DETAILED ACTION
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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “identifying oil pressure data associated with an engine, generating adjusted oil pressure data by adjusting the oil pressure data by an engine speed or an ambient pressure, generating, by applying the adjusted oil pressure data to an oil pressure residual model, oil pressure residual data indicative of one or more oil pressure residuals, generating, by performing a windowing operation on the oil pressure residual data, erratic oil pressure data for a carbon seal associated with the engine,” are abstract ideas, as they recite limitations that can be done by mental process. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “initiating performance of one or more responsive actions based at least in part on the erratic oil pressure data”, but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is an insignificant post-solution activity. The claim’s broadness also can involve mental process such as mentally planning for maintenance, as responsive actions. The claims also recite processor and memory, but said limitation is merely a general-purpose computer to implement the abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any machines or processor. The claims also do not improve other technology under the practical application guideline. At most, the claims are an improvement in the abstract idea of determining the erratic oil data. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still abstract idea and not eligible. In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to that it is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “initiating performance of one or more responsive actions based at least in part on the erratic oil pressure data”, but said limitation, recited at high level of generality, is an insignificant post-solution activity, without a particular end use. The claims also recite processor and memory, but said limitation is merely a general-purpose computer to implement the abstract idea, that is well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickenbottom, IEEE “Proactive Approaches for Engine Health Management and a High Value Example,” 2022 (hereinafter Hickenbottom) (cited by the Applicant) (hereinafter Hickenbottom).
Regarding Claims 1, 11 and 20. Hickenbottom discloses identifying oil pressure data associated with an engine (page 3, Section 3, left column);
generating adjusted oil pressure data by adjusting the oil pressure data by an
engine speed or an ambient pressure (page 3, Section 3, right column, correction. Although Hickenbottom does not explicitly disclose engine speed, it’s obvious to recognize that engine operating regime includes engine speed);
generating, by applying the adjusted oil pressure data to an oil pressure residual
model, oil pressure residual data indicative of one or more oil pressure residuals (page 3, right column, residual); generating, by performing a windowing operation on the oil pressure residual data, erratic oil pressure data for a carbon seal associated with the engine (page 3, Section 3, Figures 2-4, detecting failures within certain time periods; Figure 5-6; page 4, Section 3, right column, last paragraph, carbon seal); and initiating performance of one or more responsive actions based at least in part on the erratic oil pressure data (page 3, Section 3, right column, perform maintenance, page 4, right column, page 5, left column).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12. Hickenbottom discloses the oil pressure data is indicative of a differential pressure (page 3, Section 3, right column, variations in measured oil pressure is indicative of a differential pressure; page 4, right column, delta-pressure).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13. Hickenbottom discloses the differential pressure is indicative of a difference between a first pressure associated with an oil pump and a second pressure associated with a sump scavenge (page 4, Section 3, right column, delta-pressure relative to sump pressure).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14. Hickenbottom discloses filtering the oil pressure data to remove at least a portion of the oil pressure data from the oil pressure data (page 3, Section 3, left column, evaluating next tier with smaller number of fields removals).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15. Hickenbottom discloses performing the windowing operation on the oil pressure residual data comprises: identifying a maximum oil pressure residual associated with the oil pressure residual data, identifying a minimum oil pressure residual associated with the oil pressure residual data, determining an oil pressure residual range using the maximum oil pressure residual associated with the oil pressure residual data and the minimum oil pressure residual associated with oil pressure residual data; and determining if the oil pressure residual range is greater than an oil pressure residual range threshold (Figures 3-5, pages 3-4, Section 3, Configurable Adaptive Threshold algorithm)
Regarding Claims 7 and 16. Hickenbottom discloses performing an event operation, wherein performing the event operation comprises: parsing the oil pressure residual data using an event detection model to identify an event, identifying a maximum oil pressure residual from a first set of oil pressure residuals associated with the oil pressure residual data; identifying a minimum oil pressure residual from a second set of oil pressure residuals associated with the oil pressure residual data; determining an oil pressure residual range using the maximum oil pressure residual from the first set of oil pressure residuals associated with oil pressure residual data and the minimum oil pressure residual from the second set of oil pressure residuals associated with oil pressure residual data; and in an instance in which the oil pressure residual range is less than an oil pressure residual range threshold, adjusting at least a portion of the oil pressure residual data by performing a refinement operation on the oil pressure residual data (Figures 3-5, pages 3-4, Section 3, Configurable Adaptive Threshold algorithm, allowing increased sensitivity)
Regarding Claims 9 and 18. Hickenbottom discloses the engine is an aircraft engine (page 5, left column, aircraft).
Regarding Claims 10 and 19. Hickenbottom discloses initiating performance of the one or more responsive actions based at least in part on the erratic oil pressure data comprises: initiating performance of a maintenance action for the carbon seal (page 3, Section 3, right column, perform maintenance, page 4, right column, page 5, left column).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hickenbottom, IEEE “Proactive Approaches for Engine Health Management and a High Value Example,” 2022 in view of Nakagawa et al., US-PGPUB 2010/0318245 (hereinafter Nakagawa)
Regarding Claims 4. Hickenbottom disclose a first portion of the oil pressure data is identified from a first engine control unit associated with the engine (page 3, Section 3, left column, engine controller)
Hickenbottom does not disclose a second portion of the oil pressure data is identified from a second engine control unit associated with the engine.
Nakagawa disclose a normal control section and backup control section to monitor various operation involving aircraft to detect abnormal operations (Figs. 1-9; Paragraphs [0003]-[0008], [0053]-[0054], Abstract)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Nakagawa in Hickenbottom and have a second portion of the oil pressure data is identified from a second engine control unit associated with the engine, so as to efficiently detect abnormality in the aircraft, even when the first control unit fails.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cowgill et al., US-PGPUB 2011/0054766
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights