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
Claims 1-20 of U.S. Application No. 19/060,289 filed on 02/21/2025 have been examined.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to the concept of tracking engine components. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The Examiner will further explain in view of the Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance:
Claims 1 is directed to a storage media to track engine components (i.e., an apparatus). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claims 1, 8 and 15 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites: An apparatus comprising:
non-transitory memory;
instructions in the apparatus;
and processor circuitry to execute the instructions to:
receive first information scanned from a first tag of a first engine module of an engine undergoing maintenance, the first information including an identifier of a second engine module of the engine, the first engine module exposed to temperatures below a threshold temperature;
determine that the second engine module is not to be replaced;
output instructions to replace the first tag of the first engine module with a second tag;
receive second information scanned from the second tag to obtain a new identifier of the second engine module;
and transmit the second information to a server, the server to update records for the second engine module based on the second information.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “determine …” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An apparatus comprising:
non-transitory memory;
instructions in the apparatus;
and processor circuitry to execute the instructions to:
receive first information scanned from a first tag of a first engine module of an engine undergoing maintenance, the first information including an identifier of a second engine module of the engine, the first engine module exposed to temperatures below a threshold temperature;
determine that the second engine module is not to be replaced;
output instructions to replace the first tag of the first engine module with a second tag;
receive second information scanned from the second tag to obtain a new identifier of the second engine module;
and transmit the second information to a server, the server to update records for the second engine module based on the second information.
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of “Memory, Processor” the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the determining, receiving, outputting and transmitting by a processor is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. The processor is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity and does not use the judicial exception 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 exception. The additional limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer processor.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “Memory, processor” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of Claims 1, 8 and 15.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheid et al. (US20110140866A1) in view of Martin (US4280185A), hereinafter referred to as Scheid and Martin respectively.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Scheid discloses
receive first information scanned from a first tag of a first engine module of an engine undergoing maintenance, the first information including an identifier of a second engine module of the engine (“The portable device 62 is used by maintenance technician 40 to access and write part information on the RFID tag 18 by communicating with the RFID tag 18 through a radio frequency signal…[0019]; “ A maintenance technician 40 can accordingly input into both or either RFID tags 18 and 50 information relating to the maintenance of these parts as well as other notes.” [0026]; “Using the portable device 62, the maintenance technician 40 prompts the RFID tag 18 to transmit part information to the portable device 62, which stores information in its memory.”[0022]; “part number, serial number, and part configuration” [0016]).
determine that the second engine module is not to be replaced ( “Once this information is obtained, then the portable device 62 formats part information, replacement part information (if part is replaced), aircraft identification, maintenance technician identification and notes concerning the nature of service, “ [0024]; “The portable device 62 may have programming that walks the maintenance technician 40 through the repair of the aircraft part 14 step by step.” and “A maintenance technician 40 removes or otherwise services the aircraft part 14. Using the portable device 62, the maintenance technician 40 prompts the RFID tag 18 to transmit part information to the portable device 62, which stores information in its memory. This part information is stored on the portable device 62 when the aircraft part 14 is either repaired or replaced.” [0022] and uses “service and revision history of the aircraft part 14 or any changes or revisions” [0016]).
output instructions to replace the first tag of the first engine module with a second tag ( “The portable device 62 can further write information wirelessly onto the RFID tag 18 as well as the RFID tag 50. A maintenance technician 40 can accordingly input into both or either RFID tags 18 and 50 information relating to the maintenance of these parts as well as other notes.” [0026], See also Claim 19: “transmitting new replacement part information from said portable device to said replacement part RFID tag, thereby causing said replacement part information to be overwritten with said new replacement part information”).
receive second information scanned from the second tag to obtain a new identifier of the second engine module ( “The maintenance technician 40 prompts the RFID tag 50 of the replacement part 46 to wirelessly transmit replacement part information to the portable device 62.” [0023]). The device receives and stores the transmitted information, which can include updated data.
transmit the second information to a server, the server to update records for the second engine module based on the second information ( “The portable device 62 transmits electronic document 34 to a remote location, such as an aircraft computer 58, which then relays the electronic document 34 to a cell tower 70, which passes the electronic document 34 to a second server 64 through the internet.” [0025], See also Abstract and Claim 17: “formatting the part information and the replacement part information into an electronic document, and wirelessly transmitting the electronic document to a server”).
Scheid does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory memory; instructions in the apparatus; and processor circuitry to execute the instructions;
the first engine module exposed to temperatures below a threshold temperature;
However, Martin does teach non-transitory memory; instructions in the apparatus; and processor circuitry to execute the instructions ( “a non-volatile memory, a life tracking unit (LTU), and a plurality of module identifier units… the LTU processor includes a real time clock for establishing real time periodic intervals for interrogating the module identifier units… said processing means storing each signal manifestation in said memory means at a location therein associated with the particular identifier unit…” [Col. 1, lines 57–59; Col. 1, lines 65–68; Col. 11, lines 36–39]).
the first engine module exposed to temperatures below a threshold temperature (” The waveguide material may be either a glass of the lead boro-silicate type for use on modules where the engine temperatures are less than 600° F. (316.1° C.), or alternatively for those engine locations where the ambient temperature may reach 1,000° F. (537.78° C.), a fused silica glass may be used.” [Col. 5, lines 28–33]).
Both Scheid and Martin teach methods for tracking engine components. However, Martin explicitly teaches a non-transitory memory; instructions in the apparatus; and processor circuitry to execute the instructions; the first engine module exposed to temperatures below a threshold temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability monitoring method of Scheid to also include a non-transitory memory; instructions in the apparatus; and processor circuitry to execute the instructions; the first engine module exposed to temperatures below a threshold temperature, as taught by Martin, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves tracking of engine components during maintenance cycles (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Martin, Col. 1, lines 57–59; Col. 1, lines 65–68; Col. 11, lines 36–39; Col. 5, lines 28–33]).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Scheid discloses wherein the second engine module is exposed to temperatures above the threshold temperature ( “The waveguide material may be either a glass of the lead boro-silicate type for use on modules where the engine temperatures are less than 600° F. (316.1° C.), or alternatively for those engine locations where the ambient temperature may reach 1,000° F. (537.78° C.), a fused silica glass may be used.” [Col. 5, lines 28–33]).
Both Scheid and Martin teach methods for tracking engine components. However, Martin explicitly teaches wherein the second engine module is exposed to temperatures above the threshold temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stability monitoring method of Scheid to also include wherein the second engine module is exposed to temperatures above the threshold temperature, as taught by Martin, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so improves tracking of engine components during maintenance cycles (With regard to this reasoning, see at least [Martin, Col. 5, lines 28–33]).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Scheid discloses wherein the processor circuitry is to determine that the second engine module is not to be replaced based on at least one of feedback from a technician or historical data corresponding to the second engine module, the historical data received from the server ( “The memory unit 26 can store… the service and revision history of the aircraft part 14 or any changes or revisions to the aircraft part 14 made by a maintenance technician.” [0016] ; “The portable device 62 may have programming that walks the maintenance technician 40 through the repair of the aircraft part 14 step by step.” [0022]; “The RFID tag 50 stores the replacement part 46 information, which is the same type of information as found on the RFID tag 18, such as revision history of the part, part configuration, service history, part number, serial number or other related information.” [0023]; “Once this information is obtained, then the portable device 62 formats part information, replacement part information (if part is replaced), aircraft identification, maintenance technician id entification and notes concerning the nature of service, “ [0024]).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Scheid discloses wherein the processor circuitry is to:
determine that maintenance is to be performed on the second engine module (“Once this information is obtained, then the portable device 62 formats part information, replacement part information (if part is replaced), aircraft identification, maintenance technician identification and notes concerning the nature of service, “ [0024]; “The portable device 62 may have programming that walks the maintenance technician 40 through the repair of the aircraft part 14 step by step.” [0022]; Scheid also stores and uses “service and revision history of the aircraft part 14 or any changes or revisions” [0016]).
and transmit third information related to the maintenance to the server (“The portable device 62 transmits electronic document 34 to a remote location, such as an aircraft computer 58, which then relays the electronic document 34 to a cell tower 70, which passes the electronic document 34 to a second server 64 through the internet.” [0025]; See also Abstract and Claim 17: “formatting the part information and the replacement part information into an electronic document, and wirelessly transmitting the electronic document to a server”).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Scheid discloses wherein the processor circuitry is to determine that maintenance is to be performed based on at least one of feedback from a technician or historical data corresponding to the second engine module, the historical data received from the server (“The memory unit 26 can store… the service and revision history of the aircraft part 14 or any changes or revisions to the aircraft part 14 made by a maintenance technician.” [0016]; “The portable device 62 may have programming that walks the maintenance technician 40 through the repair of the aircraft part 14 step by step.” [0022]; “The RFID tag 50 stores the replacement part 46 information, which is the same type of information as found on the RFID tag 18, such as revision history of the part, part configuration, service history, part number, serial number or other related information.” [0023]; “Once this information is obtained, then the portable device 62 formats part information, replacement part information (if part is replaced), aircraft identification, maintenance technician identification and notes concerning the nature of service, “ [0024]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Scheid discloses wherein the processor circuitry is to output instructions to replace a third tag of the second engine module with a fourth tag, the second tag being a duplicate of the fourth tag, the fourth tag storing the new identifier of the second engine module (“The portable device 62 can further write information wirelessly onto the RFID tag 18 as well as the RFID tag 50.” [0026]; Claim 19 “transmitting new replacement part information from said portable device to said replacement part RFID tag, thereby causing said replacement part information to be overwritten with said new replacement part information”).
Regarding claim 7, Scheid discloses further including a scanner to access the first information and the second information from the first tag and the second tag via a wireless communication, the processor circuitry to receive the first information and the second information from the scanner (“The portable device 62 is used by maintenance technician 40 to access and write part information on the RFID tag 18 by communicating with the RFID tag 18 through a radio frequency signal.” [0019]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED ALKIRSH whose telephone number is (703) 756-4503. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 pm 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 JABR can be reached on (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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights