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
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8 have been amended.
Claim 9 has been cancelled.
Claim 11 has been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the “W” in “With” should be lower-case in the first “if” limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 4:
configuration database configured to store
buffer database configured to store
processing module configured to compare
Claim 6:
telecommunication network configured to allow message exchanges
Claim 8:
self-executing contract configured to verify
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations:
Claim 4:
configuration database configured to store
buffer database configured to store
processing module configured to compare
Claim 6:
telecommunication network configured to allow message exchanges
Claim 8:
self-executing contract configured to verify
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although ¶ 72 of the specification recites, “The processing module 203 includes, for example, at least one processor and one memory.”, the Examiner asserts that “for example” results in failing to establish the metes and bounds of what the “processing module” is limited to and, therefore, is an open-ended list of possibilities of what a “processing module” or, more specifically, a “module” could be.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Claims 4 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 4 – 8, the Examiner asserts that the specification, as originally filed, fails to adequately disclose the corresponding structural elements that comprise the system:
Claim 4:
configuration database configured to store
buffer database configured to store
processing module configured to compare
Claim 6:
telecommunication network configured to allow message exchanges
Claim 8:
self-executing contract configured to verify
Upon review of the specification, the Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to a system (apparatus) and recites the components (see above) that comprise the system. However, the claims and specification fail to disclose the corresponding structural elements that each of the placeholders are intended to represent in order to perform their respective functions. Although ¶ 72 of the specification recites, “The processing module 203 includes, for example, at least one processor and one memory.”, the Examiner asserts that “for example” results in failing to establish the metes and bounds of what the “processing module” is limited to and, therefore, is an open-ended list of possibilities of what a “processing module” or, more specifically, a “module” could be. As a result, one of skill in the art would be unable to determine what the applicant was in possession of at the time of the invention because of the open-ended nature of what a “processing module” could or could not include. As a result, the structure of the system is unknown. Simply pointing or stating a result is insufficient to meet the written description requirement and has done nothing but provide a “black box” scenario, wherein information is received into this “black box” and an output is recited while failing to explain or disclose the structure that comprise the “black box” environment so as to achieve the corresponding functions and output.
Although one skilled in the art would have found the invention to be enabled because one skilled in the art could possibly come up with one way of configuring a system to be comprised of structural elements to perform the aforementioned functions, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine how the applicant has configured the system, i.e. the specific structural elements, for performing the recited functions and would, therefore, be unable to determine if the applicant had possession of the invention. To put it another way, one skilled in the art would be unable to make and use the invention in the manner intended by the applicant since the applicant has failed to provide sufficient working examples of how the analysis and solution are determined so as to cover the wide scope laid out by the claimed invention and, therefore, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine whether the applicant had possession of the genus since insufficient species have been provided. One skilled in the art would have found that the claimed invention and corresponding specification is attempting to claim all known and unknown possibilities structural configurations for performing the aforementioned functions without providing sufficient examples, in the specification, to allow one skilled in the art to determine whether the applicant had possession of such a wide scope of possibilities.
Finally, as a point of clarification, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See AriadPharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Col., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F. 2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention.
Therefore, the test for determining whether or not the applicant’s claims meet the § 112(a) written description requirement is possession, not whether one skilled in the art is enabled to perform the invention. Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the case at hand, the Examiner concludes that the applicant’s disclosure fails to sufficiently disclose possession at the time of the invention. Furthermore, the applicants are attempting to claim any and all possible structural configurations and, consequently, attempting to claim the entire genus of configurations, however, the specification does not demonstrate a generic invention that achieves the claimed result because there is no disclosure of any species. As the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariad:
“generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the Appellant has invented the species sufficient to support a claim to a genus. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the Appellant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the Appellant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally- defined genus.”
Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (emphasis added). While Ariad relates to chemical compounds, the legal principles are the same. By not providing any specific examples of how an indication of merit (which is “functional language”) could be calculated, the applicant has failed to provide disclosure and, therefore, possession of any species of the genus of structural elements intended to comprise the system to perform the recited functions, as claimed.
Furthermore, the applicant’s claim to such an open-ended genus of configurations is similar to the claims at issue in Ariad that "merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it.” Id. At 1353. Ariad further states that “Patents are not awarded for academic theories [and a] patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its conclusion.” Id. Therefore, Ariad requires that when the applicant claims a genus, sufficient materials must be disclosed to demonstrate that the genus has in fact been disclosed which the applicant has not.
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 1:
a method for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, the method comprising 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 comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of the piece of equipment, and the method comprising the following steps of
- for each piece of equipment, comparing the set of 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, replacing the date of last update of the reference configuration by 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:
if an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update and the date of execution and the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the replacement operation replacing the set of reference identification data by the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generating (106) an alert;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, replacing the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration obtained
Claim 4:
a system for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, read, for each piece of equipment, to obtain a set of identification data read for the piece of equipment, the system comprising:
- store a reference configuration associated with the engine, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of the piece of equipment;
- store a configuration comprising a date of execution and each set of identification data read using the radio reading module, the buffer database being independent of the configuration database;
- compare 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, replace the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration;
otherwise, for each piece of equipment for which the set of identification data read is different from the set of reference identification data:
if an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update and the date of execution and the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the replacement operation, replace the set of reference identification data by the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generate an alert;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, replace the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration
Claim 10:
instructions which cause the same to implement the steps of the method according to claim 1.
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 and the date of execution, and (ii) that the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the certified replacement operation;
if verified, updating the reference configuration by replacing the set of reference identification data with the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy;
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 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 1:
a method for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, the method comprising 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 comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of the piece of equipment, and the method comprising the following steps of
- for each piece of equipment, comparing the set of 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, replacing the date of last update of the reference configuration by 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:
if an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update and the date of execution and the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the replacement operation replacing the set of reference identification data by the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generating (106) an alert;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, replacing the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration obtained
Claim 4:
a system for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, read, for each piece of equipment, to obtain a set of identification data read for the piece of equipment, the system comprising:
- store a reference configuration associated with the engine, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of the piece of equipment;
- store a configuration comprising a date of execution and each set of identification data read using the radio reading module, the buffer database being independent of the configuration database;
- compare 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, replace the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration;
otherwise, for each piece of equipment for which the set of identification data read is different from the set of reference identification data:
if an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update and the date of execution and the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the replacement operation, replace the set of reference identification data by the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generate an alert;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, replace the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration
Claim 10:
instructions which cause the same to implement the steps of the method according to claim 1
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 and the date of execution, and (ii) that the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the certified replacement operation;
if verified, updating the reference configuration by replacing the set of reference identification data with the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy;
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 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 1:
a method for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, the method comprising 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 comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of the piece of equipment, and the method comprising the following steps of
- for each piece of equipment, comparing the set of 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, replacing the date of last update of the reference configuration by 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:
if an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update and the date of execution and the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the replacement operation replacing the set of reference identification data by the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generating an alert;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, replacing the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration obtained
Claim 4:
a system for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, read, for each piece of equipment, to obtain a set of identification data read for the piece of equipment, the system comprising:
- store a reference configuration associated with the engine, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of the piece of equipment;
- store a configuration comprising a date of execution and each set of identification data read using the radio reading module, the buffer database being independent of the configuration database;
- compare 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, replace the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration;
otherwise, for each piece of equipment for which the set of identification data read is different from the set of reference identification data:
if an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update and the date of execution and the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the replacement operation, replace the set of reference identification data by the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generate an alert;
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, replace the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration
Claim 10:
instructions which cause the same to implement the steps of the method according to claim 1
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 and the date of execution, and (ii) that the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the certified replacement operation;
if verified, updating the reference configuration by replacing the set of reference identification data with the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy;
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 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 1 – 8, 10 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 1, 10, Puleston discloses a method for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, each piece of equipment having a radio identification device (¶ 434, 436, 448, 456, 457 wherein aviation component, assemblies, systems, or the like are provided with RFID tags), the method comprising a step of automatically reading, by a radio reading module, each radio identification device 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 comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of 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.)), and the method comprising the following steps of (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 1:
- for each piece of equipment, comparing, by a processing module, the set of data read and the set of reference identification data corresponding to the piece of equipment (¶ 450, 452, 453, 454 wherein the scanned data and reference data for a component are compared with one another):
if, for each piece of equipment, the set of identification data read is identical to the set of reference identification data, replacing the date of last update of the reference configuration by 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:
if an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update and the date of execution and the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the replacement operation replacing the set of reference identification data by the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generating (106) an alert
(¶ 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.);
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, replacing the date of last update of the reference configuration by 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).
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:
discloses a 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 method comprising a step of automatically reading each radio identification device 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 comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of the piece of equipment, and the method comprising the following steps of
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 1, wherein the reference configuration is stored in a configuration database, the method 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 4, Puleston discloses a system for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, each piece of equipment having a radio identification device (¶ 434, 436, 448, 456, 457 wherein aviation component, assemblies, systems, or the like are provided with RFID tags), the system comprising a radio reading module configured to automatically read, for each piece of equipment, the corresponding radio identification device to obtain a set of identification data read for the piece of equipment (¶ 434, 436, 448, 449, 456, 457 wherein each tag can be read to obtain a configuration and history of a component), the system comprising:
- a configuration database configured to store a reference configuration associated with the engine, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of 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.));
- a buffer database configured to store a configuration comprising a date of execution and each set of identification data read using the radio reading module, the buffer database being independent of the configuration database (¶ 182, 186, 209, 284 wherein communicated information is stored in a buffer database that is independent of the database storing the historical records);
- a processing module configured to, for each piece of equipment, compare the set of identification data read and the set of reference identification data corresponding to the piece of equipment (¶ 450, 452, 453, 454 wherein the scanned data and reference data for a component are compared with one another):
if, for each piece of equipment, the set of identification data read is identical to the set of reference identification data, replace the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration (¶ 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:
if an operation for replacing the piece of equipment has taken place between the date of last update and the date of execution and the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the replacement operation, replace the set of reference identification data by the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generate an alert
(¶ 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);
if at least one set of reference identification data has been replaced, replace the date of last update of the reference configuration by the date of execution of the configuration (¶ 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).
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 system for monitoring configuration of an aircraft engine comprising a plurality of pieces of equipment, each piece of equipment having a radio identification device, the system comprising a radio reading module configured to automatically read, for each piece of equipment, the corresponding radio identification device to obtain a set of identification data read for the piece of equipment, the system comprising
- a configuration database configured to store a reference configuration associated with the engine, the reference configuration comprising a date of last update and, for each piece of equipment, a set of reference identification data of the piece of equipment
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 5, the combination of Puleston and Maraj discloses the system according to claim 4, 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 system according to claim 4, comprising a telecommunications network configured to allow message exchanges between the radio reading module and the buffer database and between the processing module, the configuration database and the buffer database, via a communication protocol (Puleston – ¶ 182, 186, 209, 284 wherein a communication network that allows communication between the RFID reading module, buffer database, processing module, and the configuration database is disclosed).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Puleston and Maraj discloses the system 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 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.
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.
In regards to claim 11, Puleston discloses 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 (¶ 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, the set of identification data read and the set of reference identification data corresponding to the piece of equipment (¶ 450, 452, 453, 454 wherein the scanned data and reference data for a component are compared with one another):
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 and the date of execution, and (ii) that the set of identification data read corresponds to a set of replacement identification data associated with the certified replacement operation;
if verified, updating the reference configuration by replacing the set of reference identification data with the set of identification data read;
otherwise, generating an alert signaling an unjustified configuration discrepancy
(¶ 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);
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 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 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;
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objection to the Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Claim Objections
The prior claim objection has been withdrawn due to amendments.
A new objection has been provided 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) has been maintained, as well as the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 112(a).
The Examiner asserts that “database”, let alone, labeling a database, e.g., “configuration database”, “buffer database”, and etc., is not a demonstration or showing that “database” is structure. Claims 4, 6, 8 are directed to a system, i.e. apparatus, while failing to recite the corresponding structure for performing each of the recited functions. As stated under 35 USC 112(f), failing to recite the term “means” or assigning a label to a generic placeholder are insufficient to demonstrate that the claims are not invoking 35 USC 112(f). The Examiner has provided a listing of each corresponding placeholder with its corresponding function and asserts that, as a non-limiting example, a “configuration database” is not structure. IBM has defined “database” as “a collection of interrelated or independent data items that are stored together to serve one or more applications.” (https://web.archive.org/web/20111003133031/http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/terminology/d.html). The applicant’s arguments on Page 8 in the response received on February 23, 2026 further supports the position that there is an insufficient showing in the specification linking each recited placeholder to structure. For example, the applicant explicitly states that “self-executing contract configured to verify” is “computer code stored on a distributed ledger”, i.e. not structure.
The applicant’s arguments appear to imply that structure comprises the system, however, the specification never recites the corresponding structure that links each generic placeholder nor does the applicant provide any evidence of what the structure for each invocation could be. As another example, the applicant recites that the “telecommunication network configured to allow message exchanges” includes wired or wireless, incorporating internet and cloud infrastructure, operating via a defined communication protocol. However, what is the structure. The applicant provides goals, objectives, and functions, but never provides an explanation of what the structure is supposed to be.
Finally, with regards to “processing module configured to compare”, the Examiner asserts that “for example” renders what the structure could be as an open-ended list and, consequently, one of ordinary skill and one of skill in the art would be unable to determine what specific structure the applicant was in possession of. The metes and bounds have not been established. Undue experimentation would befall one of skill in the art attempting to make and use the invention because they would be left with guessing what the structure could be. One of ordinary skill and one of skill in the art making and using the invention would come across each invocation and would be required to look to the specification to determine the structure that the applicant was in possession of, but, as discussed above, would not be able to find adequate support and would be left guessing what the metes and bounds are and, consequently, what the applicant was in possession of, thereby rendering the claims indefinite and failing the written description requirement.
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 or with pen and paper.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specifically, the Examiner asserts that the applicant explicitly provides evidence that counters this argument. On Page 12, 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 intended to be 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.
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.
Rejection under 35 USC 103
The rejection under 35 USC 103 has been maintained.
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…”) 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).
Additionally, 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.
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.
Soejima Hideki(JP 6748675 B2); Wang (EP 3736778 B1); Gronsbell et al. (US PGPub 2026/00309332 A1); Soejimi (US PGPub 2020/0005250 A1); Sachse et al. (US PGPub 2018/0354653 A1; Moabery et al. (US Patent 12,437,271 B2) – which disclose the maintenance management for assets, e.g., aircrafts, and their components by maintaining and managing maintenance and asset records, determining the condition of the asset, and service scheduling
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 3/9/2026