Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 09/25/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9-13 are pending in the case.
Priority
Application 17637301 filed 02/22/2022 is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2020/073460, International Filing Date: 08/21/2020 claims foreign priority to 1909342, filed 08/22/2019.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 13 are objected to because they include the language “…segments (‘frame segments’)” which is objected due to the use of parenthesis in the claim saying that it’s unclear if what’s in the parenthesis is part of the claimed invention or not. The language raises questions as to what is meant by “segment”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 13 are amended with new limitations that do not have written descriptions support. There is nothing in the Specification to suggest that the flight management system generates control commands or has the ability to actuate an actuator. The dependent claims are rejected for being dependent upon the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to mental steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they are all mental steps. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because:
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 10, 11, are directed to a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
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 (emphasized below)
and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for operating an aircraft, comprising a method for determining a trajectory of an aircraft, comprising implementing a method for determining a flight distance over a or each segment of discontinuity of a trajectory portion of the aircraft, said portion further comprising two frame segments on either side of the segment of discontinuity, the segment of discontinuity comprising a lateral discontinuity, each frame segment being continuous; the method for operating the aircraft being implemented by a flight management system comprising a processor, the method for determining the flight distance being implemented by the processor and comprising steps:
- measuring aircraft parameters;
- determining an altitude of entry to said trajectory portion and an altitude of exit from said trajectory portion;
- discretizing an altitude interval delimited by the altitude of entry and the altitude of exit into a plurality of elementary intervals, each elementary interval being defined by using an elementary step;
-for each elementary interval, determining an elementary slope of the aircraft, based on measured aircraft parameters;
- determining the flight distance over the segment of discontinuity based on a direct distance between the frame segments, elementary slopes, elementary steps and a total extent of said trajectory portion in which the extent of the segment of discontinuity is substituted by the direct distance between the frame segments, the determined flight distance ensuring sufficient energy dissipation over the segment of discontinuity,
the method for operating the aircraft further comprising:
determining flight control commands according to the determined flight distance, by the flight management system;
actuating, by the flight management system, actuators of the aircraft, according to the flight control commands, so that the aircraft follows the determined trajectory, including the determined flight distance over the or each segment of discontinuity.
The examiner submits that the foregoing limitations constitute a “mental
process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of
the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the measuring aircraft parameters step cited above is a measuring step capable of being performed by the human mind. The “determining” step cited above determines an altitude of entry, the discretizing step is a mathematical mental step, the 2nd determination step calculates slope, and the 3rd determination step calculates flight distance based on math equation involving the previously calculated slope and distances, and that this determination leads to an intended result of ensuring sufficient energy dissipation over the segment of discontinuity. The claim further recites another determining step that determines flight control commands according to the determined flight distance. All of these steps are able to be performed by the human mind. Furthermore, the limitation “so that the aircraft follows the determined trajectory…” is intended use. Thus, intended use or intended result limitations are not to be given patentable weight. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent claims 10 and 11 are similar scope to claim 1 thus rejected under similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 9-12 all further expands upon the abstract idea by elaborating and expanding on the mathematical calculations, and elaborating on further functions performed by generic computer components.
Claim 2 recites a mathematical formula i.e. calculation, thus is an additional abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites additional mental steps pertaining to slope determination.
Claim 4 further defines the elementary step mental steps.
Claim 5 further defines the elementary slope mental steps.
Claim 6 recites an additional mental step with regard to the flight distance determination.
Claim 7 further defines the segment of discontinuity mental steps.
Claim 9 further defines the determining the trajectory mental step by describing additional mental steps.
Claim 13, is directed to a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and apparatus. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Independent claim 13 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea.
. Claim 13 recites:
Independent claim 13 contains the same limitations as independent claim 1 thus the rationale applied to claim 1 above also applies to these same limitations. However Independent claim 13 further recites limitations, of which the bolded limitations are identified as abstract ideas:
- sending acquired data to a processor, by an input unit (additional limitation);
- determining a reference profile along a lateral trajectory precalculated based on a plurality of speed and/or altitude constraints (mental step), wherein the precalculated lateral trajectory comprises a plurality of segments (additional details about the mental step), wherein the determining step comprises:
- searching in the precalculated lateral trajectory for at least one segment of discontinuity between two segments ('frame segments') (mental step), wherein the segment of discontinuity comprises a lateral discontinuity (additional details about the mental step);
- for the or each segment of discontinuity, determining a required distance corresponding to a flight distance determined for this segment of discontinuity (mental step); and
- integrating the/each required distance into the reference profile (mental step);
- determining vertical predictions related to a vertical trajectory of the aircraft based on the reference profile (mental step);
- determining a lateral trajectory based on vertical projections (mental step), comprising, for each segment of discontinuity, determining a substitution segment connecting the two corresponding frame segments in a continuous manner (mental step), wherein a spatial extent of the/each substitution segments determined as a function of the required distance determined for the corresponding segment of discontinuity (additional details about the mental step);
- transmitting the lateral trajectory determined to an output unit (additional limitation);
- transmitting the lateral trajectory, by the output unit, to a display in a cockpit of the aircraft (additional limitation);
- displaying the lateral trajectory on the display (additional limitation), wherein the flight distance determined for the or each segment of discontinuity is determined by a method for determining a flight distance of an aircraft over a segment of discontinuity of a trajectory portion of the aircraft, said portion further comprising two frame segments on either side of the segment of discontinuity, the segment of discontinuity comprising a lateral discontinuity, each frame segment being continuous;
the method for operating the aircraft further comprising:
- determining flight control commands according to the determined flight distance, by the flight management system;
- actuating, by the flight management system, actuators of the aircraft, according to the flight control commands, so that the aircraft follows the determined trajectory, including the determined flight distance over the or each segment of discontinuity.
The examiner submits that the above bolded limitations constitute a “mental
process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of
the limitation in the human mind. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
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 regards to claims 1 and 13, the additional limitations include “based on measured aircraft parameters”. However, this additional limitation is an extra solution activity thus is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Additional limitation recited as “flight management system” is a generic computer component performing its normal functions thus is merely a computer used to implement the abstract ideas.
Additional limitation recited as “actuating, by the flight management system, actuators of the aircraft, according to the flight control commands”. These additional limitations are generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. field of aircraft components.
In regards to dependent claim 12 which recites a generic computer functionality of sending acquired data to the processing unit, by an input unit. Transmitting the lateral trajectory by an output unit to on-board systems. All generic computer functions that do not integrate the claims into a practical application.
Thus, the examiner submits that there are no additional limitations to integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application:
101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance,
Representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements 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. Furthermore, the additional limitations “aircraft parameters”, “flight management system”, and “actuators” are well known in the art.
Dependent claim 12 recites a generic computer functionality of sending acquired data to the processing unit, by an input unit. Transmitting the lateral trajectory by an output unit to on-board systems. All generic computer functions that are well known, routine, and conventional.
Thus, the claims are rejected for those reasons.
Response to Arguments
New claim objection is made as cited above.
New 112a new matter rejection is made in response to the amendments.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments to the 101 abstract idea rejection of claims 1-13 have been considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are not sufficient for overcoming the rejection.
Applicant amends the preamble to recite “…implementing a method…” and further recites into the body of the claim the limitation “being implemented by a flight management system”, but the implementation as explained by the 101 rejection is merely using a generic computer to implement the identified abstract ideas cited above.
Applicant amends to specify that the method for operating the aircraft further comprising: “determining flight control commands…” and “actuating…actuators of the aircraft…so that the aircraft follows the determined trajectory…”. However, determining flight control commands is an additional mental step capable of being performed by the human mind. The limitation of actuating actuators of the aircraft is not an abstract idea but is an additional limitation that is not significantly more than the abstract idea as explained above. Thus, the amendments are not persuasive in overcoming the rejection. In regards to the Applicant’s arguments, the arguments do not go into detail with the explanation on how these amendments should not be construed as either additional mental steps or additional limitations that are not significantly more. Thus, the arguments are also not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 should be directed to DAVID V LUU at telephone number (571)270-0703.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-0703. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Tuesday from 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Ell, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3264. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAVID V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2171
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2171