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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is software per se.
Alice type rejection – Abstract Idea Mental Process
As to claim 1-20 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.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a mental process of determining a motion trajectory (apparatus for claim 1-20).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, 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 claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea – mental process (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An aircraft maintenance user interface, the interface comprising:
an alert indicator that displays an alert related to an aircraft system that must be addressed for maintenance compliance of an aircraft;
a compliance window indicator that displays a normalized sliding scale of elapsed percentage of a lead time between the alert and a maintenance compliance deadline; and
a remaining units indictor that displays a number of used units out of a total number of allotted units that measure the remaining lead time. (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
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, the information is gathered compiled and output 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 – mental process.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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”) See above.
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. Claim 1 includes a processing apparatus. Regarding the additional limitations of user interface that merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose processing environment. The processing is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the determining process steps.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 mental process into a practical application, the additional element of using a interface to perform the determining amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity (Displaying here) in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of processing with a processing apparatus are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processing apparatus is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Dependent claim(s) 2-18 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 because they merely add to the mental processing. Therefore, dependent claims 2-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 19-20.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Examiner recommends a controlling step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20010032114 A1 hereinafter Sinex.
As to claim 1 and similar claims 19 and 20, Sinex discloses an aircraft maintenance user interface, the interface comprising: (refer to the system in fig. 1, to the operation of its components 22, 24 and 26 in fig. 5 and 8 and in par. 24-26, and to the GUIs in fig. 7, 9-10, 13-14)
an alert indicator that displays an alert related to an aircraft system that must be addressed for maintenance compliance of an aircraft; [Sinex: fig. 7, 9-10, 13-14 displaying alerts or tasks to be accomplished for meeting the maintenance requirements of an aircraft, with corresponding data indicating e.g. time control points/limits, such as due date, number of flight hours or cycles; they are discussed in 0044, 0048-0049: "..screen 140 shows, in real-time, a list of tasks due within..", and in 0064-0068]
a compliance window indicator that displays a normalized sliding scale of elapsed percentage of a lead time between the alert and a maintenance compliance deadline; [Sinex: fig. 9 and 0065-0068, which show the use of different visual cues, such as time scale 200, counts, as well as the sliding progress scales/bars and "percentage complete"- numbers in sections 220 and 224 of fig.9; these progress bars also visually indicate the elapsed percentage counts and progress of the tasks in relation to their time control points/limits, i.e. their compliance deadlines) and
a remaining units indictor that displays a number of used units out of a total number of allotted units that measure the remaining lead time. [Sinex: 0025: "monitors accumulated time data..to report", 0049: "lists the time remaining 156 for each task.. The time remaining column.. could be color-coding the remaining time information", as well as 0065-0068 and 0089-0091]
As to claim 2, wherein the units comprise: elapsed hours; flight hours; or flight cycles. [Sinex: Fig. 7 top task due date/elapsed hrs, within 1000hrs/flight hrs, or within 10 cycles/flight cycles]
As to claim 3, further comprising a history indicator that displays an operational history of the aircraft system leading up to the alert. [Sinex: Fig, 7, 6, 3 limits/cycles indicate operational history length sine last maintenance]
As to claim 4, further comprising an alert details pane that slides into view as a second layer in response to clicking on the alert displayed in the alert indicator, wherein the alert details pane contains a history of the aircraft system leading up to the alert, a current parametric value of the aircraft system relative to a threshold, and a compliance status. [Sinex: fig. 7 last completed, limits, remaining]
As to claim 5, wherein the alert details pane further contains links to documents detailing required maintenance tasks related to the aircraft system to resolve the alert. [Sinex: 0106 “Electronic publications manager 30 can work with the other components of system 10 to instantly link each task in the maintenance program to work cards, which explain an airline's preferred method of performing that task, or may include photographs or wiring diagrams helpful to performing the task.”]
As to claim 6, wherein the alert details pane further comprises a description of the alert and activity relating to resolving the alert. [Sinex: Fig. 7]
As to claim 7, further comprising a second details pane that pops up in response to clicking on the compliance status, wherein the second details pane contains required maintenance tasks related to the aircraft system to resolve the alert and an entry field for entering work orders. [Sinex: work order panes Fig. 12-16]
As to claim 8, wherein the second details pane further comprises an input field to confirm that work orders are closed. [Sinex: Fig. 12 inspection process 0084]
As to claim 9, wherein the second details pane further comprises an input field to confirm that a condition underlying the alert is resolved. [Sinex: Fig. 12 inspection process 0084]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinex in view of Nicrosia US 20150169200 A1, hereinafter Nicrosia.
As to claim 10, Sinex does not explicitly disclose no-reports for particular flight cycles from the data but does disclose last checks and the period between/no-reports. However, Nicosia suggest reports further comprising a no- report report details pane that slides into view as a second layer in response to clicking on a no-report alert displayed in the alert indicator, wherein the no-report report details pane provides links to respective reports received for flight cycles regarding the aircraft system for a specified number of flight cycles. [Nicosia: Fig. 53] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the reports of Sinex to have an indication for no reports of Nicosia as it merely uses a known device (report display of Sinex to include the data of no reports of Nicosia) in a known way (displaying data) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of knowing a last data received.
As to claim 11, Sinex does not explicitly disclose no-reports for particular flight cycles from the data but does disclose last checks and the period between/no-reports and does link to work orders to do maintenance. However, Nicosia suggest no reports when the alert is not triggered for a flight based alert. wherein the no-report report details pane further contains links to documents detailing required manual procedures and compliance tasks related to the aircraft system for maintenance compliance. [Sinex: work order panes Fig. 16] [Nicosia: Fig. 53] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the reports with work orders of Sinex to have an indication for no reports of Nicosia as it merely uses a known device (report display of Sinex to include the data of no reports of Nicosia) in a known way (displaying data) with predictable results and a good likelihood of success for the benefit of knowing a last data received.
Claims 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinex in view of Nicrosia in view of Vail US 20170233105 A1 hereinafter Vail.
As to claim 12, Sinex discloses having labels for inside the maintenance tasks but does not disclose running faults or disclose outages. So, further comprising a fleet data health display that includes different categories of data outage for automated periodic reports regarding the aircraft system. [However, Vali disclose faults, Fig. 7 #342, with times that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know to apply it to connection problems/outages that would occur in the system of Nicosia, Fig. 2.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the maintenance program of Sinex to be used in a connected environment of Nicrosia with running fault notifications of Vail as it merely uses a known device (program of Sinex in a connected environment of Nicrosia getting data of Vail) in a known way (maintenance process done with inputs where inputs are based on environment, and faults) with predictable results for the benefit of integrating connection and running faults into the maintenance program for corrective action.
As to claim 13, Sinex in view of Nicosia in view of Vail suggests wherein the categories comprise at least one of: reason unknown; ACARS MEL; other; out of service; or in maintenance check. [Nicrosia: Fig. 7 icons 344, 346]. See claim 12 for motivation.
As to claim 14, Sinex in view of Nicosia in view of Vail suggests further comprising a category for recently restored aircraft that have resumed transmitting reports. [Nicrosia: Fig. 7 black bars after #346 when 346 is an outage]. See claim 12 for motivation.
As to claim 15, Sinex in view of Nicosia in view of Vail suggests further comprising an airplane data health details pane that slides into view as a second layer in response to clicking on an entry under one of categories, wherein the airplane data health details pane contains a history of data outages for the aircraft and a drop down menu for selecting and changing a category for data outage. [Nicrosia: Fig. 7]. See claim 12 for motivation.
As to claim 16, Sinex in view of Nicosia in view of Vail suggests wherein the airplane data health details pane further includes a listing of manual maintenance tasks required as a result of the data outage. [Sinex: work order panes Fig. 12-16 applying the teaching of work orders to a particular problem of outage.]
As to claim 17, Sinex in view of Nicosia in view of Vail suggests further comprising a specialized details pane that pops up in response to selection of a category for data outage from the drop down menu in the airplane data health details pane, wherein the specialized details pane contains data entry fields that are specific to the selected category of data outage. [Sinex: work order panes Fig. 12-16 applying the teaching of work orders to a particular problem of outage. The format of a dropdown or popup is obvious to try design choice related for presenting or selecting data and is well known in user interfaces.]
As to claim 18, Sinex in view of Nicosia in view of Vail suggests wherein a notification of resolutions automatically pops up in the fleet data health display upon resumption of transmission of the periodic reports by the aircraft. [Sinex: work order panes Fig. 12-16 applying the teaching of work orders to a particular problem of outage.] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the completion of an outage work order of Sinex in view of Nicosia to result in reconnection as the result of the maintenance in a system of Nicosia as it merely uses a known device (Sinex in the environment of the Nicosia’s Situational awareness system) in a known way (completing the work order of Sinex within the connected system of Nicosia Fig. 2) with a good likelihood of success and predictable results for the benefit of verifying connection and completion of the work order.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20130138632 A1 systems and methods of aircraft trending are described. In one example, a method of aircraft trend analysis includes receiving, at a computing device, data from a plurality of aircraft in a fleet of aircraft. The data includes system level data for each of the plurality of aircraft. The received data is stored in a database. The computing device analyzes the stored data to identify fleet trends and generates one or more trend analysis reports for the fleet based at least in part on the fleet trends.
US 20140277921 A1 A method for identifying and analyzing data entities from (maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO)) data is provided. The method includes obtaining MRO data comprising unstructured text information. The method also includes performing named entity recognition on the MRO data to extract entities from the unstructured text information and label the entities with a tag. The method further includes analyzing the labeled entities via a heuristic to estimate an effectiveness of a fix for a specific issue or to estimate a reliability of a component.
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDERICK M BRUSHABER whose telephone number is (313)446-4839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at (571) 272-7298. 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.
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/FREDERICK M BRUSHABER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
