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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 11, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 have been amended.
Claims 1,4, 9 has been cancelled.
No claim has been added.
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 – 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
Claim 10:
instructions which cause the same to implement the steps of the method according to claim 11.
Claim 11:
obtain a configuration comprising at least one set of identification data read for each piece of equipment and a date of execution, wherein the aircraft engine is associated with a reference configuration stored, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data certified for the piece of equipment;
for each piece of equipment, automatically comparing the set of identification data read and the set of reference identification data corresponding to the piece of equipment:
if, for each piece of equipment, the set of identification data read is identical to the set of reference identification data, automatically updating the reference configuration by replacing the date of last update with the date of execution of the configuration obtained;
otherwise, for each piece of equipment for which the set of identification data read is different from the set of reference identification data:
automatically verifying whether the discrepancy is justified by a certified replacement operation by determining (i) that an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update of the reference configuration and the date of execution of the configuration obtained, and (ii) that the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the certified replacement operation;
if both (i) and (ii) are verified, automatically updating the reference configuration by replacing the set of reference identification data with the set of identification data read;
otherwise, if either (i) or (ii) is not verified generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy for the piece of equipment, the alert triggering a manual inventory verification operation of the configuration of the aircraft engine by a human operator on the piece of equipment;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, automatically further updating the reference configuration by replacing the date of last update with the date of execution of the configuration obtained;
wherein the instructions, when executed, perform the automatic comparing, the automatic verifying, and the automatic updating of the reference configuration; and
wherein the method reduces required human operator intervention in aircraft engine configuration monitoring by automatically distinguishing justified configuration changes attributable to certified replacement operations from unjustified configuration discrepancies
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of records keeping and management, which corresponds to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user collect and compare identification information captured from an asset and stored information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, based on the comparison, identifying which rule and option to carry out to ensure proper records keeping, which can be performed by a human observing or reading information and writing down information or humans interacting/communicating with one another and using pen and paper to write down information, e.g., a first human reading identification information from an asset and communicating (e.g., writing, speaking) the information to a second human who has access to stored information and having either the first or second human compare the information and, based on a rule(s) (as discussed above), write down information.
The limitations of:
Claim 10:
instructions which cause the same to implement the steps of the method according to claim 11.
Claim 11:
obtain a configuration comprising at least one set of identification data read for each piece of equipment and a date of execution, wherein the aircraft engine is associated with a reference configuration stored, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data certified for the piece of equipment;
for each piece of equipment, automatically comparing the set of identification data read and the set of reference identification data corresponding to the piece of equipment:
if, for each piece of equipment, the set of identification data read is identical to the set of reference identification data, automatically updating the reference configuration by replacing the date of last update with the date of execution of the configuration obtained;
otherwise, for each piece of equipment for which the set of identification data read is different from the set of reference identification data:
automatically verifying whether the discrepancy is justified by a certified replacement operation by determining (i) that an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update of the reference configuration and the date of execution of the configuration obtained, and (ii) that the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the certified replacement operation;
if both (i) and (ii) are verified, automatically updating the reference configuration by replacing the set of reference identification data with the set of identification data read;
otherwise, if either (i) or (ii) is not verified generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy for the piece of equipment, the alert triggering a manual inventory verification operation of the configuration of the aircraft engine by a human operator on the piece of equipment;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, automatically further updating the reference configuration by replacing the date of last update with the date of execution of the configuration obtained;
wherein the instructions, when executed, perform the automatic comparing, the automatic verifying, and the automatic updating of the reference configuration; and
wherein the method reduces required human operator intervention in aircraft engine configuration monitoring by automatically distinguishing justified configuration changes attributable to certified replacement operations from unjustified configuration discrepancies
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module. That is, other than reciting a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module in the context of this claim encompasses a user collect and compare identification information captured from an asset and stored information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, based on the comparison, identifying which rule and option to carry out to ensure proper records keeping, which can be performed by a human observing or reading information and writing down information or humans interacting/communicating with one another and using pen and paper to write down information, e.g., a first human reading identification information from an asset and communicating (e.g., writing, speaking) the information to a second human who has access to stored information and having either the first or second human compare the information and, based on a rule(s) (as discussed above), write down information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module communicate and store information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options with regards to what information to store or have written down. The generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating and storing information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module.
Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic radio identification device, generic databases, and generic processing module to perform the steps of:
Claim 10:
instructions which cause the same to implement the steps of the method according to claim 11.
Claim 11:
obtain a configuration comprising at least one set of identification data read for each piece of equipment and a date of execution, wherein the aircraft engine is associated with a reference configuration stored, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data certified for the piece of equipment;
for each piece of equipment, automatically comparing the set of identification data read and the set of reference identification data corresponding to the piece of equipment:
if, for each piece of equipment, the set of identification data read is identical to the set of reference identification data, automatically updating the reference configuration by replacing the date of last update with the date of execution of the configuration obtained;
otherwise, for each piece of equipment for which the set of identification data read is different from the set of reference identification data:
automatically verifying whether the discrepancy is justified by a certified replacement operation by determining (i) that an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update of the reference configuration and the date of execution of the configuration obtained, and (ii) that the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the certified replacement operation;
if both (i) and (ii) are verified, automatically updating the reference configuration by replacing the set of reference identification data with the set of identification data read;
otherwise, if either (i) or (ii) is not verified generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy for the piece of equipment, the alert triggering a manual inventory verification operation of the configuration of the aircraft engine by a human operator on the piece of equipment;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, automatically further updating the reference configuration by replacing the date of last update with the date of execution of the configuration obtained;
wherein the instructions, when executed, perform the automatic comparing, the automatic verifying, and the automatic updating of the reference configuration; and
wherein the method reduces required human operator intervention in aircraft engine configuration monitoring by automatically distinguishing justified configuration changes attributable to certified replacement operations from unjustified configuration discrepancies
amounts to no 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.
Additionally:
Claim 2 is directed towards reciting generic technology (buffer database) at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as performing the extra-solution activity of storing information.
Claim 3 is directed towards reciting generic technology (buffer database) at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as performing the extra-solution activity of deleting information
Claim 5 is directed towards reciting generic technology (buffer database) at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, in this case, reciting and applying generic encryption and access control.
Claim 6 is directed towards reciting generic technology (buffer database) at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as performing the extra-solution activity of communicating information
Claim 7 is directed towards reciting generic technology (buffer database) at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, in this case, reciting and applying generic encryption.
Claim 8 is directed towards reciting generic technology (buffer database) at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, in this case, smart contracts, as well as “Mental Processes”/“Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, in this case, collecting and comparing information to verify the information using the steps discussed above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for managing records. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Puleston et al. (US PGPub 2010/0134257 A1) in view of Maraj et al. (US PGPub 2021/0122489 A1).
In regards to claims 10, 11, Puleston discloses (Claim 10) a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the same to implement the steps of the method according to claim 11; (Claim 11) a computer-implemented method for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, each piece of equipment having a radio identification device, the radio identification device being a radio-frequence identification (RFID) tag, (¶ 434, 436, 448, 456, 457 wherein aviation component, assemblies, systems, or the like are provided with RFID tags), the method comprising:
automatically reading, by a radio reading module, each radio identification device of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the aircraft engine to obtain a configuration (¶ 434, 436, 448, 449, 456, 457 wherein each tag can be read to obtain a configuration and history of a component) comprising at least one set of identification data read for each piece of equipment and a date of execution, wherein the aircraft engine is associated with a reference configuration stored in a configuration database, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data certified for the piece of equipment (¶ 446, 448, 449, 450, 453 wherein the tag includes information for the component and date of execution (e.g., installation date, inspection date, maintenance history, manufacturer/supplier/OEM provided information, and etc.));
for each piece of equipment, automatically comparing, by a processing module comprising a processor and a memory, the set of identification data read and the set of reference identification data corresponding to the piece of equipment (¶ 443, 450, 452, 453, 454 wherein the scanned data and reference data for a component are compared with one another
¶ 443 “The number of flight cycles may be read during the next data reading from the component and may be compared to the flight cycle service requirements.”
¶ 452 “In embodiments, the enhanced memory capabilities of the commercial RFID tag 2102 may be a point-of-use information source, reduce maintenance cycle times, improve configuration management, improve component tracking, increase asset value, improve product integrity, document abuse/misuse, document no-fault-found history, and the like. Storing component history information with the component may provide readily accessible critical component information that may be read at any point-of-use (e.g. at an aircraft). Component tracking may be greatly enhanced by permitting the commercial RFID tag 2102 to be read at a plurality of access points in the distribution system, in storage, in the aircraft, or the like. Documenting the history of the component may prevent the misuse of components by providing information on the airworthiness of a component, information if the component has a valid serial number, verification if a component has been retired from service, and the like.”):
if, for each piece of equipment, the set of identification data read is identical to the set of reference identification data, automatically updating the reference configuration by replacing the date of last update stored in the configuration database with the date of execution of the configuration obtained (¶ 436, 444, 450, 452, 453, 454 wherein the scanned data and reference data for a component are compared with one another to determine if they match and, if they do, the tag can be updated with the current date of execution, e.g., inspection date, repair date, property component, condition of component, personnel associated with the execution, and etc.);
In regards to:
otherwise, for each piece of equipment for which the set of identification data read is different from the set of reference identification data:
automatically verifying, by the processing module, whether the discrepancy is justified by a certified replacement operation by determining (i) that an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update of the reference configuration and the date of execution of the configuration obtained, and (ii) that the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the certified replacement operation;
if both (i) and (ii) are verified, automatically updating the reference configuration by replacing the set of reference identification data with the set of identification data read;
otherwise, if either (i) or (ii) is not verified, generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy for the piece of equipment, the alert triggering a manual inventory verification operation of the aircraft engine by a human operator on the piece of equipment
(¶ 60, 436, 444, 448, 449, 450, 452, 454 wherein the scanned data and reference data for a component are compared with one another, along with historical maintenance data, to determine if they match or not. Based on the comparison and activity being performed the system will, in the case of a component replacement that was performed since the last update and the current activity date (e.g., inspection), compare the scanned component identification information with stored identification information to determine if the component matches with what is stored in the database to allow the user to determine if the proper component is installed, whether a counterfeit component was installed, whether a retired component was installed, whether the component has a valid identification information.
If the system verifies that the scanned information matches with what is in the historical records, the system will update the maintenance/inspection history indicating who performed the inspection and what part was inspected so that it can be used for later activities, i.e. the central system is updated with identification information of the particular component.
If the system verifies that the scanned information does not match with what is in the historical records, the user will be notified of the discrepancy, which results in determining that the component is a counterfeit, replaced with a component that was retired from service, and/or has an invalid serial number. In response, the user will perform the necessary actions to prevent a wrong component from being installed into an aircraft.
As a non-limiting example, based on the aforementioned limitations, an aircraft component would have a serial number of 123 and underwent maintenance where the component was replaced with a component having serial number ABC. This information is stored as part of the maintenance history of the aircraft to indicate that when maintenance, inspection, or the like is performed at a later date, the system will scan the component to determine if serial number ABC is the correct serial number and verify that serial number 123 was, indeed, retired. However, upon scanning the component, the system can find that component’s serial number is 123 and not ABC, as per the maintenance history record of the aircraft. As a result, maintenance personnel, FAA inspectors, or maintenance enterprise that is responsible for assembling the repaired component and will need to manually verify if the repair was performed, whether the wrong component was used, whether there was document abuse/misuse, counterfeiting, or the like.
Puleston discloses a computer-based aircraft record keeping, inventory, and verification system that provides a reduction in maintenance cycle times, improve configuration management, improve product integrity, document abuse/misuse, document no-fault-found history, combats counterfeiting, and the like by creating an electronic record of components each having an RFID tag that uniquely identifies the part by scanning the RFID and comparing it with historical records. If the information cannot be verified, the system further relies on human users to review the information.);
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, automatically further updating the reference configuration by replacing the date of last update with the date of execution of the configuration obtained (¶ 436, 444, 448, 449, 450 wherein, if the activity is the replacement/installation of a new component, the system’s records are updated with the identification information of the replacement component);
wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processing module to perform the automatic comparing, the automatic verifying, and the automatic updating of the reference configuration (¶ 27, 49, 60 wherein the at least one memory stores instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the processing module to perform the automatic comparing, the automatic verifying, and the automatic updating of the reference configuration
Additionally, the Examiner asserts the term “automatic” does not mean without human interaction. Examiner asserts a process may be automatic even though a human initiates or may interrupt to the process. The term “automatically” can be construed to mean “once initiated by a human, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function.” Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc. (CAFC, 04-1202,-1222,-1251, 8/2/2005).); and
wherein the method reduces required human operator intervention in aircraft engine configuration monitoring by automatically distinguishing justified configuration changes attributable to certified replacement operations from unjustified configuration discrepancies (¶ 436, 444, 448, 449, 450, 452, 454 wherein the scanned data and reference data for a component are compared with one another, along with historical maintenance data, to determine if they match or not. Based on the comparison and activity being performed the system will, in the case of a component replacement, that was performed since the last update and the current activity date (e.g., inspection), the system will compare the scanned component identification information with stored identification information to determine if the component matches with what is stored in the database to allow the user to determine if the proper component is installed, whether a counterfeit component was installed, whether a retired component was installed, whether the component has a valid identification information.
If the system verifies that the scanned information matches with what is in the historical records, the system will update the maintenance/inspection history indicating who performed the inspection and what part was inspected so that it can be used for later activities, i.e. the central system is updated with identification information of the particular component.
If the system verifies that the scanned information does not match with what is in the historical records, the user will be notified of the discrepancy, which results in determining that the component is a counterfeit, replaced with a component that was retired from service, and/or has an invalid serial number. In response, the user will perform the necessary actions to prevent a wrong component from being installed into an aircraft.
In other words, the system reduces human intervention by efficiently collecting and comparing data and, based on a rule(s), identify options, parameters, characteristics, records, and the like to determine what actions, if any, should be taken.).
Puleston discloses a system and method for managing, verifying, and updating an aircraft’s configuration records to ensure that the proper component has been installed into the aircraft. Although Puleston is not limited to any particular type of component, part, assembly, or the like and what the component, part, assembly, or the like is intended to be is descriptive subject matter that fails to further limit or alter how the invention is performed or its end result (See MPEP § 2111.04 and 2111.05), for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided Maraj to explicitly teach what is implicit in Puleston, i.e. that an aircraft engine is a known and obvious type of aircraft component that requires proper management of its records.
To be more specific, Puleston fails to explicitly disclose:
a computer-implemented method for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, each piece of equipment having a radio identification device, the radio identification device being a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, the method comprising
automatically reading, by a radio reading module, each radio identification device of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the aircraft engine to obtain a configuration comprising at least one set of identification data read for each piece of equipment and a date of execution, wherein the aircraft engine is associated with a reference configuration stored in a configuration database, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data certified for the piece of equipment;
otherwise, if either (i) or (ii) is not verified, generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy for the piece of equipment, the alert triggering a manual inventory verification operation of the aircraft engine by a human operator on the piece of equipment
wherein the method reduces required human operator intervention in aircraft engine configuration monitoring by automatically distinguishing justified configuration changes attributable to certified replacement operations from unjustified configuration discrepancies
However, Maraj, which is also directed towards maintenance records management of aircraft components, further teaches that it is known in the art for the component in question to be an aircraft engine. Similar to Puleston, Maraj is not limited to any particular type of aircraft component and demonstrates that the performance of the invention and its end result are the same regardless of the component being managed. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute an aircraft engine for any other aircraft component and still achieve the same predictable result of managing the maintenance records of an aircraft component, such as, but not limited to, an aircraft engine, using an RFID tag that contains the identification information of the component, which can be compared with aircraft records stored in a central system, e.g., blockchain ledger, to verify and manage the component that was scanned.
(For support see: ¶ 27, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 49, 55, 60, 62, 64)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of an aircraft engine, as taught by Maraj, for any of the possible aircraft components disclosed by the Puleston.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Puleston and Maraj discloses the method according to claim 11, further comprising a step of storing the configuration obtained in a buffer database independent of the configuration database (Puleston – ¶ 182, 186, 209, 284 wherein communicated information is stored in a buffer database that is independent of the database storing the historical records).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Puleston and Maraj discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising a step of deleting the configuration obtained from the buffer database (Puleston – ¶ 182, 186, 209, 284 wherein communicated information is stored in a buffer database that is independent of the database storing the historical records and because it is a buffer, i.e. temporary, database the information is deleted).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Puleston and Maraj discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the configuration database is encrypted and/or has authentication access control (Puleston – ¶ 102, 104, 457, 532, 534, 575; Maraj – ¶ 27, 29, 44, 47, 48 wherein the communicated information is encrypted).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Puleston and Maraj discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein the radio reading module, the processing module, and the configuration database communicate via a telecommunications network configured to allow message exchanges between the radio reading module, the processing module, and the configuration database, using a communication protocol (Puleston – ¶ 182, 186, 209, 284 wherein a communication network that allows communication between the RFID reading module, processing module, and the configuration database is disclosed).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Puleston and Maraj discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the communication protocol is end-to-end encrypted (Puleston – ¶ 102, 104, 457, 532, 534, 575; Maraj – ¶ 27, 29, 44, 47, 48 wherein the communicated information is encrypted).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Puleston and Maraj discloses the method according to claim 6, wherein the telecommunications network comprises at least one telecommunications node, each telecommunications node storing a synchronized copy of a self-executing contract configured to verify validity of messages transmitted within the telecommunications network.
Puleston discloses a system and method for managing, verifying, and updating an aircraft’s configuration records to ensure that the proper component has been installed into the aircraft. Although Puleston discloses electronic records management, Puleston fails to disclose the use of blockchain ledgers that store synchronized copies of executable code.
To be more specific, Puleston fails to disclose:
the system according to claim 6, wherein the telecommunications network comprises at least one telecommunications node, each telecommunications node storing a synchronized copy of a self-executing contract configured to verify validity of messages transmitted within the telecommunications network
However, Maraj which is also directed towards maintenance records management of aircraft components, further teaches that it is known in the art to store synchronized copies of computer code, i.e. self-executing contracts, in blockchain ledgers. Maraj teaches that blockchain is a technology that stores information, such as, synchronized copies of computer code, in a secure manner, which, in turn, allows for the verification of the validity of information transmitted within the network. One ordinary skill in the art would have found it beneficial to substitute blockchain technology to store synchronized copies of computer code into the storage system of Puleston as this would increase the security of transmitted data and, in turn, verify the validity of the data due to the security techniques that make up blockchain technology.
(For support see: ¶ 27, 39, 40, 41, 44, 44, 47, 50, 51, 67 wherein the management and security of the records is accomplished using blockchain ledgers, which is comprised of a plurality of nodes storing synchronized copies of computer code, i.e. “self-executing contract”, to verify the validity of messages transmitted within the network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of storing synchronized copies of information, e.g., computer code, in blockchain, as taught by Maraj, for storing generic computer storage of such information in a non-blockchain environment, as disclosed by Puleston. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to store synchronized copies of important information and computer code in blockchain for the increased security that blockchain provides, thereby allowing for the verification of the validity of the information.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The prior claim objection has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Claim Interpretation under 35 USC 112(f); Claim Rejections under 35 USC 112(b), 112(a)
The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) and the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 112(a) have been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
The applicant argues that the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind, with pen and paper, or by humans interacting/communicating with one another.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the applicant explicitly provides evidence that counters this argument. On Page 1, as well as ¶ 4 of the applicant’s specification, the applicant states, “The specification acknowledges at ¶ [0004] that manual component inventories are ‘long and tedious.’” In other words, the applicant admits that the invention can, indeed, be performed by humans.
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is relying on generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea for benefits that the generic technology provides, i.e. less tedious, less time consuming, and etc.
Moreover, the applicant is not improving technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology and, accordingly, McRo, Enfish, and Desjardins do not apply. Specifically, the applicant admits that the technology is known in the art by stating “Automatic RFID-based inventory of aircraft engine components is known…” The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is not directed towards improving RFID technology or the infrastructure for managing data, as was done in Enfish, but directed towards workflow or, as the applicant calls it, “algorithmic steps.” The claimed invention is directed towards human activities and not an improvement to technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology. This is evidenced by Page 13, where the applicant states, “Automatic RFID-based inventory of aircraft engine components is known but unreliable in practice. RFID tags from removed components may fall into the engine and be inadvertently detected; components nearby during scanning may be accidently read. Because of this noise, human operation validation is still required following automated RFID reading, negating the efficiency benefit of automation.”
The Examiner asserts that the invention is directed towards establishing a workflow, rules, standards and practices, or the like to allow for the generic technology to be properly utilized. However, despite this, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is not even directed towards resolving the issues pointed out by the applicant because the claimed invention does not provide a solution to preventing RFID tags from falling into an engine or preventing accidental reading of nearby RFID tags. The claimed invention is directed towards collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options. The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of records keeping and management, which corresponds to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a user collect and compare identification information captured from an asset and stored information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, in this case, based on the comparison, identifying which rule and option to carry out to ensure proper records keeping, which can be performed by a human observing or reading information and writing down information or humans interacting/communicating with one another and using pen and paper to write down information, e.g., a first human reading identification information from an asset and communicating (e.g., writing, speaking) the information to a second human who has access to stored information and having either the first or second human compare the information and, based on a rule(s) (as discussed above), write down information.
Moreover, the applicant argues and has amended the claims, in the response received on 8/11/2026 and 2/23/2026, that human involvement is still required. The Examiner asserts that the invention’s use of the generic technology is to simply collect and compare information and, based on a rule, notify a human operator. The Examiner asserts that these are activities that can be performed by a human(s), e.g., a human observing that information does not match and notifying another human to look into it. The generic technology is simply being utilized for its intended purposes and to perform activities that a human can perform (as admitted by the applicant on Page 12 as well as ¶ 4 of the applicant’s specification) and simply relying on the technology for the benefits that it provides, i.e. faster, more efficient, less prone to human error, and etc.
Although, one may argue that the claimed invention does not seek to “tie up” the exception because of the claimed invention’s narrow scope i.e. tied to a particular machine, in this case, an aircraft engine and its components, the Examiner asserts that clever draftsmanship of further narrowing the abstract idea does not change the fact that the invention is still directed towards an abstract idea. Here, the claimed invention is directed towards a similar scenario because the claimed invention is narrowing the abstract idea of records keeping and management, i.e. the claimed invention is merely implementing business practices and implementing them in a computer environment that is comprised of generic computing devices to perform generic functions, or, more specifically, applies them to the abstract idea of records keeping and management.
The CAFC stated the following in Electric Power Group, LLC v Alstom S.A.:
“Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon. com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).”
Also, in BuySafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court stated that "abstract ideas, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, are outside what the statute means by "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", and reference is made to Mryiad by the court for this position. Also stated in BuySafe is
“In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303. The Court in Mayo rejected the contention that the very narrow scope of the natural law at issue was a reason to find patent eligibility, explaining the point with reference to both natural laws and one kind of abstract idea, namely, mathematical concepts.”
See also OIP Techs., 788 F3.d at 1362-63, stating:
“Lastly, although the claims limit the abstract idea to a particular environment that does not make the claims any less abstract for the step 1 analysis.”
With regards to “extra-solution activity,” the Examiner asserts that the applicant has mischaracterized the rejection provided. The Examiner asserts that the analysis was never directed towards the verification logic, but to reciting the additional elements to perform the extra solution activities of communicating and storing information, i.e. reading, scanning, store, and the like. The claimed invention is reciting generic technology, which the applicant admits is known technology, at a high level of generality and applying them to the abstract idea. The claimed invention then recites performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options with regards to what information to store or have written down.
Finally, the “trigger” is nothing more than a human informing another human, a human noticing something, and a description of a rule that determines when a human should be involved to perform some human-based process. The “trigger” is not improving any technology, resolving an issue that arose in any technology, or deeply rooted in technology, but simply directed towards reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea for the benefits that the generic technology provides. The trigger is the output of a comparison that was performed based on collected information and serves the results of when a rule is applied to output (extra-solution activity) some information to a human so that a human can perform a human-based activity.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
The rejection under 35 USC 103 has been maintained.
First, the Examiner asserts that the applicant’s argument regarding In re Geuns is incorrect and mischaracterizes what was actually stated in the Final Rejection mailed on 2/23/2026. The Examiner stated in the Final Rejection that “In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “automatically reading every RFID-tagged piece of equipment on an entire aircraft engine in a single coordinated pass to produce a unified, engine-level configuration snapshot with a single execution date.” … “radio reading module that sweeps the full complement of engine components, collects their identification data simultaneously or sequentially in one operation, assigns a common execution timestamp to that complete set of readings…” “impose a structured, two-date-window…”) (“emphasis added”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).”
With that said, it appears that the applicant may be implying that the claimed invention is performed without any human intervention and that some type of device, contraption, hardware, or the like is performing the scan by itself without any human intervention, however, this has not been claimed. Moreover, it appears that the applicant puts emphasis on the phrase “automatically”. The Examiner asserts the term “automatically” does not mean without human interaction. Examiner asserts a process may be automatic even though a human initiates or may interrupt to the process. The term “automatically” can be construed to mean “once initiated by a human, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function.” Collegenet, Inc. v. Applyyourself, Inc. (CAFC, 04-1202,-1222,-1251, 8/2/2005).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Puleston discloses a system and method for managing, verifying, and updating an aircraft’s configuration records to ensure that the proper component has been installed into the aircraft. Although Puleston is not limited to any particular type of component, part, assembly, or the like and what the component, part, assembly, or the like is intended to be is descriptive subject matter that fails to further limit or alter how the invention is performed or its end result (See MPEP § 2111.04 and 2111.05), for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided Maraj to explicitly teach what is implicit in Puleston, i.e. that an aircraft engine is a known and obvious type of aircraft component that requires proper management of its records.
Accordingly, the Examiner provided Maraj, which is also directed towards maintenance records management of aircraft components, to teach that it is known in the art for the component in question to be an aircraft engine. Similar to Puleston, Maraj is not limited to any particular type of aircraft component and demonstrates that the performance of the invention and its end result are the same regardless of the component being managed. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute an aircraft engine for any other aircraft component and still achieve the same predictable result of managing the maintenance records of an aircraft component, such as, but not limited to, an aircraft engine, using an RFID tag that contains the identification information of the component, which can be compared with aircraft records stored in a central system, e.g., blockchain ledger, to verify and manage the component that was scanned.
Finally, as supported in the citations provided, Puleston discloses a system and method where RFID tags are attached to pieces of equipment and scanned by a scanning device. The system further compares the scanned information against stored information to identify certain characteristics of a particular piece of equipment to determine configuration and history of a component, information for the component and date of execution (e.g., installation date, inspection date, maintenance history, manufacturer/supplier/OEM provided information, and etc.). Puleston further discloses that the scanned data and reference data for a component are compared with one another to determine if they match and, if they do, the tag can be updated with the current date of execution, e.g., inspection date, repair date, property component, condition of component, personnel associated with the execution, and etc.
Based on the comparison and activity being performed the system will, in the case of a component replacement, that was performed since the last update and the current activity date (e.g., inspection), the system will compare the scanned component identification information with stored identification information to determine if the component matches with what is stored in the database to allow the user to determine if the proper component is installed, whether a counterfeit component was installed, whether a retired component was installed, whether the component has a valid identification information.
If the system verifies that the scanned information matches with what is in the historical records, the system will update the maintenance/inspection history indicating who performed the inspection and what part was inspected so that it can be used for later activities, i.e. the central system is updated with identification information of the particular component.
Finally, if the activity is the replacement/installation of a new component, the system’s records are updated with the identification information of the replacement component
If the system verifies that the scanned information does not match with what is in the historical records, the user will be notified of the discrepancy, which results in determining that the component is a counterfeit, replaced with a component that was retired from service, and/or has an invalid serial number. In response, the user will perform the necessary actions to prevent a wrong component from being installed into an aircraft.
As a non-limiting example, based on the aforementioned limitations, an aircraft component would have a serial number of 123 and underwent maintenance where the component was replaced with a component having serial number ABC. This information is stored as part of the maintenance history of the aircraft to indicate that when maintenance, inspection, or the like is performed at a later date, the system will scan the component to determine if serial number ABC is the correct serial number and verify that serial number 123 was, indeed, retired. However, upon scanning the component, the system can find that component’s serial number is 123 and not ABC, as per the maintenance history record of the aircraft. As a result, maintenance personnel, FAA inspectors, or maintenance enterprise that is responsible for assembling the repaired component and will need to manually verify if the repair was performed, whether the wrong component was used, whether there was document abuse/misuse, counterfeiting, or the like.
Puleston discloses a computer-based aircraft record keeping, inventory, and verification system that provides a reduction in maintenance cycle times, improve configuration management, improve product integrity, document abuse/misuse, document no-fault-found history, combats counterfeiting, and the like by creating an electronic record of components each having an RFID tag that uniquely identifies the part by scanning the RFID and comparing it with historical records. If the information cannot be verified, the system further relies on human users to review the information.
Remaining Arguments
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Patnet (US Patent 11,995,663 B2); Schick et al. (WO 01/84506 A2); Roddy et al. (US PGPub 2003/0055666 A1); McClintic et al. (US PGPub 2016/0078695 A1); Soejima (CN 110654566 A1) – which are directed towards systems and methods for managing the maintenance and inventory of machinery, such as, but not limited to, aircrafts, locomotives, and vehicles
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 9/25/2026
