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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-23 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
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: similarity engine control unit configured to, of claims 1-12.
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 – i.e. the engine control unit represents a generic computing element.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction (i.e. advertising or sales activities, behaviors, or business relations)/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: selection of one or more seed records regarding one or more maintenance issues of one or more vehicles / output one or more first electronic signals that include the one or more seed records / including maintenance records / the one or more first electronic signals including the one or more seed records / search the maintenance records, and find one or more first return records including a subset of the maintenance records that are similar to the one or more seed records, and output one or more second electronic signals that include the one or more first return records / show the one or more first return records on the display / selection of relevancy of the one or more first return records to provide one or more first relevancy selections / output one or more third electronic signals that include the one or more first relevancy selections. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: selection of one or more seed records regarding one or more maintenance issues / including maintenance records / search the maintenance records, and find one or more first return records including a subset of the maintenance records that are similar to the one or more seed records. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a user interface including a display / an input device / database/ control unit in communication with the interface and the database, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 13 is directed to a method for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claim recites the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claim 13 performs the method of claim 1 using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-12, 14-23 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims further recite the additional element of using an AI/machine learning system, robots/ robots performing maintenance operations on the vehicle(s) based at least in part on one or more first relevancy selections / the vehicle being an aircraft. Using AI/machine learning does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Using robots/having robots perform vehicle maintenance operations based on criteria/selections does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The vehicle being an aircraft does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 5, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Dyehouse (WO 2024197284 A2).
As per Claims 1, 13, Dyehouse discloses a system and method comprising:
a user interface including a display and an input device, (the display/input device represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least para 98, 157 – input component and display/user interface.)
wherein the input device is configured for selection of one or more seed records regarding one or more maintenance issues of one or more vehicles, (at least: abstract – aircraft maintenance task requirement is construed as the seed record. At least par 157 – data is input in the input device.)
and wherein the user interface is further configured to output one or more first electronic signals that include the one or more seed records; (at least para 160 - outputting data, at least abstract – inputted data comprises the seed record.)
a records database including maintenance records for the one or more vehicles; (the database represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 90)
and a similarity engine control unit in communication with the user interface and the records database, wherein the similarity engine control unit is configured to: receive the one or more first electronic signals including the one or more seed records, (the unit represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 22 – computing processor is construed as the unit. At least: abstract, para 6- receiving the seed record.)
search the maintenance records within the records database, and find one or more first return records including a subset of the maintenance records that are similar to the one or more seed records, (at least: abstract, para 6: “The method further includes determining, by the server device, the set of maintenance task requirements for the aircraft by using the identification information for the aircraft to search a data structure that associates identification information for respective aircraft included in a group of aircraft with sets of maintenance task requirements for the respective aircraft in the group. The method further includes identifying, by the server device, aircraft records entries, of the set of aircraft records, that are to be used as compliance values for respective maintenance task requirements included in the set of maintenance task requirements, wherein the aircraft records entries are identified by using search keys to search the aircraft records to identify the aircraft records entries that are relevant to compliance with the respective maintenance task requirements. The method further includes determining, by the server device, whether the aircraft complies with the respective maintenance task requirements, wherein compliance is determined based on whether the compliance values satisfy one or more compliance rules. The method further includes generating, by the server device, the report providing the compliance information for the aircraft, where the compliance information indicates whether the aircraft complies with the respective maintenance requirements. The method further includes causing, by the server device, the report to be accessible via a user interface of an application used to manage the compliance of the aircraft with the set of maintenance task requirements.”)
and output one or more second electronic signals that include the one or more first return records to the user interface, wherein the user interface is configured to show the one or more first return records on the display, wherein the user interface is further configured for selection of relevancy of the one or more first return records to provide one or more first relevancy selections, and wherein the user interface is further configured to output one or more third electronic signals that include the one or more first relevancy selections. (at least: para 23: “The one or more instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine whether the aircraft complies with the respective maintenance task requirements, wherein compliance is determined based on whether the compliance values satisfy one or more compliance rules. The one or more instructions further cause the one or more processors to generate the report providing the compliance [AltContent: rect] information for the aircraft, where the compliance information indicates whether the aircraft complies with the respective maintenance requirements. The one or more instructions further cause the one or more processors to cause the report to be accessible via a user interface of an application used to manage the compliance of the aircraft with the set of maintenance task requirements.”, para 208: “ Fig. 10C is a diagram of an example user interface of the library view that includes a detailed view of one or more maintenance requirements (shown as inspection requirements) for an aircraft. For example, a user may select a maintenance requirements icon from the left side of the user interface. This may cause the user interface to update to display the corresponding maintenance requirements. In the example shown in Fig. 10C, the maintenance requirements document includes a list of relevant task codes. Each task code field is shown in association with a component/description/position field, an inspection type field, an interval field, a last compliance date (CW ) field, and an upcoming compliance due date field. If the user selects one of the task codes (e.g., which are provided as hyperlinks), the user interface may update to display the source document that issues the maintenance requirement. “)
As per Claims 2, 14, Dyehouse discloses receiving the third electronic signals having the one or more first relevancy selections, as noted above. Dyehouse further teaches:
further configured to: receive the one or more third electronic signals having the one or more first relevancy selections, search the maintenance records within the records database and find one or more second return records that are similar to the one or more first relevancy selections, (At least: para 22 – computing processor is construed as the unit. At least: abstract, para 6- receiving the seed record; at least: abstract, para 6: “The method further includes determining, by the server device, the set of maintenance task requirements for the aircraft by using the identification information for the aircraft to search a data structure that associates identification information for respective aircraft included in a group of aircraft with sets of maintenance task requirements for the respective aircraft in the group. The method further includes identifying, by the server device, aircraft records entries, of the set of aircraft records, that are to be used as compliance values for respective maintenance task requirements included in the set of maintenance task requirements, wherein the aircraft records entries are identified by using search keys to search the aircraft records to identify the aircraft records entries that are relevant to compliance with the respective maintenance task requirements. The method further includes determining, by the server device, whether the aircraft complies with the respective maintenance task requirements, wherein compliance is determined based on whether the compliance values satisfy one or more compliance rules. The method further includes generating, by the server device, the report providing the compliance information for the aircraft, where the compliance information indicates whether the aircraft complies with the respective maintenance requirements. The method further includes causing, by the server device, the report to be accessible via a user interface of an application used to manage the compliance of the aircraft with the set of maintenance task requirements.”)
and output one or more fourth electronic signals that include the one or more second return records to the user interface, wherein the user interface is configured to show the one or more second return records, wherein the user interface is further configured for selection of relevancy of the one or more second return records to provide one or more second relevancy selections, and wherein the user interface is further configured to output one or more fifth electronic signals including the one or more second relevancy selections. (at least: para 23: “The one or more instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine whether the aircraft complies with the respective maintenance task requirements, wherein compliance is determined based on whether the compliance values satisfy one or more compliance rules. The one or more instructions further cause the one or more processors to generate the report providing the compliance [AltContent: rect] information for the aircraft, where the compliance information indicates whether the aircraft complies with the respective maintenance requirements. The one or more instructions further cause the one or more processors to cause the report to be accessible via a user interface of an application used to manage the compliance of the aircraft with the set of maintenance task requirements.”, para 208: “ Fig. 10C is a diagram of an example user interface of the library view that includes a detailed view of one or more maintenance requirements (shown as inspection requirements) for an aircraft. For example, a user may select a maintenance requirements icon from the left side of the user interface. This may cause the user interface to update to display the corresponding maintenance requirements. In the example shown in Fig. 10C, the maintenance requirements document includes a list of relevant task codes. Each task code field is shown in association with a component/description/position field, an inspection type field, an interval field, a last compliance date (CW ) field, and an upcoming compliance due date field. If the user selects one of the task codes (e.g., which are provided as hyperlinks), the user interface may update to display the source document that issues the maintenance requirement. “)
As per Claims 5, 17, Dyehouse discloses:
the one or more vehicles comprise one or more aircraft. (at least: abstract)
As per Claims 8, 20, Dyehouse discloses:
further configured to select, at least in part, the one or more seed records. (at least:
abstract – aircraft maintenance task requirement is construed as the seed record. At least par 157 – data is input in the input device.)
As per Claims 11, 22, Dyehouse discloses:
the similarity engine control unit is an artificial intelligence (AI) or machine-learning system. (at least para 146; para 201: “Fig. 9 shows a process for verifying/determining whether an aircraft is compliant with all applicable airworthiness directives. Issues identified by these processes may be included in one or more of the reports that are generated and provided for [AltContent: rect] display on a user interface accessible to the user. In some embodiments, one or more of these issues may be identified using machine learning. For example, a data model may be trained on historical aircraft records data, such that the data model is able to efficiently identify issues or discrepancies and/or is able to predict issues that have yet to occur.”)
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.
Claims 3, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dyehouse (WO 2024197284 A2) in further view of Siddiqi (20200162315 ).
As per Claims 3, 15 , Dyehouse teaches relevancy selections, as noted above. Siddiqi further teaches:
further configured to establish an issue definition set based on the one or more first relevancy selections. (at least: para 19 – “ Sequences of client events are observed and recorded in order to generate a simplified definition of issues defined in terms of event patterns and associated with, for example and without imputing limitation, failure, roaming, and normal onboarding patterns. Using the simplified definitions, issues can be simulated by an issue simulation engine to validate issues detected by the network management and assurance service. In addition, the simplified definitions can be processed by a machine learning engine to perform clustering and issue prediction in order to increase the accuracy and speed of issue identification.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Dyehouse’s existing features, with Siddiqi’s feature of further configured to establish an issue definition set based on the one or more first relevancy selections, to allow for
issue validation by performing issue simulation and reproduction for detected issues - Siddiqi, para 19. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dyehouse (WO 2024197284 A2) in further view of Siddiqi (20200162315 ), in even further view of Wang ( 20200349529 ).
As per Claims 4, 16 , Dyehouse in view of Siddiqi teach maintenance records and the issue definition set, as noted above. Wang further teaches:
further configured to automatically label one or more of the maintenance records within the records database based on the issue definition set. ( at least: para 36)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Dyehouse’s existing features, combined with Siddiqi’s existing features, with Wang’s feature of further configured to automatically label one or more of the maintenance records within the records database based on the issue definition set, to label issue tickets – Wang, abstract.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 6, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dyehouse (WO 2024197284 A2) in further view of Giles (10379994 ).
As per Claims 6, 18 , Dyehouse teaches relevancy selections, as noted above. Giles further teaches:
selections comprise one or more true positives and one or more false positives.
(selection is a true positive – at least: col9, last para overlapping col10: “The filter rules execution engine 416 may be responsible for enforcing the rules determined by the filter rules engine 414 based on the user input identifying false positives and specifying a scope. The filter rules execution engine 416 may enforce rules based on their respective scope. In one example, the filter rules execution engine 416 may directly fetch rules for enforcement from the database 410 based on respective identifiers associated with the rules.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Dyehouse’s existing features, with Giles’s feature of selections comprise one or more true positives and one or more false positives, since false positive results may make the scanning and reporting process more cumbersome to the user, increase the computational load of a performing server and, in turn, degrade the user experience – Giles, col 1, lines 5-15. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 7, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dyehouse (WO 2024197284 A2) in further view of Giles (10379994 ) in even further view of Campbell (20190279762 ).
As per Claims 7, 19 , Dyehouse teaches relevancy selections, as noted above. Campbell further teaches:
selections further comprise one or more near-miss-negatives. (at least: para 70: “In an embodiment, the time period to which workload and near-miss data must correspond to be retrieve in step 415C may be user-specified. In such embodiments, step 415B may further include users 505 submitting or selecting a period of time in which workload and near-miss data must correspond to be retrieved in step 415C”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Dyehouse’s existing features, combined with Giles’s existing features, with Campbell’s feature of selections further comprise one or more near-miss-negatives, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 9, 10 , 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dyehouse (WO 2024197284 A2) in further view of Lecue (11442963 ).
As per Claim 9, Lecue further teaches:
further configured to: generate one or more semantic similarity charts; and show the one or more semantic similarity charts on the display. (at least: col5, lines 30-50: “ the generating of the combined graph based on the syntactic similarity includes determining a similarity score between respective syntactic features of the subset of first graph vectors and the subset of second graph vectors, and the generating of the combined graph based on the semantic similarity includes determining a similarity score between respective semantic features of the subset of first graph vectors and the subset of second graph vectors.”, at least col12, lines 30-50: “The input/output interface 150 may be coupled to a touchscreen 190 and/or to the one or more internal and/or external buses 160. The touchscreen 190 may be part of the display. In one or more embodiments, the touchscreen 190 is the display. The touchscreen 190 may equally be referred to as a screen 190. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, the touchscreen 190 comprises touch hardware 194 (e.g., pressure-sensitive cells embedded in a layer of a display allowing detection of a physical interaction between a user and the display) and a touch input/output controller 192 enabling communication with the display interface”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Dyehouse’s existing features, combined with Lecue’s feature of further configured to: generate one or more semantic similarity charts; and show the one or more semantic similarity charts on the display, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 10, Dyehouse in view of Lecue further teach:
the one or more semantic similarity charts show clusters of data. (Lecue, at least: col5, lines 30-50: “ the generating of the combined graph based on the syntactic similarity includes determining a similarity score between respective syntactic features of the subset of first graph vectors and the subset of second graph vectors, and the generating of the combined graph based on the semantic similarity includes determining a similarity score between respective semantic features of the subset of first graph vectors and the subset of second graph vectors.”; data subsets are construed as data clusters.)
As per Claim 21, Lecue further teaches:
further configured to: generate one or more semantic similarity charts; and show the one or more semantic similarity charts on the display. (at least: col5, lines 30-50: “ the generating of the combined graph based on the syntactic similarity includes determining a similarity score between respective syntactic features of the subset of first graph vectors and the subset of second graph vectors, and the generating of the combined graph based on the semantic similarity includes determining a similarity score between respective semantic features of the subset of first graph vectors and the subset of second graph vectors.”, at least col12, lines 30-50: “The input/output interface 150 may be coupled to a touchscreen 190 and/or to the one or more internal and/or external buses 160. The touchscreen 190 may be part of the display. In one or more embodiments, the touchscreen 190 is the display. The touchscreen 190 may equally be referred to as a screen 190. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, the touchscreen 190 comprises touch hardware 194 (e.g., pressure-sensitive cells embedded in a layer of a display allowing detection of a physical interaction between a user and the display) and a touch input/output controller 192 enabling communication with the display interface”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Dyehouse’s existing features, combined with Lecue’s feature of further configured to: generate one or more semantic similarity charts; and show the one or more semantic similarity charts on the display, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Dyehouse in view of Lecue further teach:
the one or more semantic similarity charts show clusters of data. (Lecue, at least: col5, lines 30-50: “ the generating of the combined graph based on the syntactic similarity includes determining a similarity score between respective syntactic features of the subset of first graph vectors and the subset of second graph vectors, and the generating of the combined graph based on the semantic similarity includes determining a similarity score between respective semantic features of the subset of first graph vectors and the subset of second graph vectors.”; data subsets are construed as data clusters.)
Claims 12, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Dyehouse (WO 2024197284 A2) in further view of Graham (20220135253).
As per Claim 12, Dyehouse teaches relevancy selections, as noted above. Graham further teaches:
comprising one or more robots configured to automatically perform one or more maintenance operations on the one or more vehicles based, at least in part, on the one or more first relevancy selections. (at least: abstract, para 42- workscope associated with each servicing operation is construed as a relevancy selection.)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Dyehouse’s existing features, with Graham’s feature of comprising one or more robots configured to automatically perform one or more maintenance operations on the one or more vehicles based, at least in part, on the one or more first relevancy selections, to allow for improved systems and methods of servicing equipment – Graham, para 4. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 23, Dyehouse teaches relevancy selections, as noted above. Graham further teaches:
automatically performing one or more maintenance operations on the one or more vehicles based, at least in part, on the one or more first relevancy selections. (at least: abstract, para 42- workscope associated with each servicing operation is construed as a relevancy selection.)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Dyehouse’s existing features, with Graham’s feature of automatically performing one or more maintenance operations on the one or more vehicles based, at least in part, on the one or more first relevancy selections, to allow for improved systems and methods of servicing equipment – Graham, para 4. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Skiles (20210097058 ) describes Aircraft Fault Troubleshooting Using Supplemented Aircraft Maintenance Log Data, Involves Determining Task Type, And Generating And Storing Supplemental Log Data Including Task Identifier And Task Type By Processors; however, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
3/31/2026
Prosecution Insights