claimed "identify a fault event having a lowest severity level among the plurality of fault events [associated with: an electric power generating system of an aircraft; and flight leg data of a flight associated with the aircraft],""count a quantity of instances of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft," and "generate a second fault event associated with the fault event based on comparing the quantity of the instances [of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft] to a threshold quantity, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event,"
(6) The claimed features add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful and practical application
(a) Through at least the claimed "count a quantity of instances of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft," and "generate a second fault event associated with the fault event based on comparing the quantity of the instances [of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft] to a threshold quantity, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event,"
For example, this practical application may "effectively troubleshoot and identify a larger or hidden fault (e.g., leak in a cooling system fitting) that is causing or is associated with the relatively low severity fault," as "the systems and techniques ... may support identifying, from relatively low severity faults (e.g., bolts which are reported as loose every 3 to 4 flights and are then tightened by maintenance crew), a related larger issue or defect to be addressed," specification, [0067], demonstrating a concrete technological solution rather than a theoretical concept.
Thus, any alleged abstract idea in claim 1 is incorporated into a practical application and improves the existing technology.
The Examiner’s Response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that, “(1) The claimed features provide improvements to another technology or technical field … (5) The claimed features add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field … (6) The claimed features add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful and practical application” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits that the improvement recited in the claims is merely to the processing of information, not to a technology itself as argued, which is thus an improved mental process, not an improvement to the computer or technology. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a *new* abstract idea is still an abstract idea"). There is no improvement in the function of the technology itself, and therefore these cited improvements do not meet the threshold to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the Examiner submits that the steps in claim 1, such as “identify a fault event having a lowest severity level among the plurality of fault events”, “count a quantity of instances of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft”, and “comparing the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity” can reasonably be performed by a human mentally or with aid of pen and paper. Although, the claim recites the limitation of “continuously capture status signals corresponding to a plurality of fault events, wherein the plurality of fault events are associated with: an electric power generating system of an aircraft; and flight leg data of a flight associated with the aircraft”, “generate a second fault event associated with the fault event, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event”, and “report the second fault event according to the higher severity level”, the additional details do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The capturing step does not elevate this limitation from insignificant extra-solution data gathering. The generating and reporting steps do not elevate this limitation from insignificant extra-solution activity. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection of such claims under 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained herein.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully 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.
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 1-4 and 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 12, and 16 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 12, and 16 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a machine and a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claims (claims 1, 12, and 16) recite the limitation of “identify/identifying a fault event having a lowest severity level among the plurality of fault events”, “count/counting a quantity of instances of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft”, and “comparing the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and identifies a fault event having a lowest severity level among the plurality of fault events; counts a quantity of instances of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft; and compares the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply identifying a fault event having a lowest severity level among the plurality of fault events; counting a quantity of instances of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft; and comparing the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of a fault analysis system (claim 1), one or more processors (claims 1 and 12), an apparatus (claim 12), a controller (claim 12), logic circuitry (claim 12), processing circuitry (claim 12), or one or more circuitry (claim 16) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 12, and 16 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “continuously capture/capturing status signals corresponding to a plurality of fault events, wherein the plurality of fault events are associated with: an electric power generating system of an aircraft; and flight leg data of a flight associated with the aircraft”, “generate/generating a second fault event associated with the fault event, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event”, “report/reporting the second fault event according to the higher severity level”, a fault analysis system (claim 1), one or more processors (claims 1 and 12), an apparatus (claim 12), a controller (claim 12), logic circuitry (claim 12), processing circuitry (claim 12), and one or more circuitry (claim 16). The capturing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of receiving/gathering data) and amount to no more than data gathering, which is a form of extra solution activity. The generating and reporting steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a fault analysis system” in claim 1, “one or more processors” in claims 1 and 12, “an apparatus” in claim 12, “a controller” in claim 12, “logic circuitry” in claim 12, “processing circuitry” in claim 12, and “one or more circuitry” in claim 16, the Examiner submits the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “a fault analysis system”, “one or more processors”, “an apparatus”, “a controller”, “logic circuitry”, “processing circuitry”, and “one or more circuitry” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the fault analysis system”, “the one or more processors”, “the apparatus”, “the controller”, “the logic circuitry”, “the processing circuitry”, and “the one or more circuitry” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 12, and 16 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 12, and 16 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-4 and 6-11 depend from claim 1, claims 13-15 depend from claim 12, and claims 17-19 depend from claim 16.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 17-19 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element.
As such, claims 1-4 and 6-19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkat et al., US 2019/0087789 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barkat, in view of Jang et al., US 2023/0356624 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jang, respectively.
As to claim 1, Barkat teaches a fault analysis system, comprising:
one or more processors configured to (see at least Abstract, Barkat):
continuously capture status signals corresponding to a plurality of fault events (see at least FIG. 3 and paragraphs 32-34 regarding retrieving a data transmission from a plurality of component faults from the aircraft processor 218 while the aircraft is in flight, Barkat), wherein the plurality of fault events are associated with: an electric power generating system of an aircraft; and flight leg data of a flight associated with the aircraft (see at least FIG. 1 and paragraphs 20-22 regarding the aircraft may include a plurality of LRUs including LRU 1 (102), LRU 2 (104), LRU 3 (106), and LRU 4 (108). Each of the LRUs 102-108 output fault data to an onboard Automated FMEA system processor 110. See also at least paragraphs 32-35 regarding evaluating, based on the part failure history, for each sensor associated with a particular sensor fault in the plurality of component faults from the aircraft processor, a relationship between 1) an aircraft flight path, 2) the particular sensor fault, and 3) a prediction hit or miss rate for the sensor associated with the sensor fault. The evaluating process includes predicting, for each of the plurality of component faults, the weighted prediction of authentic component faults based on the relationship between the aircraft flight path, the sensor fault, and the prediction hit or miss rate for the sensor associated with the sensor fault. The aircraft flight path comprises a predetermined flight leg unique to the aircraft flight path. The aircraft flight path includes one or more of a flight parameters including but not limited to vector, an engine speed, and an altitude of the aircraft that is currently in flight. The flight vector, engine speed, and or the altitude are readings of the aircraft operational data taken at the time of the particular sensor fault, Barkat);
identify a fault event having a lowest severity level among the plurality of fault events (see at least paragraph 20 regarding each of the LRUs 102-108 output fault data to an onboard Automated FMEA system processor 110. FMEA 110 generates a critical fault list which serves as input to the predictive analysis engine 116. The generation of critical fault list is based on a weight for each fault determinative of how important the resolution of that fault is to the safety and functionality of the LRU and the aircraft. For example, an overheat fault may be considered more important and higher on the maintenance list than a fault associated with water pressure in the lavatory. See also at least paragraphs 32-35 regarding sorting the faults using a predictive fault list. The predictive fault list includes a plurality of weighted predictions of authentic component faults and nuisance component faults, Barkat);
count a quantity of instances of the fault event with respect to the flight leg data of the flight and flight leg data of at least one completed flight associated with the aircraft (see at least paragraphs 32-38 regarding each reported fault is next compared with the results of a predictive analysis algorithm applied on the historical data of the corresponding fault. To ensure that only the recent fault history affects the output of the predictive analysis algorithm, data corresponding to only the last N flight legs are considered. The value of N depends on the LRU under consideration since any hidden trend in the reported faults could be spread over different number of flight legs for different faults. The initial value of N is determined from parameters such as Mean Time between failures (MTBF), that are provided by the LRU manufacturers. The value of N can be updated over time based on the field performance of the LRU under consideration. See also at least FIG. 5 and paragraphs 41-56 regarding a graphical depiction of nuisance faults versus flight legs, Barkat).
Barkat does not explicitly teach generating a second fault event associated with the fault event based on comparing the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event; or reporting the second fault event according to the higher severity level.
However, Jang teaches generating a second fault event associated with the fault event based on comparing the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event (see at least paragraphs 68-83 regarding based on the number of fault temperatures of the specific battery cell and the number of temperature sensor fault codes thereof, or based on the number of the warning temperatures of the specific battery cell and the number of the temperature sensor warning codes thereof which are counted by the controller 220, the controller 220 may generate at least three fault codes such as Flag=0, Flag=1, and Flag=2 as fault codes to notify thermal abnormality of the battery of the specific vehicle (e.g., at S112). If it is determined that the temperature of the specific battery cell of a specific vehicle changes to a preset level or more by a preset number of times or more for a preset period of time (e.g., compared to the reference battery temperature distribution as described above), the controller 220 may count the number of the fault temperatures of the specific battery cell and the number of the temperature sensor fault codes thereof, and may generate Flag=2 as a fault code to notify the thermal abnormality of the battery of the specific vehicle, for example, if the number of temperature sensor fault codes of the specific battery cell exceeds a first reference number of times (e.g., ten times or any other number of times) and if the number of the fault temperatures exceeds a second reference number of times (e.g., twenty times or any other number of times)); and reporting the second fault event according to the higher severity level (see at least paragraphs 68-83 regarding if it is determined that the temperature of the specific battery cell of a specific vehicle changes to a preset level or more by a preset number of times or more for a preset period of time (e.g., compared to the reference battery temperature distribution as described above), the controller 220 may count the number of the fault temperatures of the specific battery cell and the number of the temperature sensor fault codes thereof, and may generate Flag=2 as a fault code to notify the thermal abnormality of the battery of the specific vehicle, for example, if the number of temperature sensor fault codes of the specific battery cell exceeds a first reference number of times (e.g., ten times or any other number of times) and if the number of the fault temperatures exceeds a second reference number of times (e.g., twenty times or any other number of times). The fault code of Flag=2 generated in the controller 220 is transmitted to the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300, the BMS 301 may update the fault code of Flag=2 to a fault code=2 and store the same. For example, if it is checked/determined that the fault code=2 indicating the thermal abnormality of a battery is updated in the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300 (e.g., at S115), the BMS 301 (or any other controller of the vehicle 300) may determine that there is a risk of thermal damage to the battery and fire, so the BMS 301 may display (e.g., via a display) a notification (e.g., an alarm) notifying the presence of the thermal abnormality of the battery mounted on the specific vehicle 300 and notifying the need of maintenance of the battery (e.g., at S116)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Jang which teaches generating a second fault event associated with the fault event based on comparing the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event; and reporting the second fault event according to the higher severity level with the system of Barkat as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of generating a second fault event associated with the fault event based on comparing the quantity of the instances to a threshold quantity, wherein the second fault event is of a higher severity level than the fault event; and reporting the second fault event according to the higher severity level and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat.
As to claim 3, Barkat teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to classify the plurality of fault events according to respective severity levels of the plurality of fault events (see at least paragraphs 20-21 regarding the generation of critical fault list is based on a weight for each fault determinative of how important the resolution of that fault is to the safety and functionality of the LRU and the aircraft. For example, an overheat fault may be considered more important and higher on the maintenance list than a fault associated with water pressure in the lavatory. The predictive analysis engine in turn prioritizes the critical fault list and outputs a maintenance checklist that is used by the maintenance engineers to plan and perform maintenance actions 118. A fault generated by an LRU can affect the aircraft operations based on the criticality of the LRU. A system may be more critical, and as such, any failure affecting the critical system can influence the aircraft operation. Other systems may be non-critical and hence would not affect the aircraft operation but may affect the airline service quality. The third parameter of interest is the immediate need for maintenance action and how much time it would require to perform the maintenance action. For example a fault such as sensor failure will have a direct impact on the LRU functionality. It can affect the aircraft operation if it is a critical LRU and may require an immediate maintenance action causing that fault to be classified as critical. Failure of a non-critical system, for example, entertainment system does not affect aircraft operation and hence can be classified as a non-critical fault. All faults generated by multiple LRUs go through this automated process to generate the list of critical faults, Barkat).
As to claim 4, Barkat teaches ordering the plurality of fault events based on respective severity levels of the plurality of fault events (see at least paragraphs 20-21 regarding FMEA 110 generates a critical fault list which serves as input to the predictive analysis engine 116. The generation of critical fault list is based on a weight for each fault determinative of how important the resolution of that fault is to the safety and functionality of the LRU and the aircraft. For example, an overheat fault may be considered more important and higher on the maintenance list than a fault associated with water pressure in the lavatory. The predictive analysis engine in turn prioritizes the critical fault list. See also at least paragraphs 27-29, Barkat); and displaying the plurality of fault events based on the order (see at least paragraphs 20-21 regarding outputting a maintenance checklist that is used by the maintenance engineers to plan and perform maintenance actions 118, Barkat), however, Barkat does not explicitly teach adding the second fault event to the plurality of fault events.
However, such matter is taught by Jang (see at least paragraphs 39-40 regarding the controller 200 may classify the result of the determination into a plurality of categories (e.g., multiple fault codes, for example, at least three fault codes), and may transmit the determined results (e.g., the fault codes) to the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300. In order to classify and determine abnormality (e.g., faults) for diagnosis levels, the controller 220 may classify the abnormality (e.g., faults) into multiple abnormality levels or types (e.g., fault codes, for example, at least three fault codes), and may transmit at least one of the abnormality levels or types (e.g., the fault codes) to the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Jang which teaches adding the second fault event to the plurality of fault events with the system of Barkat as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of adding the second fault event to the plurality of fault events and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat.
As to claim 7, Barkat does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to assign the higher severity level to the second fault event.
However, such matter is taught by Jang (see at least paragraphs 68-83 regarding if it is determined that the temperature of the specific battery cell of a specific vehicle changes to a preset level or more by the preset number of times or more for a present period of time (e.g., compared to the reference battery temperature distribution), the controller 220 may generate Flag=1 as a fault code to notify the thermal abnormality of the battery of the specific vehicle, for example, if the controller 220 counts the number of the fault temperatures of the specific battery cell and the number of the fault temperatures of the specific battery cell exceeds a first reference number of times (e.g., five times or any other number of times). If it is determined that the temperature of the specific battery cell of a specific vehicle changes to a preset level or more by a preset number of times or more for a preset period of time (e.g., compared to the reference battery temperature distribution as described above), the controller 220 may count the number of the fault temperatures of the specific battery cell and the number of the temperature sensor fault codes thereof, and may generate Flag=2 as a fault code to notify the thermal abnormality of the battery of the specific vehicle, for example, if the number of temperature sensor fault codes of the specific battery cell exceeds a first reference number of times (e.g., ten times or any other number of times) and if the number of the fault temperatures exceeds a second reference number of times (e.g., twenty times or any other number of times)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Jang which teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to assign the higher severity level to the second fault event with the system of Barkat as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of assigning the higher severity level to the second fault event and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat.
As to claim 10, Barkat does not explicitly teach generating one or more second corrective actions associated with the second fault event, wherein at least a portion of the one or more second corrective actions associated with the second fault event is different from one or more correction actions associated with the fault event.
However, Jang teaches generating one or more second corrective actions associated with the second fault event (see at least paragraphs 68-83 regarding if it is checked/determined that the fault code=2 indicating the thermal abnormality of a battery is updated in the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300 (e.g., at S115), the BMS 301 (or any other controller of the vehicle 300) may determine that there is a risk of thermal damage to the battery and fire, so the BMS 301 may display (e.g., via a display) a notification (e.g., an alarm) notifying the presence of the thermal abnormality of the battery mounted on the specific vehicle 300 and notifying the need of maintenance of the battery (e.g., at S116). Accordingly, the driver of the vehicle 300 may be notified that the replacement of the battery mounted on the specific vehicle 300 and maintenance and the repair of the battery are recommended), wherein at least a portion of the one or more second corrective actions associated with the second fault event is different from one or more correction actions associated with the fault event (see at least paragraphs 68-83 regarding if it is checked/determined that the fault code=2 indicating the thermal abnormality of a battery is updated in the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300 (e.g., at S115), the BMS 301 (or any other controller of the vehicle 300) may determine that there is a risk of thermal damage to the battery and fire, so the BMS 301 may display (e.g., via a display) a notification (e.g., an alarm) notifying the presence of the thermal abnormality of the battery mounted on the specific vehicle 300 and notifying the need of maintenance of the battery (e.g., at S116). Accordingly, the driver of the vehicle 300 may be notified that the replacement of the battery mounted on the specific vehicle 300 and maintenance and the repair of the battery are recommended. If it is checked that the fault code=1 indicating the thermal abnormality of a battery is updated in the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300 (e.g., at S117), the BMS 301 may display an inspection recommendation message for the battery mounted on the specific vehicle 300 (e.g., for a preventive inspection to prevent thermal damage to the battery) (e.g., at S118). Accordingly, to prevent thermal damage to the battery mounted on the specific vehicle 300, the driver may be notified that a preventive maintenance is recommended. If it is checked that the fault code=0 indicating the thermal abnormality of a battery is updated in the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300 (e.g., at S119), the fault code=0 may be stored (e.g., in a driving recorder to be checked during vehicle inspection in the future) although the thermal abnormality of the battery may not be serious (e.g., at S120)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Jang which teaches generating one or more second corrective actions associated with the second fault event, wherein at least a portion of the one or more second corrective actions associated with the second fault event is different from one or more correction actions associated with the fault event with the system of Barkat as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters of the vehicle based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of generating one or more second corrective actions associated with the second fault event, wherein at least a portion of the one or more second corrective actions associated with the second fault event is different from one or more correction actions associated with the fault event and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat.
As to claim 12, Examiner notes claim 12 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 14, Examiner notes claim 14 recites similar limitations to claim 3 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 15, Examiner notes claim 15 recites similar limitations to claim 4 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 16, Examiner notes claim 16 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rational.
Claim(s) 2, 13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkat et al., US 2019/0087789 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barkat, in view of Jang et al., US 2023/0356624 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jang, and further in view of Emerick et al., US 2024/0371214 A1, hereinafter referred to as Emerick, respectively.
As to claim 2, Barkat, as modified by Jang, does not explicitly teach a memory device comprising a circular buffer, wherein the one or more processors are configured to continuously store the status signals to the circular buffer.
However, such matter is taught by Emerick (see at least Abstract and paragraphs 95-96 regarding the data logger circuit 424 is structured to store logged data in a buffer. In some embodiments, the buffer may be part of the memory device 406. The event monitoring circuit 426 is structured to receive an indication of a triggering event, such as an issue or other predefined condition (e.g., an issue as described herein) from the controller 300. As described above, responsive to detecting a vehicle issue (e.g., via the sensors 225) the controller 300 may trigger and output an indication of an issue. The event monitoring circuit 426 is structured to receive the indication of the issue. In some embodiments, the event monitoring circuit 426 is structured to provide the logged data (e.g., data stored in the buffer) to the remote computing system 110 (e.g., via the network 105 and/or the communication interface 416) responsive to receiving the indication of the issue).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Emerick which teaches a memory device comprising a circular buffer, wherein the one or more processors are configured to continuously store the status signals to the circular buffer with the system of Barkat, as modified by Jang, as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters of the vehicle based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having a memory device comprising a circular buffer, wherein the one or more processors are configured to continuously store the status signals to the circular buffer and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat as modified by Jang.
As to claim 13, Examiner notes claim 13 recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 17, Examiner notes claim 17 recites similar limitations to claim 2 and is rejected under the same rational.
As to claim 18, Barkat teaches classifying, by the one or more circuitry, the plurality of fault events according to respective severity levels of the plurality of fault events (see at least paragraphs 20-21 regarding the generation of critical fault list is based on a weight for each fault determinative of how important the resolution of that fault is to the safety and functionality of the LRU and the aircraft. For example, an overheat fault may be considered more important and higher on the maintenance list than a fault associated with water pressure in the lavatory. The predictive analysis engine in turn prioritizes the critical fault list and outputs a maintenance checklist that is used by the maintenance engineers to plan and perform maintenance actions 118. A fault generated by an LRU can affect the aircraft operations based on the criticality of the LRU. A system may be more critical, and as such, any failure affecting the critical system can influence the aircraft operation. Other systems may be non-critical and hence would not affect the aircraft operation but may affect the airline service quality. The third parameter of interest is the immediate need for maintenance action and how much time it would require to perform the maintenance action. For example a fault such as sensor failure will have a direct impact on the LRU functionality. It can affect the aircraft operation if it is a critical LRU and may require an immediate maintenance action causing that fault to be classified as critical. Failure of a non-critical system, for example, entertainment system does not affect aircraft operation and hence can be classified as a non-critical fault. All faults generated by multiple LRUs go through this automated process to generate the list of critical faults, Barkat).
As to claim 19, Barkat teaches ordering, by the one or more circuitry, the plurality of fault events based on respective severity levels of the plurality of fault events (see at least paragraphs 20-21 regarding FMEA 110 generates a critical fault list which serves as input to the predictive analysis engine 116. The generation of critical fault list is based on a weight for each fault determinative of how important the resolution of that fault is to the safety and functionality of the LRU and the aircraft. For example, an overheat fault may be considered more important and higher on the maintenance list than a fault associated with water pressure in the lavatory. The predictive analysis engine in turn prioritizes the critical fault list. See also at least paragraphs 27-29, Barkat); and displaying, by the one or more circuitry, the plurality of fault events based on the ordering (see at least paragraphs 20-21 regarding outputting a maintenance checklist that is used by the maintenance engineers to plan and perform maintenance actions 118, Barkat), however, Barkat does not explicitly teach adding, by the one or more circuitry, the second fault event to the plurality of fault events.
However, such matter is taught by Jang (see at least paragraphs 39-40 regarding the controller 200 may classify the result of the determination into a plurality of categories (e.g., multiple fault codes, for example, at least three fault codes), and may transmit the determined results (e.g., the fault codes) to the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300. In order to classify and determine abnormality (e.g., faults) for diagnosis levels, the controller 220 may classify the abnormality (e.g., faults) into multiple abnormality levels or types (e.g., fault codes, for example, at least three fault codes), and may transmit at least one of the abnormality levels or types (e.g., the fault codes) to the BMS 301 of the specific vehicle 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Jang which teaches adding, by the one or more circuitry, the second fault event to the plurality of fault events with the system of Barkat as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of adding, by the one or more circuitry, the second fault event to the plurality of fault events and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkat et al., US 2019/0087789 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barkat, in view of Jang et al., US 2023/0356624 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jang, and further in view of FENG et al., CN 117076166 A, hereinafter referred to as FENG, respectively.
As to claim 6, Barkat, as modified by Jang, does not explicitly teach one or more rule based tables, wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the second fault event based on the fault event and the one or more rule based tables.
However, such matter is taught by FENG (see at least paragraphs 4-7 regarding receiving reported data from a device, and obtaining the type of the reported data based on the reporting method of the reported data, wherein the type includes event data and attribute data; selecting a corresponding judgment method from a preset judgment table according to the type of the reported data, and judging whether the reported data is fault data based on the judgment method; when the reported data is fault data, parsing the reported data based on the type of the reported data and the matching of the judgment method with the corresponding parsing method to obtain device fault data, and storing the device fault data in a device fault list).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of FENG which teaches one or more rule based tables, wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the second fault event based on the fault event and the one or more rule based tables with the system of Barkat, as modified by Jang, as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of having one or more rule based tables, wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate the second fault event based on the fault event and the one or more rule based tables and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat as modified by Jang.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkat et al., US 2019/0087789 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barkat, in view of Jang et al., US 2023/0356624 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jang, and further in view of LEUNG et al., US 2017/0169633 A1, hereinafter referred to as LEUNG, respectively.
As to claim 8, Barkat, as modified by Jang, does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate a database entry corresponding to the fault event and store the database entry to a database; or the one or more processors are configured to generate a second database entry corresponding to the second fault event and store the second database entry to the database.
However, LEUNG teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate a database entry corresponding to the fault event and store the database entry to a database (see at least paragraph 32 regarding the memory 406 can also store a dashboard application 434 that generates and transmits dashboard entries for fault event indications that occur within a fleet of aircraft, discussed in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 6. The memory 406 can also store fault event indication data and service interruption data used to filter duplicate fault event indications and/or to calculate the probabilities of service interruptions for the various fault event indications. See also at least FIG. 6 and paragraphs 52-56 regarding the dashboard 600 interface includes dashboard entries arranged as rows of data related to fault event indications received for different fault event indications); and the one or more processors are configured to generate a second database entry corresponding to the second fault event and store the second database entry to the database (see at least paragraph 32 regarding the memory 406 can also store a dashboard application 434 that generates and transmits dashboard entries for fault event indications that occur within a fleet of aircraft, discussed in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 6. The memory 406 can also store fault event indication data and service interruption data used to filter duplicate fault event indications and/or to calculate the probabilities of service interruptions for the various fault event indications. See also at least FIG. 6 and paragraphs 52-56 regarding the dashboard 600 interface includes dashboard entries arranged as rows of data related to fault event indications received for different fault event indications. A first dashboard entry (row 614) of the dashboard 600 is for aircraft serial number 13478 and a second dashboard entry (row 616) of the dashboard 600 is for aircraft serial number 27450).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of LEUNG which teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate a database entry corresponding to the fault event and store the database entry to a database; and the one or more processors are configured to generate a second database entry corresponding to the second fault event and store the second database entry to the database with the system of Barkat, as modified by Jang, as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of generating a database entry corresponding to the fault event and store the database entry to a database; and generating a second database entry corresponding to the second fault event and store the second database entry to the database and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat as modified by Jang.
As to claim 9, Barkat, as modified by Jang, does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate first timestamp data associated with the fault event and second timestamp data associated with generation of the second fault event; or the one or more processors are configured to display the fault event and the second fault event based on the first timestamp data and the second timestamp data.
However, LEUNG teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate first timestamp data associated with the fault event and second timestamp data associated with generation of the second fault event (see at least paragraph 32 regarding the memory 406 can also store a dashboard application 434 that generates and transmits dashboard entries for fault event indications that occur within a fleet of aircraft, discussed in greater detail below with reference to FIG. 6. The memory 406 can also store fault event indication data and service interruption data used to filter duplicate fault event indications and/or to calculate the probabilities of service interruptions for the various fault event indications. See also at least FIG. 6 and paragraphs 52-56 regarding the dashboard 600 interface includes dashboard entries arranged as rows of data related to fault event indications received for different fault event indications. A first dashboard entry (row 614) of the dashboard 600 is for aircraft serial number 13478, and the fault event indication is a #4 wheel high brake temperature that occurred on Sep. 3, 2015 at 10:47 AM and a second dashboard entry (row 616) of the dashboard 600 is for aircraft serial number 27450, and the fault event indication is a #4 wheel high brake temperature that occurred on Sep. 4, 2015 at 11:53 PM); and the one or more processors are configured to display the fault event and the second fault event based on the first timestamp data and the second timestamp data (see at least FIG. 6 and paragraphs 52-56. See also at least paragraph 57 regarding the dashboard application 434 could output the dashboard 600 via the data interface 408 to a computer display screen. For example, the dashboard application 434 could transmit the dashboard 602 the maintenance server 420 and/or to the maintenance work station 422 for display on a computer display screen. The dashboard 600 can provide a maintenance support call center with near real-time information related to fault event indications occurring within a fleet of aircraft).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of LEUNG which teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to generate first timestamp data associated with the fault event and second timestamp data associated with generation of the second fault event; and the one or more processors are configured to display the fault event and the second fault event based on the first timestamp data and the second timestamp data with the system of Barkat, as modified by Jang, as both systems are directed to a system and method for diagnosing the operating parameters based on the detected data, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of generating first timestamp data associated with the fault event and second timestamp data associated with generation of the second fault event; and displaying the fault event and the second fault event based on the first timestamp data and the second timestamp data and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat as modified by Jang.
Claim(s)11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barkat et al., US 2019/0087789 A1, hereinafter referred to as Barkat, in view of Jang et al., US 2023/0356624 A1, hereinafter referred to as Jang, and further in view of TANG et al., WO 2024021603 A1, hereinafter referred to as TANG, respectively.
As to claim 11, Barkat, as modified by Jang, does not explicitly teach determining a pattern associated with the instances of the fault event; or generating the second fault event based on comparing the pattern to a target pattern.
However, TANG teaches determining a pattern associated with the instances of the fault event (see at least paragraphs 50-57 regarding generating an aggregate event based on multiple fault events. Specifically, the event aggregation method can use the time and space distance relationship or existing event patterns to aggregate multiple fault events in the same fault to generate an aggregated event); and generating the second fault event based on comparing the pattern to a target pattern (see at least paragraph 60 regarding performing matching processing on the aggregated event based on the multiple first event patterns to obtain a second event pattern corresponding to the aggregated event).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of TANG which teaches determining a pattern associated with the instances of the fault event; or generating the second fault event based on comparing the pattern to a target pattern with the system of Barkat, as modified by Jang, as both systems are directed to a system and method for determining the diagnosis result based on the comparison, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the established utility of determining a pattern associated with the instances of the fault event; or generating the second fault event based on comparing the pattern to a target pattern and would have predictably applied it to improve the system of Barkat as modified by Jang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
ADHIKARI (US 20250131832 A1) regarding a system for anomaly detection.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights