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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 2 has boxes that just have reference numbers and no description. 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.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim *** will be used as a representative claim for this rejection and is reproduced below with the abstract ideas in bold and additional limitations underlined.
A method for monitoring a propulsion system of an aircraft, the propulsion system having a turboshaft engine and the aircraft having at least one counter for a damage to the turboshaft engine using at least one parameter of the turboshaft engine, the method comprising:
receiving a target service life [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
calculating, for each counter, a maximum incrementation rate of the counter so that the counter remains below a predefined threshold throughout the target service life [mental process/step];
calculating, for each counter and for each parameter of the counter, a threshold such that, so long as the parameter does not exceed the threshold, the incrementation rate of the counter remains lower than the maximum incrementation rate [mental process/step];
calculating, on the basis of the threshold or thresholds, at least one limit of an operating variable of the turboshaft engine to not be exceeded so that the incrementation rate of the counter remains lower than the maximum incrementation rate [mental process/step]; and
transmitting to a display device on the aircraft a current value of the operating variable and the limit of the operating variable [insignificant post solution activity (displaying the results of the mental process)].
101 Analysis – Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claims recite a process. Therefore, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2016.03
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes (mental process)
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 limitation of “calculating, for each counter, a maximum incrementation rate of the counter… calculating, for each counter and for each parameter of the counter, a threshold… calculating, on the basis of the threshold or thresholds, at least one limit of an operating variable”. This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “receiving a target service life…” and “transmitting to a display device on the aircraft a current value of the operating variable and the limit of the operating variable…”. That is, other than reciting “receiving a target service life…” and “transmitting to a display device on the aircraft a current value of the operating variable and the limit of the operating variable…” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “receiving a target service life…” and “transmitting to a display device on the aircraft a current value of the operating variable and the limit of the operating variable…” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (the target service life) and forming a simple judgement (set a threshold for engine speed/temp/etc. based on how long you want the engine to last). The mere nominal recitation “receiving a target service life…” and “transmitting to a display device on the aircraft a current value of the operating variable and the limit of the operating variable…” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II evaluation: 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. For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of “receiving a target service life…” and “transmitting to a display device on the aircraft a current value of the operating variable and the limit of the operating variable…”. Receiving target service life information is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information for use in the evaluating step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting to a display device on the aircraft is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the operation variable), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
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.
101 Analysis – Step 2B evaluation: 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.
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 “receiving a target service life…” and “transmitting to a display device on the aircraft a current value of the operating variable and the limit of the operating variable…” 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 does not suggest that the means for collecting/receiving information nor the means for displaying the results are anything besides standard computer components. 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Independent claim(s) 7 and 8 have similar and are rejected for the same reasons above Additionally the propulsion system, at least one counter, display device and computer in claim 8 are standard condonements. Dependent claim(s) 2-6 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-8 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim 7 is directed to a computer program, i.e. “software per se”. “Software per se”, when claimed without any structural limitations, does not have a physical or tangible form. Therefore, it does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and is ineligible under 35 USC 101. see MPEP 2106.03.
If support is found within the specification, Applicant is advised to amend the claim(s) to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program comprising machine readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, performs: [the claimed functions]”, or equivalent language. see MPEP 2106.03 (I). A claim directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium would comprise an article of manufacture and thus fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
EP 2400466 (Pfoertner) discloses monitoring usage of at least one engine part and detecting engine parameters based on a common time base.
FR3039614 (Grojo et al.) disclosing displaying the maximum power.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL F WHALEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
MICHAEL F. WHALEN
Examiner
Art Unit 3661
/M.F.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights