DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea of collecting characteristic event data associated with a material failure in an aircraft engine.
Specifically, representative claim 1 recites:
A data acquisition system for an aircraft engine, the data acquisition system comprising:
a neuromorphic sensor comprising a high-speed camera (HSC);
a processor coupled to the neuromorphic sensor, and memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the data acquisition system to:
(c) receive first data from the neuromorphic sensor, the first data including a data characteristic associated with an image of a portion of the aircraft engine from the HSC;
(d) receive second data from the neuromorphic sensor subsequent to receiving the first data, wherein the second data indicates a change in the data characteristic;
(e) identify, based on the change in the data characteristic, an event associated with a material failure in the portion of the aircraft engine; and
(f) in response to identifying the event associated with the material failure of the aircraft engine, activate at least one other sensor coupled to the aircraft engine and in communication with the data acquisition system,
(g) wherein the at least one other sensor is configured to collect data associated with the aircraft engine synchronously.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below:
Step
Analysis
1. Statutory Category ?
Yes.
System/Apparatus
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes.
See the bolded portion as listed above.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each of the limitations (e) and (f) recited in the bolded portion encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human manually. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See also to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III
Further, the limitation (f) is entirely conditional, depending on whether the event associated with the material failure of the aircraft engine is identified or not. The claim encompasses the cases of activating at least one other sensor wherein the at least one other sensor is configured to collect data associated with the aircraft engine synchronously, if the event associated with the material failure of the aircraft engine is identified. As such, the claim would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations (e) and (f) from practically being performed in the human mind with the aid of pen/paper or by a human manually. Therefore, the bolded portion of instant claim 1 amounts to an abstract idea falling within the “Mental Process” grouping of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
Under its BRI, each or the combination of the limitations (a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) encompasses extra-solution activities of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea and/or mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These extra-solution activities do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application. At most, they recite data characterization which can be viewed as an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of material failure detection for aircraft engine.
In particular, all the limitations relating to the processor and the and memory are recited at a high level of generality, Under the BRI, they encompass a general-purpose computer and related computing components. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself.
The neuromorphic sensor is also recited at a high level of generality. The claim does not specify how the neuromorphic sensor is structured/configured to couple with the aircraft engine to collect the data associated with the aircraft engine asynchronously and/or synchronously. Thus claim 1 would monopolize the abstract idea across a wide range of applications.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the algorithm across a wide range of applications.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is considered that the “core” of pending claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of collecting characteristic event data associated with a material failure in an aircraft engine. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two above, none of the additional limitations in the claim are qualified to integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical integration.
At Step 2B, the evaluation of those additional limitations and/or elements takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well-known. Here, under the BRI, all the additional elements as recited in the limitations ((a), (b), (c), (d) and (g) of instant claim 1 are considered well-understood, routine, or conventional. The claim does not include any additional limitation/element that can be treated as “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05.
In particular, uses of version/imaging based asynchronous sensing of an initial fault and other sensors (such as temperature/vibration sensors) for follow-up synchronous sensing for validation in a rotary machine is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, see discussion and/or citation of the prior art in sections 5-7 below.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
The dependent claims 2-7 inherit attributes of the independent claim 1, but does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 1-7 set forth above.
4. Claims 8-14 are drawn to a storage medium carrying processor executable instructions itself is directed to non-statutory subject matter, since the BRI of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission. The Federal Circuit court held that “a transitory, propagating signal does not fall within any statutory category [of 35 USC 101].” See MPEP 2106.03
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/765,801 (hereinafter ‘801) in view of Kumar et al. (US 11835030 B2).
With the BRI to the claims, the combination of claims 1, 8 and 15 of the copending Application ‘801 encompasses all the subject matter of claims 1, 8 and 15 of the present application, except the limitation discussed as follows:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the present application recite: in response to identifying the event associated with the material failure of the aircraft engine, activate (emphasis added) the at least one other sensor …. Claims 1, 8 and 15 of the copending Application ‘801 do not mention explicitly: activate the at least one other sensor, instead, the system of ‘801 retrieves (emphasis added) pre-stored dataset generated from the at least one other sensor.
However, as discussed in sections 7-8 below, Kumar teaches this limitation in question.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Kumar’s teaching of activating the at least one other sensor to obtain the data synchronously associated with the rotary machine, if the at least one other sensor has NOT been activated, into the claims 1, 8 and 15 of ‘801 to arrive the claimed invention, which the skilled person would apply without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 11835030 B2) in view of COHEN-DUWEK et al. (US 20230021408 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Kumar discloses a data acquisition system (Abstract; Figs. 1-3) and a method of operating the system including a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the data acquisition system, cause the data acquisition system to carry out the method (col. 11, lines 7-15), wherein the data acquisition system for a rotary machine (col. 1, lines 14-16), wherein the data acquisition system comprising: a first sensor comprising a camera (col. 3, lines 1-5; col. 7, lines 23-25); a processor coupled to the neuromorphic sensor, and memory coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the data acquisition system (col. 11, lines 7-15) to: receive first data (direct measurement 2 in Figs. 2 and 3) from the first sensor (col. 7, lines 18-25; col. 9, lines 50-53), the first data including a data characteristic associated with an image of a portion of the rotary machine from the camera (col. 7, lines 23-27); receive second data from the first sensor subsequent to receiving the first data, wherein the second data indicates a change in the data characteristic, and identify, based on the change in the data characteristic, an event associated with a material failure (e.g., “degrade over time due to the formation of microscopic cracks that grow under repeated loading cycles”) in the portion of the rotary machine (col. 3, lines 57-64; col. 5, lines 51-57 and 60-62; col. 6, lines 47-49; col. 7, lines 25-27; col. 9, lines 52-54); and in response to identifying the event associated with the material failure of the rotary machine, activate at least one other sensor (e.g., a temperature sensor or a vibration sensor) coupled to the rotary machine and in communication with the data acquisition system (col. 3, lines 6-9; col. 7, lines 29-37; col. 7, line 52 – col. 7, line 4; col. 9, lines 59-67), wherein the at least one other sensor is configured to collect data associated with the rotary machine synchronously (col. 7, lines 29-37).
Kumar does not mention explicitly: wherein the first sensor is a neuromorphic sensor comprising a high-speed camera (HSC); and wherein the rotary machine is an aircraft engine.
COHEN-DUWEK discloses a system/method comprising a neuromorphic sensor configured to generate luminance-transition events associated with a target object, wherein neuromorphic sensor comprises a high-speed camera (HSC) (para. 0036, 0037: “The image reconstruction can be implemented using any suitable pixel-level luminance-transients event based image reconstruction technique (e.g., fast image reconstruction from events neural network (FireNet) as disclosed in [4], end-to-end adversarial learning for image reconstruction, restoration, and super-resolution, from asynchronous events as disclosed in [16], event-based high frame-rate video reconstruction by cycle-event networks as disclosed in [17]”; see also para. 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate COHEN-DUWEK’s neuromorphic sensor into Kumar’s direct measurement to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow for generating depth data/signals as well as spatial tracking signals/data associated with the target object based on luminance-transitions events (COHEN-DUWE, para. 0016) wherein the events are asynchronous events (COHEN-DUWE, para. 0037).
As to the limitation of an aircraft engine, since the claimed system/method does not depend on any specific structure/configuration of said “aircraft engine”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the data acquisition system/method taught by the combination of Kumar and COHEN-DUWEK to identify a material failure of an aircraft engine, as an intended use of known technologies. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, the combination of Kumar and COHEN-DUWEK is silent on: wherein the HSC has a frame rate of at least 250 frames per second.
However, because the claims of the instant application do not specify the particular function or benefit of the claimed frame rate, it is deemed that the feature in question is considered merely a design choice of the frame rate for the HSC. Since COHEN-DUWEK teaches the general condition of the HSC of the neuromorphic sensor (para. 0037), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kumar and COHEN-DUWEK to arrive the claimed invention by choosing a neuromorphic sensor having a HSC as desired, which the skilled person would conceive and apply without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. It has been held that an obvious matter of engineering design choice is not patentably advanced.
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, the combination of Kumar and COHEN-DUWEK is silent on: wherein the neuromorphic sensor comprises an optical magnification system having a magnification level of at least 20x.
Examiner takes official notice that a neuromorphic sensor comprising an optical magnification system is well-known in the technologies of neuromorphic engineering. Since COHEN-DUWEK teaches the general condition of the neuromorphic sensor and the claims of the instant application do not specify the particular function or usage of the claimed optical magnification system, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Kumar and COHEN-DUWEK to arrive the claimed invention by choosing a neuromorphic sensor having an optical magnification system with a desired magnification level such as at least 20x, which the skilled person would apply without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. The mere application of a known technologies to a specific instance by those skilled in the art would have been obvious, also an obvious matter of engineering design choice is not patentably advanced.
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Kumar discloses: wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the data acquisition system to store the first data and the second data in the memory (see discussion of “2 Direct Measurement” and “3 Indirect Measurement” listed in Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20, Kumar discloses: wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the data acquisition system to store the data associated with the rotary machine collected from the at least other sensor (col. 10, lines 37-39) in the memory, wherein the data associated with the rotary machine collected from the at least other sensor is stored in the memory for a predetermined period of time subsequent to identifying the event (see discussion of “3 Indirect Measurement” listed in Figs. 2 and 3). As such, the intended use of the combination of Kumar and COHEN-DUWEK to an aircraft engine renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Kumar discloses: wherein the memory further stores instructions to cause the data acquisition system to transmit, to a computing device in communication with the data acquisition system, an electronic communication that includes an indication of the event (see Figs. 2 and 3 and related discussion of the “2 Direct Measurement” and the “3 Indirect Measurement”).
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20190375519 A1 -- A SYSTEM FOR REAL TIME DETERMINATION OF PARAMETERS OF AN AIRCRAFT
US 20240095983 A1 -- IMAGE AUGMENTATION TECHNIQUES FOR AUTOMATED VISUAL INSPECTION
Du et al., Fault Detection of Aero-Engine Sensor Based on Inception-CNN, Aerospace 2022, 9, 236. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace9050236.
Contact Information
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights