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
The office action is being examined in response to the Amendments filed by the applicant on 24 June 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, and 17-24 are pending and have been examined, with claims 21-24 newly added and claims 4, 6, and 15-16 cancelled.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 112(f)
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The interpretations according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026, with regards to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) based on the interpretations according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been fully considered and they are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) based on interpretations according to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicants’ arguments, on page 8, asserting that adding an aircraft and a control unit including one or more processors to the independent claims, as structure, remove the abstract idea assertion and preempt the claims from reciting a mental process, i.e. performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper or merely performed on a computer used as a tool, are not persuasive. In fact, the aircraft and the control unit including one or more processors of claims 1, 10, and 20, are merely applied as tools to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. adding the words apply it. Both of the wherein limitations, added in claims 1, 10, and 20, are intended uses, such that they are operations that are merely configured to be performed using the instructions and technical documentation that is retrieved and hyperlinked in the claim, without positively reciting the performance of the instructions on the aircraft. Therefore, these limitations and the addition of the terms maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) do not alter the analyses for 35 U.S.C. § 101. The same applies for claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, 13-14, and 17-19. The analyses for claims 21-24 are included below.
With regards to the applicants’ assertions of a large quantity of data, such that the analyses via said computing device is quicker and more efficient, MPEP 2106.04(f) explicitly discloses that “"claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” Further, the computing structures of the control unit are recited at a high level of generality, such that the processor could be any off the shelf processor. An off the shelf processor is not a specialized computing structure when it could be replaced by any processor, as claimed.
Please find the updated 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection below, reflecting the amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is Maintained.
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 17-18, and 20 which have all been updated to 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections without new grounds for rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 4, 6, 15, and 16 have been fully considered and they are Moot. Therefore these claims have been cancelled as requested.
Applicant presented arguments for claims 10 and 19, with regards to 35 U.S.C. § 103, which have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new limitation presented in the amendments.
The applicants’ assertions, on page 10, that Bathwal’s disclosure teaches away from the instant claim 1 in [0002], [0017], [0019], [0043], [0056], and [0061], are not persuasive. In order for a disclosure to teach away from claim language, the instant claim language asserted in the arguments must be relevant to the language recited in the claims. According to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claim 1, there are no limitations that match the applicants’ assertions about their claim 1 to perform “searching through and selecting hyperlinks,” because the claim language, instead recites generating hyperlinks after searching. Therefore, these assertions are not probative nor persuasive. Further, the applicant’s arguments, on pages 10-11, are not persuasive since the updated rejection asserts obviousness according to 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on multiple prior art disclosures versus a single prior art of Bathwal alone.
The applicants’ prior art arguments cannot be traced to actual claim language. The Bathwal features, without a discussion of the actual claim language, are not germane to the assertions made by the applicant. The Examiner is unable to follow the logic or reach the same conclusions based on the asserted analyses, due to at least this departure from the claim language. Therefore, the arguments regarding the non-existing claim 1 limitations as compared to the prior art citations are not persuasive nor probative.
The applicants’ assertions from the paragraph that bridges page 10-11, arguing that Bathwal does not disclose specific new instant claim 1 limitations, are persuasive because these limitations were amendments rolling claims 4 and 6 into the independent claims. Therefore, the claim rejections are altered to become 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections utilizing the same prior art as used in claims 4 and 6, updated for clarity based on the newer context.
Please find the updated and new grounds for 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections below for claims 10 and 19, and the amended and updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below for the remaining active claims, reflecting the amendments.
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims
Regarding Claims 1 and 12: The claims recite: detect technical documentation in work instructions, automatically find technical documentation as detected, and automatically generate a hyperlink work instruction. These three limitations, detect, find, and generate, are all abstract ide in the categories of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" in the subcategory of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
The specification in at least [0003]-[0006], and [0055] disclose that the claimed steps replace human tasks typically manually performed by skilled technicians during the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) process. Providing links to disparately sourced data, directly on a work order, updates traditional methods of finding technical documentation done by the technicians. This modification impacts on the behaviors of individuals and relationships and interactions between groups of technicians. Further, the links simplify and accelerate identifying and linking technical work instructions for commercial aircraft MRO processes, which is in the abstract idea category of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," more specifically, organizing human activities in commercial interactions including business relations.
Step 2A Prong 2: Insofar as the claims 1 and 12 recite receive work instructions, the specification does not reveal advances in sending, receiving, or displaying data.
The additional element recited in claims 1 and 12 are an aircraft and the control unit including processors. The aircraft and control unit containing processors are recited at a high level of generality. Therefore, they are a general aircraft, and general-purpose computing structures recited for performing the instructions of the claims.
The claim recites and the specification discloses general-purpose computing structures and a general-purpose aircraft, recited for performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem. Further, these structures are disclosed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, i.e. any aircraft or control unit with processors may be substituted without limit. The computing structure is applied as a tool to perform the instructions to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. adding “apply it” to the judicial exception. The aircraft is merely included in the claim as a structure that is intended to be used to perform the overhaul on, without positive recitation of actively performing the repairs, therefore, it is also merely applied as a tool, i.e. “apply it.”
The control unit with processor and database are general-purpose computing structures are disclosed in the specification at a high level of generality.
The claim recites and the specification discloses general-purpose computing structures, including the robot performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem. Further, these structures are disclosed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, the same analysis applies to these claims, as the independent claims. The additional elements are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception, do not effect a transformation, do not improve the functioning of a computer, robot, or component. Lastly, the claims do not apply the additional element to the use of the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond “apply it.” Therefore, the claims, as a whole, are no more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. The additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Instead, the specification is focused on the nature of the data being manipulated - i.e. the descriptive nature of the data. Manipulating characterized data into alternately characterized data is not a transformation, i.e. data is data. The claims are merely executing the instructions recited in the claims, via general-purpose computing structures that are all incidental or token additions to the claim. That is, the computing structures do not alter how the steps of the claims are performed. The data is merely input into and returned from these structures, without detailing what occurs in between. The computing structures do not alter the steps of receiving, detecting, finding, generating, or including. Therefore, the claims are no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract ideas. That is, the judicial exceptions are not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond being generally linked and applied using the additional elements as tools (MPEP 2106.05(e).
The claims recite elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Practical Application: The claims as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Significantly more: This analysis for significantly more is commensurate with the analysis above. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 20: The claim recites: detect technical documentation in work instructions, automatically find technical documentation as detected, automatically generate a hyperlink work instruction, and encode parameters in the hyperlink, which are all abstract ideas in the categories of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" in the subcategory of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People. The specification in at least [0003]-[0006], and [0055] disclose that the claimed steps replace human tasks typically manually performed by skilled technicians during the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) process. Providing links to disparately sourced data, directly on a work order, updates traditional methods of finding technical documentation done by the technicians. These modifications impact the behaviors of individuals and relationships and interactions between groups of technicians. Further, the hyperlinks simplify and accelerate identifying and linking technical work instructions for commercial aircraft MRO processes, which is in the abstract idea category of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," more specifically, organizing human activities in commercial interactions including business relations.
Step 2A Prong 2: Insofar as the claim 20 recites receive work instructions and show work instructions, the specification does not reveal advances in sending, receiving, or displaying data.
The additional elements recited in claim 20 are a user interface, display, input device, computerized technical sub-systems, control unit, and pattern database, interpreted according to at least specification [0015] and [0046]-[0050]. The specification in at least [0003]-[0006], and [0055] discloses that the claimed steps replace human tasks typically manually performed by skilled technicians during the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) process. Providing links to disparately sourced data, directly on a work order, updates traditional methods of finding technical documentation done by the technicians.
The claim recites and the specification discloses general-purpose computing structures performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem. Further, these structures are disclosed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. The computing structure is applied as a tool to perform the instructions to implement the abstract ideas, i.e. adding “apply it” to the judicial exception.
The specification discloses, in at least [0004]-[0006], [0052]-[0055], and [0081], that human technicians historically perform the functions of the claims. These sections of the specification disclose that the system, utilizing the control unit comprising general-purpose computing structures, improves upon the efficiency and speed of the system over the historical method of performance. According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “"claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.” The specification does not reveal advances to general purpose computing structures or to data analysis techniques performed as instructions implemented by a computing structure implementing the instructions of the claims. Therefore, the improvements disclosed in the specification, do not meet the metrics under MPEP 2106.05(a), since the steps do not improve the functioning of a computer, the functioning of general-purpose algorithms, or the functioning of general-purpose artificial neural networks.
Instead, the specification is focused on the nature of the data being manipulated - i.e. the descriptive nature of the data. Manipulating characterized data into alternately characterized data is not a transformation, i.e. data is data. The claims are merely executing the instructions recited in the claims, via general-purpose computing structures, that are all incidental or token additions to the claim. That is, the computing structures do not alter how the steps of the claims are performed. The data is merely input into and returned from these structures, without detailing what occurs in between. The computing structures do not alter the steps of receiving, detecting, finding, generating, or including. Therefore, the claims are no more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract ideas. That is, the judicial exceptions are not applied or used in some other meaningful way beyond being generally linked and applied using the additional elements as tools (MPEP 2106.05(e).
The claim recites elements that are merely characterizations of data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information limitations that are not abstract ideas, do not carry patentable weight, and cannot be relied on to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Practical Application: The claims as a whole, while looking at the additional elements individually and as a combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Significantly more: This analysis for significantly more is commensurate with the analysis above. Therefore, for the same reasons disclosed above, the additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, when taken individually and in combination, also do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims
Regarding Claims 2 and 15: Insofar as the claims recite show work instructions, the specification does not reveal advances to displaying data. The claim recites the user interface, display, and input device as additional elements, i.e. general purpose computing structures. However, since the claims do not recite abstract ideas, the claim cannot be integrated, via the additional elements, into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14: Insofar as the claims recite input data at and receive data through a user interface, the specification does not reveal advances to inputting, sending or receiving data, or to graphical user interfaces. The claims are focused on the nature of the data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information, without reciting any functions. Since the claims do not recite abstract ideas, the claim cannot be integrated, via the additional elements, into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding Claim 5: These claims further define limitations from the independent claims. The claims recite: the system comprises one or more computerized sub-systems, which is not an abstract idea, but is an additional element. The claims do not positively recite any functions. Since the claim does not recite any abstract ideas, the claim cannot be integrated, via the additional elements, into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claims 7 and 17: The claims recite detect data in the work instruction through pattern data. This is an abstract idea in the same categories as the independent claims because it performs the same functions of detecting, further limited through characterized data. The claims store pattern data, however, the specification does not reveal advances to storing data or to databases. The claim is comprised of the same control unit, and adds the pattern database. The control unit with processor and database are general-purpose computing structures are disclosed in the specification at a high level of generality.
The claim recites and the specification discloses general-purpose computing structures, including the robot performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem. Further, these structures are disclosed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, the same analysis applies to these claims, as the independent claims. The additional elements are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception, do not effect a transformation, do not improve the functioning of a computer, robot, or component. Lastly, the claims do not apply the additional element to the use of the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond “apply it.” Therefore, the claims, as a whole, are no more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. The additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding Claim 8: The claim further defines limitations from the independent claims, but do not positively recite any functions. The claim recites that the hyperlinks comprise dynamic hyperlinks. The claim is focused on the nature of the data, i.e. non-functional descriptive information, without reciting any functions. Since the claim does not recite any abstract ideas, the claim cannot be integrated, via the additional elements, into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claims 9 and 18: The claims recite generate hyperlinked data by encoding data. This is an abstract idea in the same categories as the independent claims 1 and 12 because it performs the same functions of detecting, adding the further limitation of encoding data. The claim is comprised of the same control unit. The control unit with processor and database are general-purpose computing structures are disclosed in the specification at a high level of generality.
The claim recites and the specification discloses general-purpose computing structures, including the robot performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem. Further, these structures are disclosed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, the same analysis applies to these claims, as the independent claims. The additional elements are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception, do not effect a transformation, do not improve the functioning of a computer, robot, or component. Lastly, the claims do not apply the additional element to the use of the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond “apply it.” Therefore, the claims, as a whole, are no more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. The additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding claims 10 and 19: The claims recite perform operations according to the hyperlinked data, which is an abstract idea in the same categories as the independent claims. The claim recites the following additional elements: the claim is comprised of the same control unit with processor as the independent claims, and adds a robot and a robot component. The control unit with processors are general-purpose computing structures implementing the claim instructions. The robot and control unit with processor are merely computing structures disclosed in the specification at a high level of generality.
The specification discloses the robot in [0040]-[0044]. In [0044] the disclosure states that the robot may not be implemented at all. Further, the paragraphs [0040]-[0044] disclose many details that may or may not be incorporated into a robot. These sections of the specification also disclose that the control unit may or may not control a robot, where the control may or may not be automatically applied. The specification discloses the robot according to its physical components, at a high level of detail, however, the component detail may or may not be applicable to a robot implemented at any point in the invention, and the robot may or may not even be applied. Therefore, the robot is effectively disclosed at a high level of generality, i.e. the robot is a general-purpose computing structure in general-purpose physical structure that implements instructions of the claims. The specification does not reveal advances to robotics or implementing robotics to perform MRO work instructions with or without links.
The components are broadly disclosed as a part of the aircraft that is only defined according to the work instruction. Therefore, the component is contingent on the work instruction. Further, the robot is contingent on the component needing operations, and the operations required according to the work instructions and the hyperlinks. The component is, therefore, a general-purpose component, typically of an aircraft.
Therefore, like the independent claims, the abstract ideas of claims 10 and 19 are generally linked to the additional elements, general-purpose computing structures, a robot, and component contingent on the hyperlinked instructions. These additional elements are all applied as tools to perform the instructions of the claims, i.e. “apply it.” Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, they are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception.
The claim recites and the specification discloses general-purpose computing structures, including the robot performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem. Further, these structures are disclosed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, the same analysis applies to these claims, as the independent claims. The additional elements are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception, do not effect a transformation, do not improve the functioning of a computer, robot, or component. Lastly, the claims do not apply the additional element to the use of the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond “apply it.” Therefore, the claims, as a whole, are no more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. The additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 11: The claim further defines limitations from the claim from which it depends, but does not positively recite any functions, nor abstract ideas. The claim recites that the control unit comprises an artificial neural network, which is an additional element. The claim is focused on the nature of the additional element, i.e. the nature of the software element implemented by the control unit, without reciting any functions. Since the claim does not recite any abstract ideas, the claims cannot be integrated, via the additional element, into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claims 21 and 23: The claims recite the same search and generate limitations from claims 1 and 12, with a new perform instructions to call systems function, which are an abstract idea in the same categories as the independent claims. The claim recites the following additional elements: the claim is comprised of the same control unit with processor as the independent claims, and adds an API and technical sub-systems. The control unit with processors are general-purpose computing structures implementing the claim instructions. The robot and control unit with processor are merely computing structures disclosed in the specification at a high level of generality.
The specification discloses the robot in [0040]-[0044]. In [0044] the disclosure states that the robot may not be implemented at all. Further, the paragraphs [0040]-[0044] disclose many details that may or may not be incorporated into a robot. These sections of the specification also disclose that the control unit may or may not control a robot, where the control may or may not be automatically applied. The specification discloses the robot according to its physical components, at a high level of detail, however, the component detail may or may not be applicable to a robot implemented at any point in the invention, and the robot may or may not even be applied. Therefore, the robot is effectively disclosed at a high level of generality, i.e. the robot is a general-purpose computing structure in general-purpose physical structure that implements instructions of the claims. The specification does not reveal advances to robotics or implementing robotics to perform MRO work instructions with or without links.
The components are broadly disclosed as a part of the aircraft that is only defined according to the work instruction. Therefore, the component is contingent on the work instruction. Further, the robot is contingent on the component needing operations, and the operations required according to the work instructions and the hyperlinks. The component is, therefore, a general-purpose component, typically of an aircraft.
Therefore, like the independent claims, the abstract ideas of claims 10 and 19 are generally linked to the additional elements, general-purpose computing structures, a robot, and component contingent on the hyperlinked instructions. These additional elements are all applied as tools to perform the instructions of the claims, i.e. “apply it.” Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, they are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception.
The claim recites and the specification discloses general-purpose computing structures, including the robot performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem. Further, these structures are disclosed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, the same analysis applies to these claims, as the independent claims. The additional elements are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception, do not effect a transformation, do not improve the functioning of a computer, robot, or component. Lastly, the claims do not apply the additional element to the use of the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond “apply it.” Therefore, the claims, as a whole, are no more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. The additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Regarding claim 22: The claim further defines limitations from the claim from which it depends, but does not positively recite any functions, nor abstract ideas. The claim recites that the control unit comprises an artificial neural network, which is an additional element. The claim is focused on the nature of the additional element, i.e. the nature of the software element implemented by the control unit, without reciting any functions. Since the claim does not recite any abstract ideas, the claims cannot be integrated, via the additional element, into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 24: The claim further defines limitations from the claim from which it depend. The claim recites instructions to automatically control a structure, recited at a high level of generality. Since the claim recites the performing function of claim 12, through claim 19, the abstract idea of performing operations is effectively recited alongside the associated abstract idea previously identified. The same additional elements from claim 12 and claim 19 are invoked, in addition to the added robot additional element. The robot is being applied as a tool to perform the operations based on the instructions. Therefore, the robot, the control unit with a processor, all of the physical robot structures from claim 19, and the aircraft and aircraft component from claim 12, are each applied as tools to achieve the claimed performing of operations, recited in claim 24 through claim 19 and claim 12.
The specification discloses the robot in [0040]-[0044]. In [0044] the disclosure states that the robot may not be implemented at all. Further, the paragraphs [0040]-[0044] disclose many details that may or may not be incorporated into a robot. These sections of the specification also disclose that the control unit may or may not control a robot, where the control may or may not be automatically applied. The specification discloses the robot according to its physical components, at a high level of detail, however, the component detail may or may not be applicable to a robot implemented at any point in the invention, and the robot may or may not even be applied. Therefore, the robot is effectively disclosed at a high level of generality, i.e. the robot is a general-purpose computing structure in general-purpose physical structure that implements instructions of the claims. The specification does not reveal advances to robotics or implementing robotics to perform MRO work instructions with or without links.
The components are broadly disclosed as a part of the aircraft that is only defined according to the work instruction. Therefore, the component is contingent on the work instruction. Further, the robot is contingent on the component needing operations, and the operations required according to the work instructions and the hyperlinks. The component is, therefore, a general-purpose component, typically of an aircraft.
Therefore, like the independent claim 12 and depending claim 90, the abstract idea of claim 24 is generally linked to the additional elements, general-purpose computing structures, a robot, and component contingent on the hyperlinked instructions. These additional elements are all applied as tools to perform the instructions of the claims, i.e. “apply it.” Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, they are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception.
The claim recites and the specification discloses general-purpose computing structures, including the robot performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem. Further, these structures are disclosed with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Insofar as the additional elements are generally applied as tools, the same analysis applies to these claims, as the independent claims. The additional elements are also generally linked to the use of the judicial exception, do not effect a transformation, do not improve the functioning of a computer, robot, or component. Lastly, the claims do not apply the additional element to the use of the abstract ideas in some other meaningful way beyond “apply it.” Therefore, the claims, as a whole, are no more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. The additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 17-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bathwal, US20240281487A1, in view of Krauter, US20100175013A1, and in further view of Curd, US20200193392A1.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12: Bathwal discloses: a control unit including one or more processors configured to: receive a work instruction, [0034] (Processor of a computing device), [0025] (receive document, i.e. work instructions);
Aircraft: [0162] (aircraft);
detect technical documentation within the work instruction, automatically find the technical documentation, as detected within the work instruction, within technical documentation data stored within one or more computerized technical sub-systems including, engineering drawings, flag notes, and parts list; [0060-0061 and 0070] (parts lists), [0017] (multiple sources of data, i.e. computerized subsystems for retrieving data), [0035] (engineering documents that may include drawings), [0061] (footnotes and endnotes), [0025-0026] (summarization engine configured to summarize the content of retrieved documents using cross-document summarization techniques that includes extraction and amalgamation of content from a diverse array of documents according to the received document; discerning and weaving together data, that may be technical, from the originally received document, i.e. work instruction, from a variety of documents in various locations), [0187] (technical documentation);
automatically generate a hyperlinked work instruction including one or more hyperlinks to the technical documentation stored within the one or more computerized technical sub-systems. [0043] (citations, i.e. excerpts from within the documentation data, i.e. the technical documentation within the work instructions, are generated into links to the original document, i.e. hyperlinks are formed that link to a source document, stored in each applicable sub-system that may be technical in characterization), [0056] (providing/generating hyperlinks), [0064] (the system retrieves citations/data from multiple sources), [0131-0133] (data retrieved from the documentation is updated in real-time, i.e. dynamic, real-time updates are incorporated without user intervention), [0187] (technical documentation);
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses, Krauter teaches: maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) work instruction for an aircraft, MRO work instruction includes information regarding one or more operations to be performed in relation to one or more components of the aircraft, wherein the one or more operations are configured to be performed in relation to the one or more components of the aircraft according to the MRO work instruction; including an aircraft maintenance manual; an aircraft illustrated parts catalog, parts list, engineering drawings, flag notes; [0025 and 0051] and (Fig. 1) (at least maintenance/service methods for aircraft, i.e. an aircraft maintenance manual), [0064] (the system retrieves citations/data from multiple sources), [0060-0061 and 0070] (parts lists), [0059] (product database and instructions database, i.e. parts catalogs, parts lists, build and maintenance manuals, engineering drawings, and aircraft maintenance manuals, [Fig. 3] (an illustrated aircraft parts manual), [0048-0052] (sub-systems that are comprised of the recited elements including instructions for repair and service of aircraft, e.g. customized electronic work scope, i.e. customized MRO work instructions), [0060-0061 and 0070] (engineering drawings and CAD models, which include parts lists and flag notes).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses and Krauter does not teach or partially teaches, Curd further teaches: an aircraft maintenance manual, an aircraft illustrated parts catalog. [0035] “the module lists and disassembly structures for each engine (or other asset type) model. The work scope creation component uses these structures once a user has selected an engine (or another asset) he/she will be working. Once an engine (or other asset) is selected, the application can look up the corresponding engine (or other asset) model and load the appropriate template for that engine (or other asset) family,” (i.e. maintenance manual and parts catalogs for aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where each of the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Regarding Claims 2 and 13: Bathwal discloses, and Krauter and Curd teach: The system of claim 1/method of claim 12, further comprising
Bathwal discloses: a user interface comprising a display and an input device, wherein the control unit is in communication with the user interface, and wherein the control unit is further configured to show the work instruction on the display. [0180] (display elements provide display output of the data including hyperlinks).
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses, Krauter teaches: MRO work instruction: [0025 and 0051] and (Fig. 1) (at least maintenance/service methods for aircraft, i.e. an aircraft maintenance manual).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Regarding Claims 3 and 14: Bathwal discloses, and Krauter and Curd teach: The system of claim 2, wherein
Bathwal discloses: the work instruction is configured to be input through the user interface, and wherein the control unit is configured to receive the work instruction from the user interface. [0180] (input/output devices, i.e. keyboards, pointers, displays, to receive and display data; system is configured to receive the work instruction through input at input devices; System is also configured to receive the documents through the interfaces).
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses, Krauter teaches: MRO work instruction: [0025 and 0051] and (Fig. 1) (at least maintenance/service methods for aircraft, i.e. an aircraft maintenance manual).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 5: Bathwal discloses, and Krauter and Curd teach: The system of claim 1, further comprising
Bathwal discloses: the one or more computerized technical sub-systems. [0017] (multiple sources of data, i.e. computerized subsystems for retrieving data).
Regarding Claims 7 and 17: Bathwal discloses, and Krauter and Curd teach: The system of claim 1,
Bathwal discloses: further comprising a pattern database configured to store pattern data, wherein the control unit is in communication with the pattern database, and wherein the control unit is configured to detect the technical documentation within the work instruction through the pattern data. [0044] (Inferred information and/or context may be further identified by pattern recognition operations, patterns are recognized indicating intents or classifications, types of documents, and similar), [0063] (a database storing data, used by the control unit to find documents according to the specific inquiry, in this case, according to patterns; the database is used to store key content segments, similar to the pattern data stored in the pattern database in the instant application).
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses, Krauter teaches: MRO work instruction: [0025 and 0051] and (Fig. 1) (at least maintenance/service methods for aircraft, i.e. an aircraft maintenance manual).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 8: Bathwal discloses, & Krauter & Curd teach: The system of claim 1,
Bathwal discloses: wherein the one or more hyperlinks comprise one or more dynamic hyperlinks. [0043] (citations, i.e. excerpts from within the documentation data, i.e. the technical documentation within the work instructions, are generated into links to the original document, i.e. hyperlinks are formed that link to a source document, stored in each applicable sub-system that may be technical in characterization), [0056] (providing/generating hyperlinks), [0064] (the system retrieves citations/data from multiple sources), [0131-0133] (data retrieved from the documentation is updated in real-time, i.e. dynamic, real-time updates are incorporated without user intervention).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18: Bathwal discloses, & Krauter & Curd teach: The system of claim 1,
Bathwal discloses: wherein the control unit is configured to automatically generate the hyperlinked work instruction by, at least in part, encoding parameters into the one or more hyperlinks. [0043] (citations, i.e. excerpts from within the documentation data, i.e. the technical documentation within the work instructions, are generated into links to the original document, i.e. hyperlinks are formed that link to a source document, stored in each applicable sub-system that may be technical in characterization), [0056] (providing/generating hyperlinks), [0064] (the system retrieves citations/data from multiple sources), [0067-0069] (parameters are applied to results), [0085] identified parameters are added to the collected documentation, where hyperlinks are formed with the parameters embedded, the hyperlinks direct back to the original documentation, e.g. instructions are documentation), [0180] (display elements provided display output of the data).
Where Bathwal does not disclose, Krauter teaches: MRO work instruction: [0025 and 0051] and (Fig. 1) (at least maintenance/service methods for aircraft, i.e. an aircraft maintenance manual).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 11: Bathwal discloses, & Krauter and Curd teach: The system of claim 1,
Bathwal discloses: wherein the control unit comprises an artificial neural network. [0141-0146] (the system comprises at least neural networks utilizing artificial intelligence).
Regarding claim 21: Bathwal discloses, & Krauter and Curd teach: The system of claim 8/The method of claim 18
Bathwal discloses: wherein the control unit is further configured to: perform application programming interface (API) calls to the one or more computerized technical sub-systems,, [0016] (An API, i.e. instruction instances, protocols, structures, and techniques), [0033] (communication infrastructure (e.g., network connections, protocols, etc.), or the like that implement operations laid out in the instructions of the claims),
search for the technical documentation data stored within the one or more computerized technical sub-systems, [0025-0026] (summarization engine configured to search and retrieve documents, summarize the content of said documents using cross-document summarization techniques that includes extraction and amalgamation of content from a diverse array of documents according to the received document; discerning and weaving together data, that may be technical, from the originally received document, i.e. work instruction, from a variety of documents in various sub-system locations), [0061] (system search through documents that outputs a summary, assisting the user, where the user may still access and open the hyperlinked documents, however the summary provides a summary without requiring the user to access said hyperlinked documents each and every time);
and generate the one more hyperlinks, [0043] (citations, i.e. excerpts from within the documentation data, i.e. the technical documentation within the work instructions, are generated into links to the original document, i.e. hyperlinks are formed that link to a source document, stored in each applicable sub-system that may be technical in characterization), [0056] (providing/generating hyperlinks), [0064] (the system retrieves citations/data from multiple sources), [0067-0069] (parameters are applied to results), [0085] (identified parameters are added to the collected documentation, where hyperlinks are formed with the parameters embedded, the hyperlinks direct back to the original documentation, e.g. instructions are documentation), [0187] (technical documentation);
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses, Krauter teaches:
technical documents; [0011] (technical documents that are linked from the work instructions for the product and every configuration);
and generate the one more dynamic MRO hyperlinks; [0167] (work instructions are altered, i.e. generated again, when the model is altered such that the links will always retrieve the most recent and up to data technical documentation data, i.e. the hyperlinks are dynamically updated), [0052] (MRO work instructions);
wherein the one or more MRO hyperlinks are configured to retrieve a latest, most up-to- date version of the technical documentation data. [0052] (MRO work instructions) [0167] (work instructions are altered, i.e. generated again, when the model is altered such that the links will always retrieve the most recent and up to data technical documentation data), [0025 and 0051] and (Fig. 1) (at least maintenance/service methods for aircraft, i.e. an aircraft maintenance manual).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Regarding claim 22. Bathwal discloses, & Krauter & Curd teach: The system of claim 10,
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses and Krauter does not teach, Curd teaches: wherein the control unit is further configured to automatically control operation of the robot to perform the one or more operations in relation to the one or more components according to the hyperlinked MRO work instruction. [0005] “present invention is directed to approaches that prepare work scopes (e.g., ordered instructions that allow for the sequential disassembly of an asset) such as an aircraft engine. The instructions so created may be electronic and control the operation of robots at a repair facility,” (i.e. MRO work instructions), [0012] “customized electronic work scope comprises or causes the creation of electronic control signals that control operation of the robot.” [0049] (The robot 114 may include a control circuit that executes electronic instructions or computer code that performs these instructions. The robot 114 also includes electronic communication interfaces allowing it to communicate with the cloud.), [0066] (this may be an automated process, i.e. the robot automatically performs the operations in relation to the repair of the components based on the hyperlinked work instruction for repair of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Regarding claim 23. Bathwal discloses, & Krauter & Curd teach: The method of claim 18,
Bathwal discloses: further comprising: performing, by the control unit, application programming interface (API) calls to the one or more computerized technical sub-systems, [0016] (An API, i.e. instruction instances, protocols, structures, and techniques), [0033] (communication infrastructure (e.g., network connections, protocols, etc.), or the like that implement operations laid out in the instructions of the claims);
searching, by the control unit, for the technical documentation data stored within the one or more computerized technical sub-systems, and [0191] (operations are processor driven, i.e. control unit comprising a processor performed), [0025-0026] (summarization engine configured to search and retrieve documents, summarize the content of said documents using cross-document summarization techniques that includes extraction and amalgamation of content from a diverse array of documents according to the received document; discerning and weaving together data, that may be technical, from the originally received document, i.e. work instruction, from a variety of documents in various sub-system locations), [0061] (system search through documents that outputs a summary, assisting the user, where the user may still access and open the hyperlinked documents, however the summary provides a summary without requiring the user to access said hyperlinked documents each and every time);
generating, by the control unit, the one more dynamic hyperlinks, wherein the one or more hyperlinks are configured to retrieve a latest, most up-to- date version of the documentation data. [0043] (citations, i.e. excerpts from within the documentation data, i.e. the technical documentation within the work instructions, are generated into links to the original document, i.e. hyperlinks are formed that link to a source document, stored in each applicable sub-system that may be technical in characterization), [0056] (providing/generating hyperlinks), [0064] (the system retrieves citations/data from multiple sources), [0131-0133] (data retrieved from the documentation is updated in real-time, i.e. dynamic, real-time updates are incorporated without user intervention), [0187] (technical documentation), [0191] (operations are processor driven, i.e. control unit comprising a processor performs the instructions), [0067-0069] (parameters are applied to results), [0085] (identified parameters are added to the collected documentation, where hyperlinks are formed with the parameters embedded, the hyperlinks direct back to the original documentation, e.g. instructions are documentation);
Where Bathwal does not disclose, Krauter teaches:
technical documents; [0011] (technical documents that are linked from the work instructions for the product and every configuration);
and generate the one more dynamic MRO hyperlinks, [0167] (work instructions are altered, i.e. generated again, when the model is altered such that the links will always retrieve the most recent and up to data technical documentation data, i.e. the hyperlinks are dynamically updated), [0052] (MRO work instructions);
wherein the one or more MRO hyperlinks are configured to retrieve a latest, most up-to- date version of the technical documentation data. [0167] (work instructions are altered, i.e. generated again, when the model is altered such that the links will always retrieve the most recent and up to data technical documentation data, i.e. the hyperlinks are dynamically updated), [0025 and 0051] and (Fig. 1) (at least maintenance/service methods for aircraft, i.e. an aircraft maintenance manual).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Regarding claim 24. Bathwal discloses, & Krauter & Curd teach: The method of claim 19,
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses, and Krauter does not teach, Curd teaches: wherein said performing comprises automatically controlling, by the control unit, operation of the robot. [0005] “present invention is directed to approaches that prepare work scopes (e.g., ordered instructions that allow for the sequential disassembly of an asset) such as an aircraft engine. The instructions so created may be electronic and control the operation of robots at a repair facility,” [0012] “customized electronic work scope comprises or causes the creation of electronic control signals that control operation of the robot,” [0049] (The robot 114 may include a control circuit that executes electronic instructions or computer code that performs these instructions. The robot 114 also includes electronic communication interfaces allowing it to communicate with the cloud), [0066] (this may be an automated process, i.e. the robot automatically performs the operations in relation to the repair of the components based on the hyperlinked work instruction for repair of the aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bathwal, US20240281487A1, in view of Krauter, US20100175013A1, in further view of Curd, US20200193392A1 and In further view of Mealy, US20260241578A1.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19: Bathwal discloses, and Krauter and Curd teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Bathwal does not disclose and Krauter does not teach, Curd teaches: further comprising a robot, wherein the robot comprises:[0032] (system comprises a robot);
wherein the robot is configured to perform the one or more operations in relation to the one or more components a component according to the hyperlinked MRO work instruction, [0032] (the robot is configured to execute a work scope), [0034] (the robot performs the repair operations from the work instruction), [0035] (work instruction is supplied via a web application, implicitly disclosing the use of hyperlinks, i.e. the robot performs the work instructions supplied by the web application implicitly comprising hyperlinked work instructions), [0062] (web-based application through a web-based interface.)
wherein the robot comprises: a platform; [0048] (a robot in a fixed location, implicitly disclosing a robot mounted on a platform, such as the floor as a base).
a positioner including articulated arms coupled together through movable joints; [0049] (arms, where it would be reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that arms are implicitly jointed, with moveable sections, through which the arms are coupled and articulated, that a robot may exist without a central body, such that the arms may be connected together, i.e. coupled through a base moveable joint, and further, that arms are implicitly positioners by definition in the art)
one or more actuators coupled to the articulated arms; [0048] (grippers, such that in order for robots to grip, actuators are implicitly included);
an end effector coupled to a distal end of the articulated arms; [0048] “the robot may include arms, levers, gripping devices, tools, or sensors that when actuated perform functions” (i.e. the tools, sensors, gripping devices, and levers are effectors on the end of the robot arms that perform repair on the aircraft);
and a tool retained by the end effector. [0048] “the robot may include arms, levers, gripping devices, tools, or sensors that when actuated perform functions” (i.e. the tools, sensors, gripping devices, and levers are effectors on the end of the robot arms that perform repair on the aircraft);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where each of the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Where Bathwal does not disclose or only partially discloses, and Krauter does not teach, Mealy teaches:
A platform: [0008] (a robot with “one or more arms supported on a platform”);
one or more conveyors; [0008];
a positioner including articulated arms coupled together through movable joints; [0023] (a positioner including one or more articulated arms coupled together through one more movable joints);
one or more actuators coupled to the articulated arms; [0023] One or more actuators 108, such as motors, are operatively coupled to the arm(s)
an end effector coupled to a distal end of the articulated arms; [0023]An end effector 110 is coupled to a distal end of the arm(s).
and a tool retained by the end effector. [0023] . The end effector 110 retains a tool).
It would have been reasonable for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined the prior art disclosures before the effective filing date. The combined art of Bathwal, Krauter, and Curd are comprised of a base disclosure including a base robot that was ready for improvement. Mealy was comprised of the improvement and it was applicable to the combined base disclosures. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known techniques of robot specific features from Mealy to the base disclosure would have yielded predictable results and an improved disclosure as a further combined disclosure.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bathwal, US20240281487A1, in view of Krauter, US20100175013A1.
Regarding Claim 20: Bathwal discloses: a user interface comprising a display and input device; [0037] (input interface), [0180] (display elements provided display output of the data and input devices allow input into the system)
One or more computerized technical subsystems configured to store technical documentation data wherein the one or more computerized technical subsystems include engineering drawings, flag notes; [0017, 0064, and 0085] (multiple source subsystems storing documentation that may be technical in nature), [0035] (engineering documents that may include drawings), [0061] (footnotes and endnotes),;
A pattern database configured to store pattern data; and [0105] (training dataset, i.e. a database configured to store training data), [0150] (training data stored in the datasets are at least comprised of pattern data that may be labeled, and is used to find patterns);
a control unit including one or more processors in communication with the user interface, the one or more computerizing technical subsystems, and the pattern database, wherein the control unit is configured to: [0017, 0064, and 0085] (multiple source subsystems storing documentation that may be technical in nature), [0034] (Processor of a computing device in communication with the user interface, the subsystems, at least the pattern dataset databases; the processor is configured to perform the claimed functions);
receive a work instruction, [0025] (receive document, i.e. work instructions);
detect technical documentation within the work instruction, automatically find the technical documentation, as detected within the work instruction, within technical documentation data stored within one or more computerized technical sub-systems, and [0025-0026] (summarization engine configured to summarize the content of retrieved documents using cross-document summarization techniques that includes extraction and amalgamation of content from a diverse array of documents according to the received document; discerning and weaving together data, that may be technical, from the originally received document, i.e. work instruction, from a variety of documents in various locations),
automatically generate a hyperlinked work instruction including one or more hyperlinks to the technical documentation stored within the one or more computerized technical sub-systems. [0043] (citations, i.e. excerpts from within the documentation data, i.e. the technical documentation within the work instructions, are generated into links to the original document, i.e. hyperlinks are formed that link to a source document, stored in each applicable sub-system that may be technical in characterization), [0056] (providing/generating hyperlinks), [0064] (the system retrieves citations/data from multiple sources).
encoding parameters into the one or more hyperlinks, and show the hyperlinked work instruction on the display of the user interface. [0043] (citations, i.e. excerpts from within the documentation data, i.e. the technical documentation within the work instructions, are generated into links to the original document, i.e. hyperlinks are formed that link to a source document, stored in each applicable sub-system that may be technical in characterization), [0056] (providing/generating hyperlinks), [0064] (the system retrieves citations/data from multiple sources), [0067-0069] (parameters are applied to results), [0085] identified parameters are added to the collected documentation, where hyperlinks are formed with the parameters embedded, the hyperlinks direct back to the original documentation, e.g. instructions are documentation), [0180] (display elements provided display output of the data).
Where Bathwal does not disclose, Krauter teaches: an aircraft, MRO work instruction, wherein the MRO work instruction includes information regarding one or more operations to be performed in relation to one or more components of the aircraft including an aircraft maintenance manual; an aircraft illustrated parts catalog, and parts lists, wherein the one or more operations are configured to be performed in relation to the one or more components of the aircraft according to the MRO work instruction. [0025 and 0051] and (Fig. 1) (at least maintenance/service methods for aircraft, i.e. an aircraft maintenance manual), [0060-0061 and 0070] (parts lists), [0059] (product database and instructions database, i.e. parts catalogs, parts lists, build and maintenance manuals, engineering drawings, and aircraft maintenance manuals, [Fig. 3] (an illustrated aircraft parts manual), [0048-0052] (sub-systems that are comprised of the recited elements including instructions for repair and service of aircraft, e.g. customized electronic work scope, i.e. customized MRO work instructions);
Where Bathwal partially discloses, Krauter further teaches: engineering drawings, flag notes, and parts lists, each for aircraft [0060-0061 and 0070] (engineering drawings and CAD models, which include parts lists and flag notes for aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the known techniques of MRO work instructions for aircraft repair including the various included limitations recited above, to the original base document of Bathwal, adding the known techniques of implementing MRO work instructions for aircraft of Krauter before the effective filing date. The base disclosure of Bathwal is ready for improvement, where the prior art of Krauter contains known techniques that are applicable to and improve upon the base device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results of an improved disclosure, obvious over the instant invention.
Where Bathwal does not disclose or partially discloses and Krauter does not teach or partially teaches, Curd further teaches: an aircraft maintenance manual, an aircraft illustrated parts catalog. [0035] “the module lists and disassembly structures for each engine (or other asset type) model. The work scope creation component uses these structures once a user has selected an engine (or another asset) he/she will be working. Once an engine (or other asset) is selected, the application can look up the corresponding engine (or other asset) model and load the appropriate template for that engine (or other asset) family,” (i.e. maintenance manual and parts catalogs for aircraft).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to combine the prior art elements according to known techniques, where each of the prior art includes each element claimed, although, not necessarily in a single reference. The only difference between the instant invention and the combined prior art disclosures is the lack of actual combination of the elements into one prior art reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, such that the results of the combination are predictable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights