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 .
This action is responsive to communication filed on 06/01/2026.
Claims 1-10, 12-21 are pending. Claim 11 have been cancelled. Clams 1-3, 8-10, 12, 13, 17, 20 and 21 have been amended. Entry of this amendment is accepted and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-16, filed 06/01/2026, with respect amended claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-14 and 16-21, previously rejected under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-14 and 16-21 has been withdrawn because the closest prior art of record either in singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of “process the first and second sets of output values to identify any difference between operation of the alt least part of the aircraft system and the operation modelled by the trained classifier; generate a signal indicative of the identified difference, and modify the at least part of the aircraft system using the signal indicative of the identified difference so that operation of the at least part of the aircraft system when modified with the modification more closely matches a desired operation of the at least part of the aircraft system than does operation of the aircraft system before being modified” without the use of impermissible hindsight. However, decision on patentability cannot be made since claims stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for the reasons discussed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026 with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections of amended claims 1-10 and 12-21 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to amended claims 1, 12, 20 and 21 the amendments to made to the claims are not sufficient to overcome the issues under 35 USC 112(b) as the metes and bounds of the claims are indefinite. Regarding claims 1, 12, 20 and 21 the recitation “more closely matches a desired operation” renders the claims indefinite as the claim do not provide a particular definition as to ascertain the metes and bounds of what the term “more closely match” is trying to encompass rendering the claims indefinite as the terms “more closely” is a relative term. It is unclear from the claimed limitation what is required by the scope of the claim as the limitation “more closely match a desired operation…” is trying to cover and which criteria is used as to determine what operation will be considered to “more closely match a desired operation”. Clarification and correction is required. Therefore, the claims 1-10 and 12-21 stand rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant Arguments with respect to claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) of claims 20 and 21 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant submits that the claimed terms “control input interface” in claims 20 and 21, “control output interface” in claims 20 and 21, a “model processing engine” in claim 21, a “difference engine” in claim 21 and an “output generator” in claim are structural terms that would have been understood by a person of ordinary skilled in the art of as computer program structures and submits that they should not be treated as functional terms to be interpreted pursuant to 35 USC 112(f), (see penultimate paragraph on page 17 of the remarks).
In response the examiner disagrees and submits that the alleged structural terms are generic placeholder modifiers coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in independent claims 20 and 21:
a control input interface for receiving aircraft control inputs in claim 20
a control output interface for receiving aircraft control outputs in claim 20.
a control input interface to receive aircraft control inputs and store the inputs in the memory in claim 21;
a model processing engine to process the aircraft control inputs using a trained model of expected behavior for aircraft control software under test, to determine expected control outputs and to store the outputs in the memory, in claim 21
a control output interface to receive actual aircraft control outputs and store the outputs in the memory, in claim 21.
a difference engine to compare the expected control outputs to the actual control outputs to identify any differences between them, in claim 21.
an output generator to generate a signal indicative of a difference identified by the difference engine, in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner has identified the corresponding structure of a control input interface,
a model processing engine, a trained model of expected behavior, a control output interface, a difference engine, an output generator as processor 120 in Figure 1, (see para. ¶0053-0054, 0081).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in independent claims 20 and 21:
a control input interface for receiving aircraft control inputs in claim 20
a control output interface for receiving aircraft control outputs in claim 20.
a control input interface to receive aircraft control inputs and store the inputs in the memory in claim 21;
a model processing engine to process the aircraft control inputs using a trained model of expected behavior for aircraft control software under test, to determine expected control outputs and to store the outputs in the memory, in claim 21
a control output interface to receive actual aircraft control outputs and store the outputs in the memory, in claim 21.
a difference engine to compare the expected control outputs to the actual control outputs to identify any differences between them, in claim 21.
an output generator to generate a signal indicative of a difference identified by the difference engine, in claim 21.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examiner has identified the corresponding structure of a control input interface,
a model processing engine, a trained model of expected behavior, a control output interface, a difference engine, an output generator as processor 120 in Figure 1, (see para. ¶0053-0054, 0081).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 12, 20 and 21 the recitation “more closely matches a desired operation” renders the claims indefinite as the claim do not provide a particular definition as to ascertain the metes and bounds of what the term “more closely match” is trying to encompass rendering the claims indefinite. The term “more closely” (emphasis added) in claims 1, 12, 20 and 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “more closely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear from the claimed limitation what is required by the scope of the claim as the limitation “more closely match a desired operation…” is trying to cover and which criteria is used as to determine what operation will be considered to “more closely match a desired operation”. Clarification and correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-10, and 13-19 are rejected for the reasons discussed above with respect to their respective independent claims 1 and 12 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harrigan et al. US2017/0331844A1 (hereinafter Harrigan).Harrigan discloses an aircraft monitoring system comprising a mobile computing device (e.g. laptop computer) (see para. 0027).
Dramer et al. US Patent 3,591,110. Dramer discloses wherein the signal is applied to modify the at least part of the aircraft system to reduce the identified difference, wherein the at least part of an aircraft system includes at least one of: an avionics system, a flight control system, a braking control system, an instrumentation and recording system, a landing gear control system or a fuel system, and wherein the modification modifies the at least part of the aircraft system to more closely match a desired operation of the at least part of the aircraft system (abstract, see col. 1, ll. 41-65; col. 2, ll. 52-68; claim 1), wherein at least a flight control system/throttle control is disclosed). In Dramer the electrical signal representing the difference (identified difference) between the desired and actual values of an aircraft parameter used by an automatic throttle control (flight control system) as the aircraft approaches touchdown is utilized and the selected desired descent value of the aircraft parameter is lowered to a near stall value slightly below the desired touchdown value of the parameter (modify at least part of the aircraft system to reduce the identified difference to more closely match a desired operation of the at least one part of the aircraft).
Nicholas et al. US 20040010354 A1 disclose a flight control system includes a downstream processing unit which determines the most limiting flight envelope limiting parameter, and determines the tactile cueing position for the flight control input apparatus based on the most limiting parameter. The predictive neural networks (6) predict flight envelope limiting parameters based on observed parameters and non-dimensional aircraft state parameters.
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 YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/JORDAN L JACKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights