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 .
This action is responsive to application filed on 21 February 2025. Claims 1-21 are pending in the case. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims. This action is non-final.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1,
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“populating, by a service seller, an electronics shop findings report (SFR),” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate or judge populating a report.
“converting, by the EBN, the electronic SFR, into a data format requested by an aircraft operator,” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate or judge converting data into a different format.
“performing, by the airport operator, analysis on data retrieved from the electronic SFR,” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate or judge performing analysis on data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“transmitting, by the service seller, the electronic SFR to an electronic business network (EBN),” which is insignificant extra-solution activity as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“receiving, by the EBN, the electronic SFR,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity as receiving of data (i.e. mere data gathering) such as 'obtaining information' and the particulars of the retrieved data are merely “selecting information … for collection, analysis, and display” as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
“transmitting, by the EBN, the electronic SFR to an aircraft operator,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
With respect to the “receiving,” and “transmitting” identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);” and thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 2,
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim further recites limitations corresponding to the judicial exception recited in parent claim 1.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“wherein the electronic SFR is formatted in Extensible markup language (XML),” which is insignificant extra-solution activity as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 3,
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“wherein the analysis is statistical analysis,” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate or judge performing statistical analysis.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 4,
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“wherein the analysis is performed by artificial intelligence (AI),” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate or judge performing analysis on data by using artificial intelligence.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5,
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“wherein the EBN converts the electronic SFR into a data format that is different than that of the electronic SFR,” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate or judge converting data into a different format.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 6,
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites the following limitations directed to an abstract idea:
“performing, by the EBN and as EBN analysis, analysis on data retrieved from the electronic SFR,” as drafted this recites a mentally performable process as an evaluation or judgement. One can mentally evaluate or judge performing analysis on data.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7,
At Step 1:
The claim is directed to a “method” and thus directed to a statutory category.
At Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim further recites limitations corresponding to the judicial exception recited in parent claim 6.
At Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the following additional elements:
“transmitting, by the EBN and to the aircraft operator, a result of the EBN analysis,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity as identified in MPEP 2106.05(g) and does not provide integration into a practical application.
Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application.
At Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 and dependent claims 9-14 and 16-21 correspond to and recite the same judicial exception as claims 1-7, except that in claim 8 at Step 1, the claim is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and thus directed to the statutory category of machine, and in claim 15 at Step 1, the claim is directed to a “system” and thus directed to the statutory category of machine. Therefore, claims 8-21 are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Papa et al. (US 2019/0026964 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Papa teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
populating, by a service seller, an electronic shop findings report (SFR) (see Papa, Paragraph [0035], “Data from multiple sources such as shop findings, cost analytics, and invoices are scanned and received by input component 106.” [Data from multiple sources such as shop findings may be scanned (i.e., populating an electronic shop findings report by a service seller).]);
transmitting, by the service seller, the electronic SFR to an electronic business network (EBN); receiving, by the EBN, the electronic SFR; converting, by the EBN, the electronic SFR, into a data format requested by an aircraft operator (see Papa, Paragraph [0039], “FIG. 3 illustrates an artificial intelligence based system 100 that includes a data conversion component 302 which can convert unstructured archived data to structured data that can be analyzed by the machine learning component through employment of optical character recognition (OCR) component 402, as illustrated in FIG. 4. FIG. 5 further illustrates an example method 500 depicting how text documents can be converted to structured data. A large set of data (e.g., paper files) can be scanned into image files, and data conversion component 302 can convert these documents which may have originated from multiple sources, vendors, formats, etc., into structured data by employing OCR component 402 and pattern matching algorithms using parsing codes, for example. OCR component 402 can convert text document image data into unstructured text data.” [The image files (i.e., electronic SFR) are transmitted and received by the data conversion component of the artificial intelligence system (i.e., electronic business network). The image files (i.e., electronic SFR) are converted into structured data (i.e., wherein the EBN converts the electronic SFR into a data format that is different than that of the electronic SFR).]);
transmitting, by the EBN, the electronic SFR to an aircraft operator; and performing, by the aircraft operator, analysis on data retrieved from the electronic SFR (see Papa, Paragraph [0045], “an avatar component 1102, as illustrated in FIG. 11, can generate an avatar that interfaces with a user and provide suggestions to the user based on outputs of the AI model. For example, the avatar can remind the user that a set of LRU needs to be replaced and ask whether the user want the avatar to order replacements.” [The suggestions (i.e., result of analysis on the electronic SFR data) may be provided to the user (i.e., aircraft operator).]).
Regarding claim 3, Papa further teaches:
wherein the analysis is statistical analysis (see Papa, Paragraph [0034], “Such classification can employ a probabilistic and/or statistical-based analysis (e.g., factoring into the analysis utilities and costs) to determinate an action to be automatically performed.” [Statistical analysis may be implemented.]).
Regarding claim 4, Papa further teaches:
wherein the analysis is performed by artificial intelligence (AI) (see Papa, Paragraph [0034], “A support vector machine (SVM) is an example of a classifier that can be employed. … Other directed and undirected model classification approaches include, e.g., naïve Bayes, Bayesian networks, decision trees, neural networks, fuzzy logic models, and probabilistic classification models providing different patterns of independence can be employed.” [The analysis may be performed by a support vector machine, as well as other classification approaches (i.e., artificial intelligence).]).
Regarding claim 5, Papa further teaches:
wherein the EBN converts the electronic SFR into a data format that is different than that of the electronic SFR (see Papa, Paragraph [0039], “FIG. 5 further illustrates an example method 500 depicting how text documents can be converted to structured data. A large set of data (e.g., paper files) can be scanned into image files, and data conversion component 302 can convert these documents which may have originated from multiple sources, vendors, formats, etc., into structured data by employing OCR component 402 and pattern matching algorithms using parsing codes, for example.” [The image files (i.e., electronic SFR) are converted into structured data (i.e., wherein the EBN converts the electronic SFR into a data format that is different than that of the electronic SFR).]).
Regarding claim 6, Papa further teaches:
performing, by the EBN and as EBN analysis, analysis on data retrieved from the electronic SFR (see Papa, Paragraph [0041], “Text analytic and clustering algorithms are employed to determine causality between workscope, shop findings, applied service bulletins, costs, etc.” [Text analytics and clustering algorithms (i.e., analysis) may be performed on the converted data.]).
Regarding claim 7, Papa further teaches:
transmitting, by the EBN and to the aircraft operator, a result of the EBN analysis (see Papa, Paragraph [0045], “an avatar component 1102, as illustrated in FIG. 11, can generate an avatar that interfaces with a user and provide suggestions to the user based on outputs of the AI model. For example, the avatar can remind the user that a set of LRU needs to be replaced and ask whether the user want the avatar to order replacements.” [The suggestions (i.e., a result of the EBN analysis) may be provided to the user (i.e., aircraft operator).]).
Regarding claims 8, 10-15, and 17-21, Papa teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, and 3-7, in method form rather than in computer-readable medium form and system form. Papa also discloses a computer-readable medium [0056] and system [0056]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1, and 3-7, applies equally as well to those limitations of claims 8, 10-15, and 17-21.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-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.
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.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Papa in view of O’Malley et al. (US 2022/0237959 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Papa teaches all the limitations of claim 1. However, Papa does not explicitly teach:
wherein the electronic SFR is formatted in Extensible markup language (XML)
O’Malley teaches:
wherein the electronic SFR is formatted in Extensible markup language (XML) (see O’Malley, Paragraph [0036], “The data may be stored in the memory 116 using any suitable format including, but not limited to, in an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file.” [The data may be stored in an Extensible markup language (XML) file.]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Papa (teaching analytics system for aircraft line-replaceable unit maintenance optimization) in view of O’Malley (teaching system and method for tracking engine and aircraft component data), and arrived at a method that incorporates Extensible markup language. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination for the purposes of improving tracking engine and aircraft component data (see O’Malley, Paragraph [0003]). In addition, both the references (Papa and O’Malley) teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as aircrafts. The close relation between both the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Papa in view of O’Malley teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, in method form rather than in computer-readable medium form and system form. Papa also discloses a computer-readable medium [0056] and system [0056]. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2, applies equally as well to those limitations of claims 9 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSAM TURKI SAMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-6803. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, Alternate Fridays.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached on (571)-272-4080. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
HUSAM TURKI SAMARA/Examiner, Art Unit 2161
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161