DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant Arguments and Remarks Made in an Amendment filed on 06/08/2026.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2026 was received and reviewed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to application number 18/933,140 filed on 10/31/2024, in which claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-26 are presented for examination. Claims 4-5, 9, 14-15, & 19 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the claim(s) rejections under 35 USC §101: Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. the amendments do not suggest any of the comparing, identifying and determining steps can't be considered observation and judgement. More detail in the claim language is need to show the steps cannot be reasonably done mentally.
Applicant argues, “the claimed subject matter of aggregating, determining, triggering, and following triggering cannot reasonably and accurately be performed entirely in a human mind. That is, there is no function that is associated with a human mind even if aided with a pen and paper. Specifically, it is not possible to perform the claimed function of triggering maintenance in the human mind.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language “triggering”, defined in applicant’s specification page 8-9, states “By one approach, these teachings will accommodate determining whether to trigger a maintenance activity as regards an on-board component of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft 104 as a function of the aforementioned at least one candidate root cause. In such a case, these teachings can then provide for determining whether to trigger a maintenance activity for an operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft 104 or for a manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft 104”. Under the broadest interpretation, the examiner is interpreting this as an event or operation that may or may not trigger based on previous steps, thus making it post solution activity instead of a definitive control step.
Applicant further argues, “the Office Action only points to the specification of the present application to argue that certain elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. No external reference is cited to support this assertion.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The drawings (specifically Figure 1A and 1B) show a “control circuit” present to collect the information from the data sources. Subsequent drawings depict the processing and automation of the control circuit, but the specification is silent the details of the control circuit, implying a generic computer component. Paragraph [0041] of prior art Kato US 20040243304 A1 teaches “The control circuit 8 is configured as an ordinary computer. The control circuit 8 contains known components such as a CPU, ROM, RAM, I/O, and a bus line connecting these components. The ROM stores a program executed by the navigation device 100. The CPU and the like perform specified operations in accordance with the stored program.” Prior arts McCoy US 20210103301 A1 [0023] and Metz US 5291410 A [Colm. 1, Ln. 19-20] further support a control circuit as a generic computing device, thus a generic computer is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Applicant further argues, “determining to trigger the maintenance activity via the control circuit with respect to the on-board component. Triggering maintenance with respect to an on-board component of a jet turbine engine-powered aircraft via a control circuit is neither a mental process nor a well- known, routine, and conventional function (as evidenced by the cited references).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated above, the determining steps on whether to trigger an activity/event can be performed in the mind. For example, a person could collect data from sensors and make an assessment based on said data whether or not the plane requires maintenance and initiate a manual maintenance activity in response thereto. The inclusion of a control circuit to automate the proceeding steps does not take the claim out of an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the claim(s) rejections under 35 USC §103: Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 10, with respect to claim 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1-20 has been withdrawn.
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.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
Claim 1: A method for use with a jet turbine engine-powered aircraft having a plurality of data sources, operating periods of time, and non-operating periods of time, the plurality of data sources including an Aircraft Condition Monitoring System and an Electronic Engine Control, the method comprising:
by a control circuit:
determining a first period of time during which the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft was operating;
aggregating data from the plurality of data sources that corresponds to the first period of time to provide aggregated data;
determining whether the aggregated data meets a standard for quantitative sufficiency by assessing intermittency of data by comparing received data to corresponding intermittency signatures for the at least some of the plurality of data sources;
when the aggregated data fails to meet the standard for quantitative sufficiency, identifying at least one candidate root cause as a function, at least in part, of data source intermittency;
determining whether to trigger a maintenance activity with respect to an on-board component of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft as a function of the at least one candidate root cause;
upon determining to trigger the maintenance activity via the control circuit with respect to the on-board component, determining whether to trigger a maintenance activity for an operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft or for a manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft;
upon determining to trigger a maintenance activity for the operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft, triggering the maintenance activity for the operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft;
following the triggering of the maintenance activity for the operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft, the operator conducting the maintenance activity;
upon determining to trigger a maintenance activity for the manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft, triggering the maintenance activity for the manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft; and
following the triggering of the maintenance activity for the manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft, the manufacturer conducting the maintenance activity.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a system comprising a device (an apparatus) comprising data sources and a control circuit. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a 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 limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitations of determining a first period of time during which the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft was operating; determining whether the aggregated data meets a standard for quantitative sufficiency; when the aggregated data fails to meet the standard for quantitative sufficiency, identifying at least one candidate root cause as a function, at least in part, of data source intermittency; determining whether to trigger a maintenance activity as regards an on-board component of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft as a function of the at least one candidate root cause; upon determining to trigger a maintenance activity, determining whether to trigger a maintenance activity for an operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft or for a manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “control circuit” & “on-board component”. That is, other than reciting “control circuit” & “on-board component” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “control circuit” & “on-board component” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a method for use with a jet turbine engine-powered aircraft having a plurality of data sources, operating periods of time, and non-operating periods of time, the plurality of data sources including an Aircraft Condition Monitoring System and an Electronic Engine Control, the method comprising: by a control circuit: aggregating data from the plurality of data sources that corresponds to the first period of time to provide aggregated data; upon determining to trigger a maintenance activity for the operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft, triggering the maintenance activity for the operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft; following the triggering of the maintenance activity for the operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft, the operator conducting the maintenance activity; upon determining to trigger a maintenance activity for the manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft, triggering the maintenance activity for the manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft; and following the triggering of the maintenance activity for the manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft, the manufacturer conducting the maintenance activity. The plurality of data sources, operating periods of time, and non-operating periods of time steps by the control circuit are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the predicting steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The control circuit merely automates the inputting and the predicting steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a controller. The triggering of the maintenance activity and conducting of said maintenance activity is also recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere post-solution activity. the determining steps on whether to trigger an activity/event can be performed in the mind. For example, a person could collect data from sensors and make an assessment based on said data whether or not the plane requires maintenance and initiate a manual maintenance activity in response thereto. The inclusion of a control circuit to automate the proceeding steps does not take the claim out of an abstract idea that can be performed in the mind. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to 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. See MPEP 2106.05.
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. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 data sources/operating periods/non-operating periods, control circuit, and triggers for maintenance activity elements 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 specification recites that “data sources” as “the data sources 101 may be such things as an Aircraft Condition Monitoring System (ACMS) 105 (which can typically monitor the condition of an aircraft by recording and monitoring flight parameters and information from aircraft systems and components), an Electronic Engine Control (EEC) 106, as well as any of a wide variety of discrete sensors and control modules/components” (See ¶24), and the specification recites that “operating times/non-operating times” as “When the apparatus comprises an aircraft, the aforementioned operating periods of time can correspond to flight times for the aircraft (and, in such a case, the aforementioned non-operating periods of time can correspond to times when the aircraft is not in flight)” (See ¶26). The specification is silent on the “triggering” step, but states a “maintenance activity” as “these teachings can then provide for determining whether to trigger a maintenance activity for an operator of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft 104 or for a manufacturer of the jet turbine engine-powered aircraft 104” (See ¶38-40). Lastly the specification does not provide any indication that the control circuit elements are anything other than a conventional computer element(s) (See ¶¶25). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Paragraph [0041] of prior art Kato US 20040243304 A1 teaches “The control circuit 8 is configured as an ordinary computer. The control circuit 8 contains known components such as a CPU, ROM, RAM, I/O, and a bus line connecting these components. The ROM stores a program executed by the navigation device 100. The CPU and the like perform specified operations in accordance with the stored program.” Prior arts McCoy US 20210103301 A1 [0023] and Metz US 5291410 A [Colm. 1, Ln. 19-20] further support a control circuit as a generic computing device, thus a generic computer is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Hence, the specification indicates that mere data gathering during operation of an airplane, processing via a control circuit, and triggering of a maintenance request is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that using data sources and/or control circuit elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 11: Independent apparatus claim 11 recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claim 21: Independent apparatus claim 21 recites similar limitations performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10, 12, 16-18, 20, & 22-26: Dependents do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea and can be performed in the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 6-8, 10, 12, 16-18, 20, & 22-26 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, & 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Lacaille et al. (US 20160240017 A1) discloses A method and a system for monitoring an aircraft engine (2), including: acquisition and processing part (11) configured to collect a time signal of the exhaust gas temperature residual margin of the aircraft engine (2), acquisition and processing part (11) configured to smooth the time signal thus forming a first curve representing the temperature residual margin, acquisition and processing part (11) configured to identify decreasing pieces in the first curve, acquisition and processing part (11) configured to construct a second curve by concatenation of the decreasing pieces, the second curve being continuous while being restricted to the decreasing pieces of the first curve, acquisition and processing part (11) configured to construct a prediction model from the second curve to determine at least one failure forecast indicator.
Horabin et al. (US 20170061295 A1) discloses A method of predicting a fault in an air-conditioning pack of an aircraft is disclosed. The air-conditioning pack includes one or more sensors outputting data related to air-conditioning pack temperature, air-conditioning pack pressure, or air-conditioning pack valve or actuator positions. The method includes transmitting data from at least one of the sensors operably coupled to the air-conditioning pack, comparing the transmitted data to a predetermined threshold, and predicting a fault in the air-conditioning pack based thereon.
Catt (US 20160244179 A1) discloses A method of diagnosing an auxiliary power unit fault in an aircraft having an auxiliary power unit and multiple sensors related to the auxiliary power unit, components thereof, and systems related thereto, including receiving a sensor signal from at least one of the multiple sensors to define a sensor output, comparing the sensor output to a reference value and diagnosing a fault in the auxiliary power unit based on the comparison.
Catt et al. (US 20140336865 A1) discloses a method of diagnosing a trailing edge flap fault in an aircraft having a trailing edge flap system including multiple trailing edge flaps, a flap handle for setting the position of the trailing edge flaps, and a flap position sensor, the method includes receiving a position signal, determining a variation in the position signal relative to a reference position, diagnosing a fault, and providing an indication of the diagnosed fault.
Sterling et al. (US 20220366795 A1) discloses a host aircraft includes a flight data system, the latter including a mobile device, central data server, and transceiver. The mobile device has a processor, memory programmed with a method embodied as computer-readable instructions, and a radio frequency (RF) communications circuit, GPS receiver, and sensor suite. The sensor suite collects raw flight data. Execution of the instructions by the processor causes the mobile device to process the raw flight data into synthesized data, and filter out human-induced motion of the mobile device from the synthesized data using a filtering model, and thereby generate time-stamped filtered flight data. The central data server is in wireless communication with the RF communications circuit, and receives the time-stamped filtered flight data therefrom. The transceiver, which is communicatively coupled to the central data server, disseminates the time-stamped filtered flight data to a user located remotely from the host aircraft.
Bonnet et al. (US 20220185502 A1) discloses a method for monitoring at least one aircraft engine, said method including an acquisition (100) according to the first and second sets of measurements of respectively endogenous and exogenous variables. The method also includes: a normalization (200) of the measurements of the first set relative to the measurements of the second set, a generation (300) of a current model representative of the evolution of the behavior of the engine based on the normalized measurements, a detection (400) of potential abnormality in the behavior of the engine based on a comparison of the current model with a reference model, a generation (500) of a maintenance message, a transmission (600) of said ground message, the acquisition, normalization, generation of a current model, the detection and generation of a maintenance message being made on board the aircraft.
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 Anthony G Mora whose telephone number is (571)272-2306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8am-5pm PST, Alternating Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Kito R Robinson can be reached at (571)270-3921. 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.
/ANTHONY GABRIEL MORA/Examiner, Art Unit 3664
/KITO R ROBINSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights