Ex Parte Saad et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 5, 2019

12573392 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/573,392 10/05/2009
63759 7590 03/07/2019
DUKEW. YEE
YEE & AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Emad William Saad
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09-0568-US-NP 6042
EXAMINER
RINES, ROBERT D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/07/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMAD WILLIAM SAAD, JOHN LYLE VIAN,
RYAN JAMES MEUTH, and DONALD C. WUNSCH II
Appeal2018-001676 1
Application 12/573,392
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Boeing Company is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001676
Application 12/573,392
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to an "aircraft manufacturing and service
method" (Spec. ,r 10) using "a method and apparatus for planning and
executing a mission using a hierarchical mission planning system" (Spec.
,r 1). Claims 10, 13-17, 20, 22, 23, and 25-29 are pending, of which claims
10, 17, and 25 are independent. App. Br. 18-26. Claim 10 is reproduced
below for reference ( emphases added):
10. A method for autonomous hierarchical m1ss10n
management, the method comprising:
generating a mission specification for maintenance of an
aircraft using information from a hierarchy specification, the
hierarchy specification having information including a capability
and an assigned hierarchical level of each segment in a number
of agent groups, a number of levels in a hierarchy, a number of
agents in each level of the hierarchy, and an information that an
agent in a level of the hierarchy can access, the hierarchy
specification comprising maintenance of the aircraft;
receiving the mission specification at a first mission
planner associated with a first level agent group, the first agent
group being a highest level agent group in the hierarchy;
generating by a processor of an arbitrator in the first
mission planner a mission plan for a first maintenance operation
for a number of first agents in the first level agent group to
address the mission specification, the mission plan having a
number of tasks, the generating based on information in the
mission specification, the tasks including inspection of fluid
leaks in the aircraft;
allocating through a task allocator the number of tasks in
the mission plan to the number of first agents in the first level
agent group, including allocating a number of tasks to the
number of first agents based on the mission plan to form a
number of task assignments, generating a number of physical
path plans related to the aircraft for the number of first agents
based on the number of tasks allocated to each of the number of
2
Appeal2018-001676
Application 12/573,392
first agents, and sending the number of physical path plans and
the number of task assignments to the number of first agents,
wherein each agent in the number of first agents receives a path
plan related to the aircraft and associated with the number of
tasks allocated to the agent;
planning in a path planner a number of physical paths
associated with the number of tasks allocated to the number of
agents;
monitoring by a processor the number of first agents
executing the mission plan using a data processing system, the
monitoring including receiving information about the aircraft
from a number of sensors associated with the number of first
agents, the number of sensors including a camera configured to
acquire an image of the aircraft with respect to the fluid leaks
using ultraviolet light to detect the fluid;
determining by the processor whether the first level agent
group will complete the mission plan including a number of tasks
in the mission plan based on the hierarchy specification and the
information about the aircraft from the number of sensors
including the information about the fluid leaks from the camera;
responsive to a determination that the first level agent
group will not complete all tasks in the mission plan including
the inspection of the fluid leaks, sending an uncompleted portion
of the mission plan to a second mission planner associated with
a second level agent group and communicating the uncompleted
portion of the mission specification to the second mission
planner associated with a second level agent group in the
hierarchy; and
generating in a processor of a second mission planner a
second mission plan for a second maintenance operation for the
second level agent group.
Rejection
Claims 10, 13-17, 20, 22, 23, and 25-29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being patent ineligible. Final Act. 7.
3
Appeal2018-001676
Application 12/573,392
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants do
not separately argue the claims. See App. Br. 16. We select claim 10 as
representative. See 37 C.F.R. §4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines claim 10 is patent ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is directed to an abstract idea and does not
include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea. Ans. 2-6; see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int'!, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (describing the two-step framework "for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.").
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the US PTO published revised guidance on the application of§ 101
("Guidance"). See USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Memorandum"). Pursuant to the
Guidance "Step 2A," the office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(1) Prong One: any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-
( C ), ( e }-(h)).
4
Appeal2018-001676
Application 12/573,392
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, does the Office then (pursuant to the
Guidance "Step 2B") look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. We adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent
with our analysis herein. We add the following primarily for emphasis and
clarification with respect to the Guidance.
A. Step 2A
Prong One
Appellants argue the Examiner's analysis is in error, because "the
ordered combination of features of the claims does not direct the claim
abstractly to a process of organizing human activity." App. Br. 14.
Appellants contend that, rather, claim 10 includes "features [that] provide a
specific scope for a method of autonomous hierarchical mission
management." App. Br. 16.
Pursuant to the Guidance, we agree with the Examiner that claim 10
recites "the abstract idea of scheduling and organizing a series of tasks
associated with maintenance mission, i.e., a method of organizing human
activities/behaviors." Final Act. 8; see also Memorandum, Section III
(A)(l) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial
5
Appeal2018-001676
Application 12/573,392
Exception), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Claim 10 recites a method of mission
management, including generating a specification and mission plans,
organizing agents to execute the mission plans, and monitoring the agents
during execution of the mission plans. Both the system operators and the
agents can be humans. See Spec. ,r,r 2, 39. Thus, the claim limitations
quintessentially recite "[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity,"
including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions. Memorandum, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas), 84
Fed. Reg. at 52-53.
Prong Two
We are also not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error
pursuant to Step 2A, Prong Two of the Guidance. In the Appeal Brief,
Appellants merely quote large portions of the claims and contend these
limitations are not ineligible. See, e.g., App. Br. 15; SmithKline Beecham
Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[M]ere
statements of disagreement ... do not amount to a developed argument.").
In the Reply Brief, Appellants refer to the claim requirements of "a large
population of agents [] divided into multiple agent groups in a number of
levels of a hierarchy." Reply Br. 2. As discussed above, the agents are
humans. Thus, these limitations recite the abstract idea of organizing human
activity, and do not supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
significantly more than that ineligible concept. See Ans. 5; BSG Tech LLC
v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Memorandum,
84 Fed. Reg. 54--55 ("evaluate integration into a practical application by:
6
Appeal2018-001676
Application 12/573,392
(a) Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception( s )").
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that the "sensor
related elements of the invention constitute significantly more than an
abstract idea itself." Reply Br. 3. We agree with the Examiner, and
Appellants do not challenge, that claim 10' s requirement that
"determinations are responsive to the identification of fluid leaks[] fails to
convey a technical solution to the maintenance challenges addressed by the
inventive method, but rather merely illustrates a type of standard sensor
employed and the input elements derived therefrom." Final Act. 4. The
determination step of the claim is based on information including sensor
data. Thus, the claimed use of the sensor "does no more than generally link
the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or
field of use." Memorandum, Section III (A) (2) (Prong Two: If the Claim
Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Judicial Exception Is
Integrated Into a Practical Application), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55.
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See id. As the "claim recites a
judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical
application," we must proceed with "further analysis pursuant to the second
step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B)." Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 51.
B. Step 2B
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed elements and
combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the
7
Appeal2018-001676
Application 12/573,392
judicial exception itself. See Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 6; Memorandum,
Section III (B) (Step 2B), 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Outside of the abstract idea,
the remaining claim elements only recite generic components that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional. See Ans. 6; Spec. ,r,r 41, 47-60, 156-
161; Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 10 is patent ineligible. See Final Act. 7-8.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10, 13-17, 20, 22, 23, and
25-29 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8