DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 4/24/2026.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Drawings
On page 6 of Remarks filed 4/24/2026, the Applicant contends that the amendment overcomes the objection to the drawings. However, no amended drawings have been filed by the Applicant; therefore, the objection to the drawings have been maintained in the present Office Action.
Limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Due to the amendment filed 4/24/2026, the Examiner confirms that the limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been removed.
Claim Objections
Due to the amendment filed 4/24/2026, new issues are presented with respect to claim 2 in the claim objections below.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Due to the amendment filed 4/24/2026, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On page 9 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the present invention is not directed to an abstract idea, given that the method relates to an aircraft anomaly detection method as opposed to reciting a mathematical concept or mental process, with respect to the limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification (see MPEP 2111), and therefore, the limitations pertain to mere data gathering (i.e. “obtaining a series of measurements”), mathematical modeling (i.e. “providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series”), statistical data manipulation (i.e. “comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies”), statistical analysis (i.e. “computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function” and “comparing the area with a predefined threshold”), and insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. “indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected”), as discussed in detail in the rejections below. The claim may be reasonably interpreted as relying entirely on mathematical concepts, i.e., an “encoder/decoder” computes a cumulative distribution function, and an area separating the computed cumulative distribution function and a reference cumulative distribution function is calculated (e.g., via integration), which is common calculus known to one of ordinary skill in the art. The limitation of “encoder/decoder” lacks structural limitations specifying a particular neural network topology, and thus, the limitation of “encoder/decoder” may be interpreted broadly to encompass any generic data processing unit that compresses a sequence of measurements and extracts a reconstructed series. Even if the “encoder/decoder” were to be limited to a neural network, as in claim 4, the neural network generally applies the abstract idea without limiting how the neural network functions and thus amounts to using a computer with a generic neural network to apply the abstract idea. No details are recited with respect to how the outputs of the neural network are achieved, and thus, the limitation is interpreted a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Further, simply restricting the abstract ideas to a “system of an aircraft” does not transform the abstract ideas into a patent-eligible invention. The courts explicitly state that limiting an abstract idea to a specific technological environment or field of use does not make it patent eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(h). As discussed above, the claim is directed to how data related to an aircraft is mathematically processed, not how the aircraft system itself is improved.
On page 10 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the series of measurement data are gathered by sensors in real-time as part of an aircraft system, which cannot be carried out by a human mind. The Applicant further contends that the claim explicitly operates on measurements of physical quantities of an aircraft system, obtained while the system is functioning, and thus, the data is not hypothetical or untethered from the physical world.
The Examiner agrees that a human mind does not perform data gathering from an aircraft sensor; however, the limitation that the Applicant is referencing has been indicated as insignificant pre-solution activity, not a mental process. Specifically, the limitation of “obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the system, during a period of time when the system is functioning” does not require particular sensors, nor is a particular “functioning” of the system defined. This limitation merely recites the routine and conventional data gathering necessary to provide inputs for subsequent mathematical steps (i.e. “on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series”). The courts have ruled that collecting data, even real-time physical data from sensors, is a routine and conventional precursor for performing data analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, gathering data from generic sensors to perform mathematical analysis does not make the mathematical analysis a patentable invention.
On page 10 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that reconstruction of data via an encoder/decoder, computing a cumulative distribution function, and comparing an area between distributions are not mathematical formulas or relationships.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. To argue that the steps involving reconstruction of data via an encoder/decoder, computing a cumulative distribution function, and comparing an area between distributions are not mathematical concepts is a contradiction of basic data science and calculus. In regards to the step of “providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series,” an encoder/decoder is a sequence of functions and algorithms that maps an input vector to a lower-dimensional representation via a mathematical function and reconstructs the representation to the original input space using another mathematical function, and thus, the entire process is performed by a mathematical function. In regards to the step of “computing a cumulative distribution function,” a cumulative distribution function (CDF) is by definition a statistical and mathematical relationship, such that computing a CDF requires applying statistical formulas to map a set of data points to a probability space. In regards to the step of “comparing the area with a predefined threshold,” calculating an area between CDFs is calculus (i.e. integration), and thus, this step is performed by taking the integral of the difference between two CDFs. Because these steps explicitly recite mathematical concepts, they fall within the mathematical concepts category of abstract ideas, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
On page 11 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that claim 1 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application by introducing a distribution-based anomaly detection mechanism that captures cumulative deviations in the anomaly data and triggers or indicates a maintenance operation to be performed on the aircraft system, thereby improving aircraft maintenance decision-making.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites the limitation of “indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected,” which is merely adding a generic notification step that constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). No particular maintenance technique is claimed. The claim does not improve the aircraft itself and merely improves the data available to a mechanic. The courts have consistently ruled that improving a human’s decision-making process is not a technological improvement to a machine or process. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that providing a user with data so they can better monitor a power grid is abstract and that “collecting, analyzing, and displaying information” to aid human decision-making is not a practical application (see Electric Power Group v. Alstom).
Further, the Applicant’s contended distribution-based anomaly detection mechanism relies entirely on mathematical and statistical concepts, as discussed above. An abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application.
On pages 11-12, the Applicant cites Enfish, McRo, and DDR as further evidence to support the claimed invention as not being directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Enfish, the courts have ruled that the invention was a specific improvement to how computers store and retrieve data, as discussed by the Applicant in the Remarks. On the contrary, claim 1 does not improve the computing hardware, the processing efficiency of the software, or the operation of the aircraft. The claimed “encoder/decoder” is not redesigned to run faster or use less memory and is claimed in a generic manner. As discussed above, the claimed invention merely uses conventional computer components to run standard mathematical and statistical functions on aircraft-related data. While Enfish focuses on an improvement to the computer’s capabilities, the Applicant’s claims are merely using a computer as a tool to perform mathematical concepts which does not transform the abstract ideas into a patent eligible invention. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
With respect to McRo, the courts have ruled that using a particular set of mathematical rules to automate something previously done by humans is patent-eligible if it achieves a technological result, as discussed by the Applicant in the Remarks. In particular, McRo recites specific mathematical relationships (e.g., first set of rules matching phoneme sequences to morph weights) that change the outputted physical display of 3D characters, transforming a known manual process. On the contrary, claim 1 is broad enough to encompass the use of any encoder/decoder and any cumulative distribution function to find an anomaly of a generic aircraft system, and thus, the Applicant’s claimed invention does not correspond to McRo.
With respect to DDR, the courts have ruled that the invention addressed a problem unique to the internet in which third-party hyperlinks drove traffic away from a host website. In the Remarks, the Applicant states that the courts held that software can be patent-eligible, even if there is not a technical improvement, if it is “necessarily rooted in computer technology;” however, the Applicant misinterprets this ruling. The court in DDR explicitly based its finding of eligibility on the fact that the claimed invention “overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink” and is “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network.” On the contrary, claim 1 does not override any conventional technology of the aircraft or computer processor and merely performs the conventional data manipulation discussed above. Anomaly detection is not a problem unique to an aircraft, nor is the claimed method uniquely structured for an aircraft network.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
On pages 15-17 of Remarks, the Applicant contends that the applied prior art does not teach the amended features.
The Examiner agrees. Upon further search and consideration, the Examiner has indicated allowable subject matter below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because blocks 302, 304, 306, 308, 310, 312, and 118 of Figure 3, blocks 402 through 414 of Figure 4, and blocks 502 through 518 of Figure 5 require labels. Specifically, MPEP 1.84(o) reads “Legends. Suitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing.” In this particular case, the Examiner has required legends for the blank numbered blocks in Figures 3, 4, and 5, due to one of ordinary skill in the art not being able to interpret these figures without manually labeling these components with guidance from the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action, except for the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections, which follow the distinct formatting rules detailed in that section.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites a dash (-) between the limitations of selected and from encoders/decoders in the fourth line of claim 2. This dash should be removed.
Claim 9 does not end with a period. A period should be inserted at the end of the last limitation of claim 9.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites a device for monitoring a system of aircraft, comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors configures the device to perform operations comprising:…
indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected.
The Applicant’s disclosure does not support the step of “indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected” as being performed by a processor. This step is described as being performed by a human in lines 23-25 on page 11 of the specification filed 11/1/2024, which recites:
“An anomaly detected, for example, is examined by an engineer who can then send a report to the airline using the aircraft to warn it. The airline can then carry out a maintenance operation on valves 114 and 116, to repair or replace them.”
The specification further describes the final step performed by module 314 as the detection of an anomaly, with respect to step 414 of Figure 4 on page 12, which is presented as distinct from the indication of a maintenance operation described on page 11.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. A method for detecting an anomaly in a system of an aircraft, comprising:
obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the system, during a period of time when the system is functioning;
on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series; and
comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies;
computing a cumulative distribution function, called current cumulative distribution function, of the current series of anomalies, the current cumulative distribution function being calculated from the current series of anomalies;
computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function;
comparing the area with a predefined threshold, to detect an anomaly of the system; and
indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes and Mathematical concepts
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “reconstructed series” and “reconstructed current series” are sequences of data. Generally recited data is merely provided based on other generally recited data. The limitation of “encoder/decoder” lacks structural limitations specifying a particular neural network topology, and thus, the limitation of “encoder/decoder” may be interpreted broadly to merely encompass any generic data processing unit that compresses a sequence of measurements and extracts a reconstructed series.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. current series of measurements) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. providing a reconstructed series). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The recitation of the “encoder/decoder” as providing a reconstructed series is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. standard encoder/decoder installed on a computer) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. providing a reconstructed series) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
Additionally, given that the function of a generic encoder/decoder encompasses a sequence of functions and algorithms (i.e. mapping an input vector to a lower-dimensional representation via a mathematical function and reconstructing the representation to the original input space using another mathematical function), this limitation may be interpreted as performing a mathematical calculation; therefore, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Such mathematical calculations are listed as abstract in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The claim recites the limitation of comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitations of “series of anomalies” and “current series of anomalies” are sequences of data representative anomalies. Generally recited data is merely compared to generate other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. reconstructed current series and current series of measurements) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. obtain a series of anomalies). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally, given that a reconstructed series generated by a common encoder/decoder is known to be expressed as a vector of numbers, comparing the reconstructed series to another series to generate a series of anomalies may be reasonably interpreted as a mathematical calculation of the variance or distance between the two series; therefore, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Such mathematical calculations are listed as abstract in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The claim recites the limitation of computing a cumulative distribution function, called current cumulative distribution function, of the current series of anomalies, the current cumulative distribution function being calculated from the current series of anomalies. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “cumulative distribution function” is a mathematical function that maps a real-valued random variable to the probability that the variable will take a value less than or equal to a specific threshold. By computing a cumulative distribution function, statistical formulas are inherently applied to map a set of data points to a probability space.
Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Such mathematical calculations are listed as abstract in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “area” is data representation a separation distance. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “reference cumulative distribution function,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is a mathematical function that maps a real-valued random variable to the probability that the variable will take a value less than or equal to a specific threshold. Computing an area separating two cumulative distribution functions is a well-known mathematical calculation used to quantify the difference between two probability distributions, e.g., computing the 1-Wasserstein distance.
Because the limitation recites explicitly performing a mathematical calculation, the limitation, as drafted, falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Such mathematical calculations are listed as abstract in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
The claim recites the limitation of comparing the area with a predefined threshold, to detect an anomaly of the system.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. area and predefined threshold) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. compare the area with a predefined threshold to detect an anomaly). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The mere nominal recitation of the “system of an aircraft” as being objects upon which the anomaly is detected does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites, describes, or sets forth a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the system, during a period of time when the system is functioning, and
indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “series of measurements” is a series of data. The limitation of “physical quantities of the system” merely describes the type of generally recited data, and no particular, non-generic sensors are required to obtain these claimed measurements. The limitation of “when the system is functioning” does not require a particular operation to be performed by a particular, non-generic system. The “maintenance operation to be carried out on the system” is merely indicated without any active control operations.
The “obtaining” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general obtaining of a series of measurements during a period of time) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “indicating” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general indication of a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system) upon a generally recited condition (i.e. if an anomaly is detected) and amounts to post-solution activity, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In regards to the “encoder/decoder,” no technological details are recited with respect to the encoder/decoder itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the encoder/decoder is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The “aircraft” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose aircraft system and is recited at a high level of generality.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtaining and indicating steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the encoder/decoder is a known function in data processing applications and that the “obtaining” step is known for detecting an anomaly in a common aircraft device, and the specification does not provide any indication that the aircraft is anything other than a conventional aircraft, nor is the manual maintenance operation presented as a particular sequence of defined operations. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-8
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of the system is configured to operate in one of several functioning configurations and wherein the encoder/decoder is selected from encoders/decoders respectively associated with the functioning configurations, the selected encoder/decoder being the one associated with the functioning configuration in which the system is configured to operate in during the current series of measurements.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, the limitation of “encoder/decoder” lacks structural limitations specifying a particular neural network topology, and thus, the limitation of “encoder/decoder” may be interpreted broadly to merely encompass any generic data processing unit that compresses a sequence of measurements and extracts a reconstructed series. Therefore, the “select” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general selecting an encoder/decoder with a functioning configuration in which the system was configured during the current series of measurements) and amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further limiting the “system” to operate in several functioning configurations represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 2 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the encoder/decoder is a pre-trained learning system for reconstructing series of measurements acquired during normal functioning of the system.
Further limiting the “encoder/decoder” to be a pre-trained learning system for reconstructing series of measurements acquired during normal functioning of the system represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
The “pre-trained learning system” is not tied to any improvement in the claimed system, and no technological details are recited with respect to the “pre-trained learning system” itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the pre-trained learning system is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 3 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the encoder/decoder comprises an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network.
The “encoder neural network” and “decoder neural network” further limit the “encoder/decoder” which is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the neural networks function. The neural networks are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to using a computer with generic neural networks to apply the abstract idea.
No technological details are recited with respect to the neural networks themselves. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the neural networks are found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limiting the “encoder/decoder” to include an encoder neural network and a decoder neural network represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 4 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of the neural networks are two recurrent neural networks with long short-term memory.
The “two recurrent neural networks with long short-term memory” further limit the neural networks which are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the two RNNs with LSTM function. The two RNNs with LSTM are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to using a computer with generic RNNs with LSTM to apply the abstract idea.
No technological details are recited with respect to the two RNNs with LSTM themselves. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the two RNNs with LSTM are found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limiting the “neural networks” to be two recurrent neural networks with long short-term memory represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 5 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of the system is a system for de-icing an air inlet lip, the de-icing system being configured to collect the hot air from a turbomachine, and comprising a channel for conveying the hot air to the air inlet lip and at least one valve on the conveying channel.
The “system for de-icing an air inlet lip” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose de-icing system. The system for de-icing an air inlet lip contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., detecting an anomaly in the system); therefore, the claimed system for de-icing an air inlet lip does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
The collected “hot air” is not used in the “obtaining” step of claim 1 and is merely conveyed via a structural channel of the system. Therefore, the additional elements that further limit the structural configuration of the system represent a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and do not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 6 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of the de-icing system comprises two valves in series on the conveying channel.
Further limiting the “de-icing system” to include two valves in series on the conveying channel represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract.
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 7 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of a computer program downloadable from a communications network and/or recorded on a computer-readable medium, wherein it comprises instructions for executing the steps of a method according to claim 1, when said computer program is executed on a computer.
The additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the already identified abstract exception using generic computer components (i.e. computer program on a computer-readable medium) when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). Therefore, dependent claim 8 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 9
Claim 9. A device for monitoring a system of an aircraft, comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory storing instructions, which when executed by the one or more processors, configures the device to perform operations comprising:
obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the device, during a period of time when the device is functioning;
using an encoder/decoder to provide a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series, from the current series of measurements;
comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies;
computing a cumulative distribution function, called current cumulative distribution function, of the current series of anomalies, the current cumulative distribution function being calculated from the current series of anomalies;
computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function;
comparing the area with a predefined threshold, to detect an anomaly of the system; and
indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites an apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes and mathematical concepts
The same rationale used to analyze claim 1 applies to step 2A, prong one analysis of claim 9.
The recitation of the “one or more processors” as performing the claimed steps is recited at a high level of generality and merely uses a computer (i.e. one or more processors) as a tool to perform the processes (i.e. obtaining, using, comparing, computing, comparing, and indicating steps) which does not preclude the claims from reciting the abstract process when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)#3.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The same rationale used to analyze claim 1 applies to step 2A, prong two analysis of claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of:
one or more processors, and
a memory storing instructions.
The “processor” and “memory” are generic computing components that merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose aircraft computing environment. The processor and memory are recited at a high level of generality and are merely automating the “obtaining,” “using,” “comparing,” “computing,” and “indicating” steps, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the already identified abstract exception using generic computer components (i.e. one or more processors and a memory) when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the obtaining and indicating steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the encoder/decoder is a known function in data processing applications and that the “obtaining” step is known for detecting an anomaly in a common aircraft device, and the specification does not provide any indication that the aircraft, processors, and memory are anything other than a conventional aircraft, nor is the manual maintenance operation presented as a particular sequence of defined operations. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 1-9 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
Per MPEP 2106.05(I), the novelty of any elements or steps in a process or even the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the §101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
The closest prior art of record, Malhotra et al. (US 2020/0012918 A1), hereinafter Malhotra, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed device and method for detecting an anomaly in a system of an aircraft, comprising:
obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the system, during a period of time when the system is functioning;
on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series; and
comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies;
computing a cumulative distribution function, called current cumulative distribution function, of the current series of anomalies, the current cumulative distribution function being calculated from the current series of anomalies;
computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function;
comparing the area with a predefined threshold, to detect an anomaly of the system; and
indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected.
Specifically, as discussed in detail in the Office Action mailed 1/16/2026, Malhotra teaches a similar method for detecting an anomaly in a system of an aircraft (see ¶0003, ¶0040), comprising obtaining a series of measurements, called current series of measurement, of one or more physical quantities of the system, during a period of time when the system is functioning (see ¶0035), on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series (see ¶0039; ¶0036-0038), and comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies (see ¶0040). However, Malhotra teaches computing an error vector defined as a difference between sensor readings and reconstructions generated by the neural network (see ¶0040; ¶0031-0032), and converting the error vector into an anomaly score using Mahalanobis distance for comparison to a threshold (see ¶0040; ¶0033-0034), and thus, Malhotra does not further teach computing a cumulative distribution function, called current cumulative distribution function, of the current series of anomalies, the current cumulative distribution function being calculated from the current series of anomalies, computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function, comparing the area with a predefined threshold, to detect an anomaly of the system, and indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected.
Upon further search and consideration of the amendment filed 4/24/2026, Bechhoefer (US 2003/0065482 A1), hereinafter Bechhoefer, Lu et al. (US 2020/0110181 A1), hereinafter Lu, and Korchev et al. (US 2021/0319633 A1), hereinafter Korchev, have been identified as relevant prior art.
Bechhoefer teaches computing a cumulative distribution function, called current cumulative distribution function (see ¶0133, regarding that 1000 test samples are used to form a single CDF that follow a Gamma (5,20) distribution, as discussed in ¶0132), computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function (see ¶0129-0133, regarding that a difference between the CDF of observed data following a Gamma (5,20) distribution and a normal CDF), comparing the area with a predefined threshold, to detect an anomaly of the system (see ¶0129-0133, regarding that the difference is compared to a critical value to identify when the distribution is not normal) and indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected (see ¶0049, regarding a user obtains health indicator (HI) values 28, defined as generated from CIs in ¶0190-0236, defined as the scores produced from the difference between the CDFs described in ¶0129). However, Bechhoefer does not teach that the “cumulative distribution function” is calculated from the current series of anomalies and thus does not teach on the basis of the current series of measurements, providing by an encoder/decoder a reconstructed series, called reconstructed current series, and comparing the reconstructed current series with the current series of measurements in order to obtain a series of anomalies, called current series of anomalies.
Lu teaches using an anomaly detection model to predict a fault state of an aircraft (see ¶0053). Lu further teaches that a Wasserstein distance between probability distributions is used as a metric during training to improve convergence to Nash equilibrium (see ¶0038). While a Wasserstein distance is known to indicate an area between two different cumulative distribution functions, Lu uses the Wasserstein distance for determining when to stop training the models (see ¶0038) and does not teach computing a cumulative distribution function, called current cumulative distribution function, of the current series of anomalies, the current cumulative distribution function being calculated from the current series of anomalies, computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function, comparing the area with a predefined threshold, to detect an anomaly of the system, and indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected.
Korchev teaches generating normalized counts of quantized delta values for a particular power up event associated with sensor data of an aircraft (see ¶0040), where the normalized count in each bin is compared to a respective anomaly detection threshold (see ¶0041). While the normalized count of delta values represent histogram-like data (see ¶0048) that may reasonably pertain to a “distribution” of data, Korchev is directed to bin-by-bin threshold comparisons and does not analyze an area between cumulative distribution functions, so as to teach computing a cumulative distribution function, called current cumulative distribution function, of the current series of anomalies, the current cumulative distribution function being calculated from the current series of anomalies, computing an area separating the current cumulative distribution function from a reference cumulative distribution function, comparing the area with a predefined threshold, to detect an anomaly of the system, and indicating a maintenance operation to be carried out on the system if an anomaly is detected.
Additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s invention include Maeda et al. (US 2012/0041575 A1) that teaches anomaly detection using a threshold for binarizing a calculated value of anomalousness that is expressed as a deviation from a model (see ¶0066), Togawa (US 2020/0089590 A1) that teaches detecting an anomaly by comparing a reference distribution with a target distribution (see ¶0041), where the distributions represent logs unrelated to aircraft (see ¶0027), and Lacaille (US 2011/0307220 A1) that teaches detecting an abnormality of an aeroengine based on a trigger threshold defined as a function of a statistical distribution of the norm of the anomaly vector defined using Mahalanobis distance (see ¶0079-0082). However, none of these references compute an area between CDFs, as required by the claims.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Lacaille et al. (US 2015/0287249 A1) teaches generating distributions of the probability of an anomaly relating to a set of components of an aircraft engine (see abstract), and Islam et al. (US 2018/0355797 A1) teaches a nacelle inlet provided with an anti-icing system, where hot air is provided at a bleed air source for supply to the nacelle inlet through bleed air supply line (see ¶0019-0020).
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 Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights