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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "control unit configured to", and "display device configured to" in claims 11, and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
As per claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to a process as it recites (a method comprising).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A method comprising:
identifying components of a vehicle in need of repair;
calculating several category scores representative of one or more of difficulty or time needed to perform several repairs of the components;
aggregating the category scores for each of the components into an impact score; and
presenting icons representative of the impact scores for the components, the icons presented with one or more of sizes or shapes indicative of the impact scores.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A method comprising:
identifying components of a vehicle in need of repair;
calculating several category scores representative of one or more of difficulty or time needed to perform several repairs of the components;
aggregating the category scores for each of the components into an impact score; and
presenting icons representative of the impact scores for the components, the icons presented with one or more of sizes or shapes indicative of the impact scores.
The instruction presenting icons representative of the impact scores is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of presenting icons representative of the impact scores), and is similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception for displaying results of determinations and such displays of conclusions are also well understood and conventional. For these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 2-10
These process claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 1, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the calculation of arbitrary scores related to vehicle repair or maintenance statistics, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
As per claim 11
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a maintenance system comprising).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A maintenance system comprising:
a control unit configured to identify components of a vehicle in need of repair, calculate several category scores representative of one or more of difficulty or time needed to perform several repairs of the components, and aggregate the category scores for each of the components into an impact score; and
a display device configured to present icons representative of the impact scores for the components, the icons presented with one or more of sizes or shapes indicative of the impact scores.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of the control unit, and its unrecited processor, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A maintenance system comprising:
a control unit configured to identify components of a vehicle in need of repair, calculate several category scores representative of one or more of difficulty or time needed to perform several repairs of the components, and aggregate the category scores for each of the components into an impact score; and
a display device configured to present icons representative of the impact scores for the components, the icons presented with one or more of sizes or shapes indicative of the impact scores.
The control unit is recited at a high level of generality and merely applies the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Further, the instruction to present icons representative of the impact scores is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means to present icons representative of the impact scores), and is similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components, and the extra-solution activity of displaying data. The use of generic computer components to execute a program is well-understood and conventional. Further the display of data and results from a computer program for the purposes of making determinations or manipulating data is also well understood and conventional. For these reasons, claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
As per claims 12-19
These apparatus claims further define the abstract ideas of the mental processes illustrated in claim 11, they do not recite any additional elements or other limitations that transform the calculation of arbitrary scores related to vehicle repair or maintenance statistics, and these elements are well-understood, routine and conventional.
As per claim 20
Step 1: The claim is directed to an apparatus as it recites (a maintenance system comprising).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process. The claim recites:
A maintenance system comprising:
a control unit configured to identify components of a vehicle in need of repair, calculate several category scores representative of one or more of difficulty or time needed to perform several repairs of the components, and aggregate the category scores for each of the components into an impact score, the category scores including flight deck effect occurrence rate scores indicative of first occurrence rates at which the repairs are needed as the category scores, scheduled interval occurrence rate scores indicative of second occurrence rates at which the components have faults leading to requiring the repairs, component removal scores indicative of difficulties in removing the components in need of the repairs, repair difficulty scores indicative of difficulties involved in performing the repairs, vehicle down time scores indicative of down time durations of the vehicle during the repairs, special requirement scores indicative of specialized needs to complete the repairs, in-the-way removal scores indicative of additional components that are to be removed to complete the repairs, and minimum equipment list scores indicative of abilities to defer the repairs and abilities of the vehicle to fly with the repairs being deferred; and
a display device configured to present icons representative of the impact scores for the components, the icons presented with one or more of sizes or shapes indicative of the impact scores.
The recited limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind or by hand or with pen and paper as these steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The mere nominal recitation of the control unit, and its unrecited processor, does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional element of:
A maintenance system comprising:
a control unit configured to identify components of a vehicle in need of repair, calculate several category scores representative of one or more of difficulty or time needed to perform several repairs of the components, and aggregate the category scores for each of the components into an impact score, the category scores including flight deck effect occurrence rate scores indicative of first occurrence rates at which the repairs are needed as the category scores, scheduled interval occurrence rate scores indicative of second occurrence rates at which the components have faults leading to requiring the repairs, component removal scores indicative of difficulties in removing the components in need of the repairs, repair difficulty scores indicative of difficulties involved in performing the repairs, vehicle down time scores indicative of down time durations of the vehicle during the repairs, special requirement scores indicative of specialized needs to complete the repairs, in-the-way removal scores indicative of additional components that are to be removed to complete the repairs, and minimum equipment list scores indicative of abilities to defer the repairs and abilities of the vehicle to fly with the repairs being deferred; and
a display device configured to present icons representative of the impact scores for the components, the icons presented with one or more of sizes or shapes indicative of the impact scores.
The control unit is recited at a high level of generality and merely applies the exception using generic computer components to automate the abstract idea. Further, the instruction to present icons representative of the impact scores is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means to present icons representative of the impact scores), and is similar to displaying information, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the additional elements are applying the abstract ideas in a vehicle environment. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong
2, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components, and the extra-solution activity of displaying data. The use of generic computer components to execute a program is well-understood and conventional. Further the display of data and results from a computer program for the purposes of making determinations or manipulating data is also well understood and conventional. For these reasons, claim 20 is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim does not include an inventive concept.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARIS ASIM SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-6426. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:30 M-F EST.
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, Fadey S. Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
/F.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3668 /Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668