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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment/response and RCE of January 9, 2026.
Claims 1-13 and 19-25 are pending and have been considered as follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 9, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant argues:
A. Step 2A - The claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
1. Step 2A Prong Two - The Claims Integrate the Alleged Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
…
Applicant respectfully submits that representative claim 1, as amended, as a whole, is not "directed to" an abstract idea, but rather integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore is patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The additional elements of claim 1, as amended,
(1) reflect the use of computer devices of a simulator for simulating that simulates an aircraft and an environment of the aircraft and to collect user data,
(2) reflect the use of computer devices (user output device) to provide an indication of an action to a user controlling the aircraft,
(3) reflect a specific way of training an artificial neural network - the use of specific data related to specific phases (first phase and second phase) for training the artificial neural network, wherein the second phase includes automated scenario data that is generated based on processing a scenario, and
(4) reflect a specific way of determining headings and velocities data based on the data generated from the above features, and converting the headings and velocities data into actions related to an aircraft.
With the particular combination of features above, the claimed subject matter at least (1) provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and (2) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
…
B. Step 2B - The claims recite additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception.
…
Accordingly, claim 1, as amended, recites "specific limitation[s] other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application" (see MPEP § 2106.05, subsection A).
Thus, even if it is necessary to apply Step 2B, the elements of the claims are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to "significantly more" than the alleged judicial exceptions.
The Examiner’s Response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that, “Applicant respectfully submits that representative claim 1, as amended, as a whole, is not "directed to" an abstract idea, but rather integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application …” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with (1), (2), and (3) because even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than automate the mental processes, using the computer components as a tool. Further, there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. Further, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with (4) because these limitations, “determining headings and velocities data based on the data generated, and converting the headings and velocities data into actions”, can reasonably be performed/calculated by a human mentally or with aid of pen and paper. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment.
Further, The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant asserts that, “The claims recite additional elements that amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception. …” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits that the claims do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Therefore, the rejection of such claims under 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained herein.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been modified reflecting the amendments most recently submitted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 22, “the scenario data” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the scenario data” to “the automated scenario data”.
Claim 1, line 37, “a user” should read “the user”.
Claim 1, line 38, “wherein the action is based on to an agent action …” appears to be a typographical error and should read “wherein the action is based on an agent action …”.
Claim 19, lines 18-19, “the scenario data” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the scenario data” to “the automated scenario data”.
Claim 19, line 32, “a user” should read “the user”.
Claim 19, line 34, “-the highest reward Q value” appears to be a typographical error and should read “the highest reward Q value”.
Claim 23, line 24, “the scenario data” is grammatically confusing. While the scope of the claim is reasonably ascertainable, the Examiner recommends amending “the scenario data” to “the automated scenario data”.
Claim 23, line 37, “a user” should read “the user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 19, and 23 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do claims 1, 19, and 23 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claims are directed toward a machine and a process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The independent claims (claims 1, 19, and 23) are directed to a mathematical concept, i.e., an abstract idea of calculating reward (Q) values through a series of steps/relationships: “calculate/calculating, in response to a detected emergency, reward (Q) values based on an input of user actions to control an aircraft and based on state-action vectors that include state data associated with the aircraft and action data associated with the aircraft, wherein the state data includes system availability information that is associated with whether one or more aircraft systems have experienced a failure”, “determine/determining a highest reward Q value that is closest to the input of the user actions”, “determine/determining headings and velocities data based on the calculated reward Q values”, and “convert/converting the headings and velocities data into agent actions associated with the aircraft”. These limitations therefore recite a mathematical concept. The grouping of “mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PEG is not limited to formulas or equations, and in fact specifically includes “mathematical calculations” as an exemplar of a mathematical concept. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The mere nominal recitation of an emergency pilot assistance system (claim 1), an artificial neural network (claim 1), a user output device (claims 1, 19, and 23), a deep Q network (claim 19), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 23), one or more processors (claim 23), a system (claim 23), or a network (claim 23) does not take the claim limitation out of the mathematical concepts grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mathematical concept.
Alternatively, the independent claims (claims 1, 19, and 23) recite the limitation of “calculate/calculating, in response to a detected emergency, reward (Q) values based on an input of user actions to control an aircraft and based on state-action vectors that include state data associated with the aircraft and action data associated with the aircraft, wherein the state data includes system availability information that is associated with whether one or more aircraft systems have experienced a failure”, “determine/determining a highest reward Q value that is closest to the input of the user actions”, “determine/determining headings and velocities data based on the calculated reward Q values”, and “convert/converting the headings and velocities data into agent actions associated with the aircraft”. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation, as drafted, can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper, otherwise considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at (observing) the data and calculates/determines the reward (Q) values; determines a highest reward Q value that is closest to the input; determines the headings and velocities data based on the calculated reward Q values; and observes the agent actions based on the headings and velocities data. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, the claim encompasses a user (person) simply calculating, in response to a detected emergency, reward (Q) values based on an input of user actions to control an aircraft and based on state-action vectors that include state data associated with the aircraft and action data associated with the aircraft, wherein the state data includes system availability information that is associated with whether one or more aircraft systems have experienced a failure; determining a highest reward Q value that is closest to the input of the user actions; determining headings and velocities data based on the calculated reward Q values; and converting the headings and velocities data into agent actions associated with the aircraft in his/her mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of an emergency pilot assistance system (claim 1), an artificial neural network (claim 1), a user output device (claims 1, 19, and 23), a deep Q network (claim 19), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 23), one or more processors (claim 23), a system (claim 23), or a network (claim 23) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1, 19, and 23 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recites additional elements of “wherein at least a portion of the artificial neural network is trained based on: training in a first phase based on first training data from a device of a simulator that simulates the aircraft and an environment of the aircraft, wherein the first training data is collected from the simulator and comprises state data associated with the aircraft and the environment, and comprises action data taken by a user of the simulator, collected from the simulator; and training in a second phase based on automated scenario data that includes control inputs related to a plurality of origins and destinations, wherein the automated scenario data is associated with operating conditions of the aircraft during processing a scenario related to the scenario data”, “provide/providing an indication of an action to a user while the user is controlling the aircraft, wherein the action is based on to an agent action, of the agent actions, that has the highest reward Q value, as calculated by the artificial neural network, that is closest to the input of the user actions”, an emergency pilot assistance system (claim 1), an artificial neural network (claim 1), a user output device (claims 1, 19, and 23), a deep Q network (claim 19), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 23), one or more processors (claim 23), a system (claim 23), and a network (claim 23). The limitation of “wherein at least a portion of the artificial neural network is trained based on: training in a first phase based on first training data from a device of a simulator that simulates the aircraft and an environment of the aircraft, wherein the first training data is collected from the simulator and comprises state data associated with the aircraft and the environment, and comprises action data taken by a user of the simulator, collected from the simulator; and training in a second phase based on automated scenario data that includes control inputs related to a plurality of origins and destinations, wherein the automated scenario data is associated with operating conditions of the aircraft during processing a scenario related to the scenario data” is claimed at a high level of generality, and there is no change to the computer or technology that are recited in the claims as automating the abstract ideas, and thus the claims cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). The providing steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The artificial neural network in claim 1, deep Q network in claim 19, and network in claim 23 as claimed are operating as a general computer or a generic or general purpose computing environment. Moreover, the use of neural networks per se is merely data processing. Also, the neural network technology is well known and is recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as a general link to the technology. The user output device in claims 1, 19, and 23 is claimed generically and is operating in its ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “an emergency pilot assistance system” in claim 1, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” in claim 23, “one or more processors” in claim 23, and “a system” in claim 23, the Examiner submits that the limitations are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “an emergency pilot assistance system”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “one or more processors”, and “a system” are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The component(s) merely automate(s) the aforementioned step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
The claim(s) does/do not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the emergency pilot assistance system”, “the artificial neural network”, “the user output device”, “the deep Q network”, “the non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “the one or more processors”, “the system”, and “the network” amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II), “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claims 1, 19, and 23 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 19, and 23 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Examiner additionally notes claims 2-13 depend from claim 1, claims 20-22 depend from claim 19, and claims 24 and 25 depend from claim 23.
Dependent claims 2-13, 20-22, 24, and 25 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Each of the claimed limitations either expand upon or add either 1) new mental process, 2) a new additional element, 3) previously presented mental process, and/or 4) a previously presented additional element.
As such, claims 1-13 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-3151. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Anne M ANTONUCCI can be reached at (313)446-6519. 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.
/K.S.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666