DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/8/2024. Applicant has filed a provisional application and thus the domestic benefit of 11/10/2023 is the effective filing date. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The first information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 6/20/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The second information disclosure statement filed 6/20/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the Application Number, Filing Date, First Named Inventor, and Attorney Document Number were not included. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (and analogous claim 8 and 15) as currently presented states "...one or more sets of rules based on the text…a relationship between the one or more sets of rules..." in which the Examiner notes a logical fallacy; if only one set of rules exists, the Examiner is uncertain how the relationship still pertains. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the claim(s) as including a plurality of rules.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, as the claims are currently presented, it is unclear how the “one or more previously processed sets of rules” is included in the “one or more sets of formatted rules”. The formatted rule(s), as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, are interpreted as rule(s) that have been processed by a generative model. The claims state that “…one or more sets of formatted rules includes one or more previously processed sets of rules…” which is essentially just stating that the formatted rules can include a plethora of formatted rules, to which the Examiner notes is indefinite and does not align with Figure 1 and [0052] of the instant specification.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards a system, a method, and an apparatus, respectively. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 and the corresponding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A configuration generation system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive text from one or more sources, each of the one or more sources describing operation of at least a portion of a system;
generate, using at least one natural language processing model, one or more sets of rules based on the text;
generate, using at least one generative model, one or more sets of formatted rules based on at least the one or more sets of rules, a relationship between the one or more sets of rules, and a selected format; and
output at least a portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules to an aircraft maintenance system, the aircraft maintenance system being operated based on at least the portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules.
These limitations, as drafted, are a system that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a mental concept. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mental process. For example, “generate…one or more sets of rules…” may be interpreted as mentally creating rules according to observable data, and “generate…one or more sets of formatted rules…” may be interpreted as mentally creating additional rules according to observable data. Therefore, the claims are directed towards reciting an abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea 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 elements beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A configuration generation system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive text from one or more sources, each of the one or more sources describing operation of at least a portion of a system;
generate, using at least one natural language processing model, one or more sets of rules based on the text;
generate, using at least one generative model, one or more sets of formatted rules based on at least the one or more sets of rules, a relationship between the one or more sets of rules, and a selected format; and
output at least a portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules to an aircraft maintenance system, the aircraft maintenance system being operated based on at least the portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of “A configuration generation system,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “at least one natural language processing model,” and “at least one generative model” are merely generic components which allow the abstract idea to be applied (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)). The Examiner submits that these elements are mere computers or other machinery used as a tool to perform the existing process.
The limitations of “receive text…” and “output at least a portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules…” are directed towards insignificant extra-solution activity that is data gathering and data output, which does not add any meaningful limits on the claim. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed, the additional elements of “A configuration generation system,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “at least one natural language processing model,” and “at least one generative model” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (using additional elements such as “the processor”). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). In addition, the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receive text…” and “output at least a portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the text is received using a conventional natural language processor and then a conventional OMS configuration generator outputs formatted rule(s), and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. 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.
Claims 8 and 15 recite analogous limitations to that of claim 1, deviating in the recitation of a method and the utilization of a non-transitory computer-readable medium including instructions, and are therefore rejected by the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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.
Claims 2, 6-7, 9, 13-14, 16, and 20 provide additional details to “the one or more sets of formatted rules” which are also simply processes which could be achieved via the human mind, thus directed towards an abstract idea.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite the various systems which could be operated, the characterization of which indicates a field of use.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 elaborate on the communication from the source, detailing the origin of the source, which merely amounts to a description of the extra-solution activity. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1 (and claim 8 and claim 15), this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite details on “the selected format” which is simply information pertaining to the type of communication, which merely amounts to a description of the extra-solution activity. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well-understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1 (and claim 8 and claim 15), this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mojtahedzadeh et al. (US-2023/0061096; hereinafter Mo; already of record from IDS) in view of Doggett (US-2019/0340238).
Regarding claim 1, Mo discloses a configuration generation system (see Mo at least Abs and [0022] "FIG. 2 illustrates an example method 200 for aircraft maintenance. Method 200 can be implemented by any suitable computing system of one or more computing devices. A computing system that implements method 200 can have any suitable capabilities, form factor, and hardware configuration. In some examples, one or more steps of method 200 can be implemented by computing system 300 described below with respect to FIG. 3, and/or one or more steps of method 200 can be implemented by computing system 800 described below with respect to FIG. 8.") comprising:
a processor (see Mo at least [0024] "...From there, the unstructured aircraft component records can be loaded into volatile storage (e.g., random access memory), from which they can be processed by a suitable logic component of the computing system (e.g., a computer processor)…"); and
a memory storing machine-readable instructions (see Mo at least [0024] "...“Computer memory” as described herein can refer to any suitable volatile or non-volatile data storage technology. For example, loading unstructured aircraft component records into computer memory can include accessing one or more unstructured aircraft component records from local non-volatile storage, from an external storage device, and/or over a network. From there, the unstructured aircraft component records can be loaded into volatile storage (e.g., random access memory), from which they can be processed by a suitable logic component of the computing system (e.g., a computer processor)...") that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
receive text from one or more sources (see Mo at least [0026]-[0027] “Unstructured aircraft component records originate from one or more different component status monitors. In one example, the one or more different component status monitors can include one or more human personnel (e.g., human personnel 108 of FIG. 1)... For example, the human can directly interact with the computing system—e.g., by typing using a keyboard, speaking aloud to a voice recognition device, or interacting with a touch-sensitive display.”), each of the one or more sources describing operation of at least a portion of a system (see Mo at least [0025] "As discussed above, the plurality of unstructured aircraft component records describe observed maintenance conditions of a plurality of different aircraft components in an unstructured manner—e.g., by using heterogeneous data formats or descriptive terms that do not follow a pre-defined organizational system. In general, an unstructured aircraft component record can include virtually any information relevant to the current maintenance condition of a particular aircraft component. As non-limiting examples, such information can include some indication as to the identity of the component (such as its name, function, and/or location within the aircraft); whether the component is currently operable; whether it has sustained any damage that affects its appearance or functionality; how long it has been since the component was last installed, serviced, or replaced; or whether the component has been modified or customized in any way..." and [0028] "As another example, the one or more different component status monitors can include one or more on-board aircraft sensors (e.g., sensor 110 of FIG. 1)... It will be understood that the specific manner in which such sensors detect maintenance conditions will vary significantly depending on both the type of sensor, the type of aircraft component, and the type of maintenance condition that is reported. Once again, the unstructured aircraft component records can be provided to the computing system in any suitable way. As non-limiting examples, the one or more on-board aircraft sensors can directly interface with the computing system, can transmit data to the computing system over a suitable computer network, and/or can write the unstructured aircraft component records to a suitable storage medium from which they can be transferred to the computing system.");
generate, using at least one natural language processing model, one or more sets of rules based on the text (see Mo at least [0031]-[0034] "Returning briefly to FIG. 2, at 204, method 200 includes providing the plurality of unstructured aircraft component records from computer memory to an NLP model configured to output a corresponding plurality of digital structured aircraft component records. As discussed above, the subject disclosure primarily describes such structured records as taking the form of CCL (component, condition, location) records, as one non-limiting example of a suitable structured schema... Providing unstructured aircraft component records to an NLP model is schematically illustrated with respect to FIG. 4. Specifically, FIG. 4 depicts an example plurality of unstructured aircraft component records 400, including individual unstructured records 402A-402F. Such unstructured records are provided to an NLP model 404, which outputs a corresponding plurality of structured records 406, including individual structured records 408A-408F. In this example, the structured records are CCL records, as they each specify the identity of a particular aircraft component, its location within the aircraft, and its current maintenance condition. For example, CCL record 408A specifies that a tray table (component) at seat 12D (location) is broken (condition)... In general, the NLP model can be implemented via any suitable artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) technologies suitable for converting unstructured records that include natural language into corresponding structured records..." and [0042]-[0043] "...It will be understood, however, that unstructured aircraft component records can use inconsistent descriptive terms to describe maintenance conditions of different aircraft components (e.g., tray tables for different seats), and the corresponding CCL records output by the NLP model can still use consistent descriptive terms to refer to such maintenance conditions. Additionally, or alternatively, the NLP model can be configured to output the plurality of CCL records from unstructured aircraft component records that use a plurality of different data formats to describe the observed maintenance conditions of the plurality of different aircraft components, while the plurality of CCL records use a same structured data format to describe the observed maintenance conditions. In the example of FIG. 4, many of the unstructured aircraft component records are expressed using natural language (e.g., English words), although the formatting and punctuation of such natural language varies from one record to another—e.g., depending on the author of the record. By contrast, the corresponding plurality of CCL records each use substantially the same formatting and punctuation.");
generate … one or more sets of formatted rules based on at least the one or more sets of rules (see Mo at least [0021] "...Once the CCL records are output, CCL records for a selected CCL type can be independently aggregated and computer analyzed to determine a time-dependent failure distribution from the selected CCL type. The time-dependent failure distribution can facilitate identifying and alleviating maintenance issues reflected by the CCL records—e.g., to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, or facilitate a reliability analysis..." and [0046] "Returning briefly to FIG. 2, at 206, method 200 includes independently computer aggregating CCL records for a plurality of different CCL types. In other words, for each individual CCL type, the computing system can aggregate any CCL records matching that CCL type..."), a relationship between the one or more sets of rules (see Mo at least [0046] "Returning briefly to FIG. 2, at 206, method 200 includes independently computer aggregating CCL records for a plurality of different CCL types. In other words, for each individual CCL type, the computing system can aggregate any CCL records matching that CCL type. This is schematically illustrated with respect to FIG. 5, in which several CCL records 500A, 500B, and 500C are aggregated for a selected CCL type 502 (in this example, a broken tray table at seat 12D). Such CCL records can, for example, correspond to different instances at which the tray table for seat 12D was broken on a particular aircraft, and/or records corresponding to broken seat 12D tray tables on a plurality of different aircraft of the same model."), and a selected format (see Mo at least [0043]-[0044] "Additionally, or alternatively, the NLP model can be configured to output the plurality of CCL records from unstructured aircraft component records that use a plurality of different data formats to describe the observed maintenance conditions of the plurality of different aircraft components, while the plurality of CCL records use a same structured data format to describe the observed maintenance conditions... Regardless, the NLP model outputs a corresponding CCL record 408B that uses a same structured data format as the other CCL records, corresponding to other unstructured aircraft component records—e.g., natural language words..." and [0046] "Returning briefly to FIG. 2, at 206, method 200 includes independently computer aggregating CCL records for a plurality of different CCL types. In other words, for each individual CCL type, the computing system can aggregate any CCL records matching that CCL type. This is schematically illustrated with respect to FIG. 5, in which several CCL records 500A, 500B, and 500C are aggregated for a selected CCL type 502 (in this example, a broken tray table at seat 12D). Such CCL records can, for example, correspond to different instances at which the tray table for seat 12D was broken on a particular aircraft, and/or records corresponding to broken seat 12D tray tables on a plurality of different aircraft of the same model."); and
output at least a portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules to an aircraft maintenance system, the aircraft maintenance system being operated based on at least the portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules (see Mo at least [0063] "...Accordingly, returning briefly to FIG. 2, at 210, method 200 optionally includes utilizing the time-dependent failure distribution to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, and/or facilitate a reliability analysis associated with the selected CCL type." and [0065] "Similarly, any or all of the maintenance interval 314, part demand estimation 316, and reliability analysis 318 can be transmitted to a remote system 320 for storage and/or analysis. The remote system can, as non-limiting examples, take the form of a remote maintenance system, inventory management system, or a vehicle health monitoring system. Furthermore, as with display 312, the information transmitted to remote system 310 can in some cases be transmitted over network 310.").
However, Mo does not explicitly disclose the following:
…using at least one generative model…
Doggett, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the following:
…using at least one generative model (see Doggett at least [0016] "In one aspect, the NLG engine 100 may be composed according to a fully generative model (e.g., sequence-to-sequence neural network model)...")…
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the computer analysis as disclosed by Mo with a generative model such as taught by Doggett with a reasonable expectation of success for the sake of processing data according to a user’s desired usage (see Doggett at least [0014]).
Regarding claim 2, Mo in view of Doggett teach the configuration generation system of claim 1, wherein the one or more sets of formatted rules include at least one of:
a process for monitoring a condition in the system (see Mo at least [0021] "...The time-dependent failure distribution can facilitate identifying and alleviating maintenance issues reflected by the CCL records—e.g., to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, or facilitate a reliability analysis...");
a process for isolating a fault in the system (see Mo at least [0021] "...The time-dependent failure distribution can facilitate identifying and alleviating maintenance issues reflected by the CCL records—e.g., to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, or facilitate a reliability analysis...");
a process for diagnosing a fault in the system (see Mo at least [0021] "...The time-dependent failure distribution can facilitate identifying and alleviating maintenance issues reflected by the CCL records—e.g., to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, or facilitate a reliability analysis...");
a process for reporting a fault in the system; and
a process for interfacing with the system (see Mo at least [0021] "...The time-dependent failure distribution can facilitate identifying and alleviating maintenance issues reflected by the CCL records—e.g., to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, or facilitate a reliability analysis...").
Regarding claim 3, Mo in view of Doggett teach the configuration generation system of claim 1, wherein the aircraft maintenance system includes at least one of:
an on-board aircraft maintenance system; and
an off-board aircraft maintenance system (see Mo at least [0065] "Similarly, any or all of the maintenance interval 314, part demand estimation 316, and reliability analysis 318 can be transmitted to a remote system 320 for storage and/or analysis. The remote system can, as non-limiting examples, take the form of a remote maintenance system, inventory management system, or a vehicle health monitoring system. Furthermore, as with display 312, the information transmitted to remote system 310 can in some cases be transmitted over network 310.").
Regarding claim 4, Mo in view of Doggett teach the configuration generation system of claim 1, wherein the operation of at least the portion of the system is related to at least one of:
fault isolation;
maintenance (see Mo at least [0021] "...The time-dependent failure distribution can facilitate identifying and alleviating maintenance issues reflected by the CCL records—e.g., to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, or facilitate a reliability analysis...");
interface control;
requirements (see Mo at least [0068] "Facilitating part demand estimation can be done based at least in part on determining the rate at which a particular aircraft component fails and requires replacement...");
design (see Mo at least [0020] "...Furthermore, aircraft component damage is inherently a mix of distinct random processes—e.g., wear-and-tear, passenger damage, and design problems—and it can be difficult to distinguish between these processes using unstructured data, reducing the effectiveness of a maintenance program developed from such data...");
reliability analysis (see Mo at least [0021] "...The time-dependent failure distribution can facilitate identifying and alleviating maintenance issues reflected by the CCL records—e.g., to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, or facilitate a reliability analysis..."); and
failure mode effect and criticality analysis (FMECA).
Regarding claim 5, Mo in view of Doggett teach the configuration generation system of claim 1, wherein the selected format is based on at least one of:
the text (see Mo at least [0043] "Additionally, or alternatively, the NLP model can be configured to output the plurality of CCL records from unstructured aircraft component records that use a plurality of different data formats to describe the observed maintenance conditions of the plurality of different aircraft components, while the plurality of CCL records use a same structured data format to describe the observed maintenance conditions...");
user input (see Mo at least [0044] "...Regardless, the NLP model outputs a corresponding CCL record 408B that uses a same structured data format as the other CCL records, corresponding to other unstructured aircraft component records—e.g., natural language words. Thus, the NLP model can be configured to output the plurality of CCL records from unstructured aircraft component records that include ATA codes.");
historical information; and
machine-readable information (see Mo at least [0034] "The NLP model can take any suitable form. In general, the NLP model can be implemented via any suitable artificial intelligence (AI) and/or machine learning (ML) technologies suitable for converting unstructured records that include natural language into corresponding structured records...").
Regarding claim 6, Mo in view of Doggett teach the configuration generation system of claim 1, wherein the machine-readable instructions further include instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
select the portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules based on predetermined criteria (see Mo at least [0063] "...Accordingly, returning briefly to FIG. 2, at 210, method 200 optionally includes utilizing the time-dependent failure distribution to determine a maintenance interval, facilitate part demand estimation, and/or facilitate a reliability analysis associated with the selected CCL type." and [0066] "...For instance, determining a maintenance interval based on the time-dependent failure distribution can include determining the likelihood that an observed failure will occur over a particular window of time...").
Regarding claim 7, Mo in view of Doggett teach the configuration generation system of claim 1, wherein the portion of the one or more sets of formatted rules includes one or more previously processed sets of rules (see Mo at least [0052] "The value of the shape parameter β relative to a threshold value (e.g., one) can provide information regarding the nature of the failures affecting the aircraft component of the selected CCL type. This is illustrated with respect to FIGS. 6A and 6B. FIG. 6A shows an example plot 600 that includes three different hypothetical time-dependent failure distributions 602A, 602B, and 602C...").
Regarding claim 8, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 9, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 2 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 10, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 3 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 11, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 4 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 5 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 13, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 6 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 14, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 7 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 1 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 16, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 2 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 17, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 3 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 4 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 19, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 5 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 20, Mo in view of Doggett teach the analogous material of that in claim 6 as recited in the instant claim and is rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bushkov, JR. et al. (US-2023/0146900) teaches the receipt of data from a variety of sources, processing of said data via machine learning to determine recurrent faults, and then outputting the recurrent faults to an interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN REIDY whose telephone number is (571) 272-7660. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM- 3:00 PM.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663