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 .
Application Status
This Non-Final action is in response to applicant’s amendment of 03/04/2026. Claims 1-20 are examined and pending. Claims 1-3, 7-10, 13-17, and 19 are currently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, with respect to the claims objections as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the rejection as previously presented has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference(s) applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendment/arguments, with respect to the claim rejection under double patenting as set forth in the Office Action have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The limitations of the independent claims of the instant application is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of the independent claims of the related patent No. 10909781 and related patent No. 12080114 and/or the secondary references and the corresponding claims they are contained within. The breadth of the instant application claims would read on the narrow claims of the related patents in view of the secondary references. These changes, in view of the related patents, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related patents and/or the secondary reference(s) and the corresponding claims they are contained within (see table below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
101 Analysis
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, the claim is determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory Category
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a process and machine respectively, which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite estimating, component health status information including a prognostic indicator for the plurality of components based on the health data, wherein: the estimating includes generating the prognostic indicator using historical health data known to be associated with a previously reported fault. These limitation(s), as drafted, is (are) a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors and using machine learning model”. The claim limitations encompass a person looking at different types of data such as health data and reported fault data could recite estimate, component health status information including a prognostic indicator for the plurality of components based on the health data, wherein: the estimating includes generating the prognostic indicator using historical health data known to be associated with a previously reported fault. The mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors and machine learning model” does not take the claim limitation(s) out of the mental process grouping and merely function to automate the generating steps. Thus, the claims recite a mental process. (step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial exception recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The independent claims recite the additional limitations/elements of retrieving, health data for a plurality of components; causing, by the one or more processors, display of the prognostic indicator for a plurality of future time horizons for a specific component on a display; causing, by the one or more processors, display of the prognostic indicator for a plurality of future time horizons for a specific component on a display; a machine learning model; the machine learning model embodies a deep autoencoder neural network, wherein the autoencoder includes at least one input node and at least one output node, and wherein input data comprising the historical health data is provided at the at least one input nodes and reconstructed as output data at the at least one output node; one or more processors; a memory having processors-readable instructions; a non-transitory computer-readable medium. The retrieving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. receiving/collecting various data (health data, fault data, etc.) and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The causing display step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the generating step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation(s) of one or more processor(s) a memory having processors-readable instructions; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium steps/elements is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely function to automate the generating steps.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No).
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element/limitation is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the retrieving and causing display steps/additional elements were considered to be extra-solution activities 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 specification does not provide any indication that these steps are performed by anything other than conventional components performing the conventional activity (steps) of the claim. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not include any other additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. patent No. 10909781 and over claims 21-40 of patent No. 12080114. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The limitations of the independent claims of the instant application is seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of the independent claims of the related patent No. 10909781 and related patent No. 12080114 and/or the secondary references and the corresponding claims they are contained within. The breadth of the instant application claims would read on the narrow claims of the related patents in view of the secondary references. These changes, in view of the related patents, would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related patents and/or the secondary reference(s) and the corresponding claims they are contained within.
Instant application
a method, comprising: retrieving, by one or more processors, health data for a plurality of components;
generating, by the one or more processors and using a machine learning model trained using historical health data known to be associated with previously reported fault a prognostic indicator for the plurality of components based on the health data; wherein (i) the machine learning model embodies a deep autoencoder neural network, and (ii) the autoencoder includes at least one input node and at least one output node, and (iii) input data comprising the historical health data is provided at the at least one input node and reconstructed as output data at the at least one output node; and
causing, by the one or more processors, display of the prognostic indicator for a plurality of future time horizons for a specific component on a display.
17155364
A method, comprising: retrieving, by one or more processors, aircraft health data for a plurality of aircraft components;
estimating, by the one or more processors, component health status information including a prognostic indicator for the plurality of aircraft components based on the aircraft health data, wherein: the estimating includes generating the prognostic indicator using a machine learning model trained using portions of historical aircraft health data known to be associated with a previously reported fault; the portions of historical health aircraft data comprise a first portion tagged as healthy data and a second portion tagged as unhealthy data; the machine learning model embodies a deep autoencoder neural network; and the prognostic indicator provides an indication of an estimated health of a component in a plurality of future time horizons; and
causing, by the one or more processors, display of the prognostic indicator for the plurality of future time horizons for a specific component on a display.
15916874
A computer-implemented method in an aircraft of using prognostic indicators for aircraft maintenance, the method comprising: retrieving aircraft health data for a plurality of aircraft components, the aircraft health data including at least one of mechanical systems condition indicator (CI) data, vibration spectrum data, resampled time-domain (RTD) data, and RTD spectrum data;
estimating component health status information for the plurality of aircraft components, based on the aircraft health data, using a plurality of prognostic modules implemented by a controller on the aircraft, at least one prognostic module comprising a deep autoencoder neural network that includes an encoder network and a decoder network, each prognostic module configured to generate health status information for at least one of the aircraft components, the health status information including at least one of a current health indicator and a prognostic indicator, the current health indicator providing an indication of an estimated current health of a component, the prognostic indicator providing an indication of an estimated health of a component in one or more future time horizons; storing the component health status information for the plurality of aircraft components in a database onboard the aircraft; retrieving health status information for a specific component from the database; and
causing the display of the health status information for the specific component on an aircraft display.
Furthermore, the same analysis applies to the dependent claims of the instant application which are seemingly the simple mapping to claim limitations of claims 1-20 of related patent No. 10909781 and patent No. 12080114 and are be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over the related patents in view of the secondary references.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 20150302163 A1) in view of Chen Lu (Fault diagnosis of rotary machinery components using a stacked denoising autoencoder-based health state identification).
With respect to claim 1, Das discloses a method, comprising: retrieving, by one or more processors, health data for a plurality of components (see at least [0008-0009], [0023], [0025], [0029], [0035], and [0045-0050]); generating, by the one or more processors and using a machine learning model trained using historical health data known to be associated with previously reported fault a prognostic indicator for the plurality of components based on the health data (see at least [0008-0009], [0023], [0025-0026], [0029-0032], [0035-0036], and [0045-0053], “…a mechanism for utilizing a predictive learning model in a conventional manner. A plurality of machines 32-1-32-N (generally, machines 32) provide information 34-1-34-N (generally, information 34) to a training computing device 36. The information 34 comprises sensor data generated by sensors coupled to components of the machines 32. The information 34 may also include event information that identifies events that have occurred with respect to the machines 32, including component failure, component end of life, and the like…”); and causing, by the one or more processors, display of the prognostic indicator for a plurality of future time horizons for a specific component on a display (see at least [0008-0009], [0050], and [claims 1 and 5]).
However, Das do not specifically disclose wherein (i) the machine learning model embodies a deep autoencoder neural network, and (ii) the autoencoder includes at least one input node and at least one output node, and (iii) input data comprising the historical health data is provided at the at least one input node and reconstructed as output data at the at least one output node.
Chen Lu teaches wherein (i) the machine learning model embodies a deep autoencoder neural network (see at least [pages 377-387]), and (ii) the autoencoder includes at least one input node and at least one output node (see at least [pages 377-387]), and (iii) input data comprising the historical health data is provided at the at least one input node and reconstructed as output data at the at least one output node (see at least [pages 377-387], the reconstruction of input node of previous data and output node of reconstructed data is an obvious variation of the functions of machine learning (AI, neural network, autoencoder neural network, etc.,)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Das, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Chen Lu wherein (i) the machine learning model embodies a deep autoencoder neural network, and (ii) the autoencoder includes at least one input node and at least one output node, and (iii) input data comprising the historical health data is provided at the at least one input node and reconstructed as output data at the at least one output node. This would be done to improve continuous condition monitoring and real-time fault diagnosis for detection and diagnosis of fault information in advance of damage and enables fault prognosis to provide support for crucial decision making regarding maintenance (see Chen Lu page 377 introduction).
With respect to claim 3, Das discloses wherein the causing the display of the prognostic indicator includes causing, by the one or more processors, a display of a graphical health indicator that indicates a predicted health state of the specific component during the plurality of future time horizons (see at least [0008-0009], [0035], [0050], and [claims 1 and 5]).
With respect to claim 7, Das discloses wherein the causing display of the prognostic indicator includes causing, by the one or more processors, a display of a graphical visualization indicating the health data information (see at least [0008-0009], [0035], [0050], and [claims 1 and 5])and wherein the plurality of components comprise aircraft components and the health data comprises aircraft health data (see at least [0008-0009], [0022], [0035], [0050], and [claims 1 and 5]).
With respect to claims 8, 10, and 14, they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1, 3, and 7. As such, claims 8, 10, and 14 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1, 3, and 7 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 15 and 17, they are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 1 and 3. As such, claims 15 and 17 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 1 and 3 and are incorporated herein.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Das (US 20150302163 A1) in view of Chen Lu (Fault diagnosis of rotary machinery components using a stacked denoising autoencoder-based health state identification) in view of Leao et al (US 20100161274 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Das as modified by Chen Lu do not specifically teach wherein the plurality of future time horizons includes at least a first time horizon and a second time horizon, and the method further includes: causing, by the one or more processors, display of the prognostic indicator for each of the first and second time horizons for the specific component on the display, wherein the prognostic indicator provides an indication of an estimated component health in a plurality of future time horizons.
Leao teaches wherein the plurality of future time horizons includes at least a first time horizon and a second time horizon (see at least [0042] and [Fig. 10]), and the method further includes: causing, by the one or more processors, display of the prognostic indicator for each of the first and second time horizons for the specific component on the display (see at least [0042] and [Fig. 10]), wherein the prognostic indicator provides an indication of an estimated component health in a plurality of future time horizons (see at least [0042] and [Fig. 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Das as modified by Chen Lu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Leao wherein the plurality of future time horizons includes at least a first time horizon and a second time horizon, and the method further includes: causing, by the one or more processors, display of the prognostic indicator for each of the first and second time horizons for the specific component on the display, wherein the prognostic indicator provides an indication of an estimated component health in a plurality of future time horizons. This would be done to improve monitoring components on board of an aircraft to avoid failure of the component or system (see Leao para 0002 and 0005-0006).
With respect to claim 4, Das as modified by Chen Lu do not specifically teach wherein the graphical health indicator that indicates the predicted health state includes at least: a first graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is healthy; a second graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is less than a first threshold; and a third graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is less than a second threshold, the second threshold being less than the first threshold.
Lea teaches wherein the graphical health indicator that indicates the predicted health state includes at least: a first graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is healthy (see at least [0042], and [Fig. 10], green status); a second graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is less than a first threshold (see at least [0042], and [Fig. 10], yellow status); and a third graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is less than a second threshold, the second threshold being less than the first threshold (see at least [0042], and [Fig. 10], red status).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Das as modified by Chen Lu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Leao wherein the graphical health indicator that indicates the predicted health state includes at least: a first graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is healthy; a second graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is less than a first threshold; and a third graphical health indicator that indicates the estimated component health is less than a second threshold, the second threshold being less than the first threshold. This would be done to improve monitoring components on board of an aircraft to avoid failure of the component or system (see Leao para 0002 and 0005-0006).
With respect to claim 5, Das as modified by Chen Lu do not specifically teach wherein the causing the display of the graphical health indicator includes causing, by the one or more processors, a color to be displayed in the graphical health indicator that indicates the predicted health state of the specific component during the plurality of future time horizons.
Leao teaches wherein the causing the display of the graphical health indicator includes causing, by the one or more processors, a color to be displayed in the graphical health indicator that indicates the predicted health state of the specific component during the plurality of future time horizons (see at least [0042] and [Fig. 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Das as modified by Chen Lu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Leao wherein the causing the display of the graphical health indicator includes causing, by the one or more processors, a color to be displayed in the graphical health indicator that indicates the predicted health state of the specific component during the plurality of future time horizons. This would be done to improve monitoring components on board of an aircraft to avoid failure of the component or system (see Leao para 0002 and 0005-0006).
With respect to claim 6, Das as modified by Chen Lu do not specifically teach wherein causing a color to be displayed includes causing, by the one or more processors, a first color to be displayed corresponding to the first graphical health indicator, a second color to be displayed corresponding to the second graphical health indicator, and a third color to be displayed corresponding to the third graphical health indicator.
Leao teaches wherein causing a color to be displayed includes causing, by the one or more processors, a first color to be displayed corresponding to the first graphical health indicator (see at least [0042] and [Fig. 10]), a second color to be displayed corresponding to the second graphical health indicator (see at least [0042] and [Fig. 10]), and a third color to be displayed corresponding to the third graphical health indicator (see at least [0042] and [Fig. 10]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Das as modified by Chen Lu, with a reasonable expectation of success to incorporate the teachings of Leao wherein causing a color to be displayed includes causing, by the one or more processors, a first color to be displayed corresponding to the first graphical health indicator, a second color to be displayed corresponding to the second graphical health indicator, and a third color to be displayed corresponding to the third graphical health indicator. This would be done to improve monitoring components on board of an aircraft to avoid failure of the component or system (see Leao para 0002 and 0005-0006).
With respect to claims 9, 11, 12, and 13 they are system claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 2, 4, 5, and 6. As such, claims 9, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 and are incorporated herein.
With respect to claims 16, 18, 19, and 20, they are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims that recite substantially the same limitations as the respective method claims 2, 4, 5, and 6. As such, claims 16, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected for substantially the same reasons given for the respective method claims 2, 4, 5, and 6 and are incorporated herein.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLA A KHALED whose telephone number is (571)272-9174. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8:00 Am-5:00, every other Friday 8:00A-5:00AM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on (313) 446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDALLA A KHALED/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights