DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed on 10/02/2025. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 have been amended. Claims 3, 10, and 17 have been cancelled. No new claims have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21 are currently pending.
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 IDS filed 12/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 have been amended. The amended matter has been evaluated with the original disclosure. Examiner has determined that the claimed matter is sufficiently supported by the specification (See at least ¶51) and that no new matter has been introduced by the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
The applicant has filed a Terminal Disclaimer, received on 10/02/2025, in response to the previously noted nonstatutory double patenting rejection to US Patent No. 11,934,749, thereby rendering the previously set-forth rejection moot. The rejection has been accordingly been withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The applicant has amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15 to include additional limitations and asserts that the newly-added limitations do not recite a judicial exception. Applicant particularly argues that the independent claims’ recitation of “wherein the Gaussian pulses are provided by physical manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station” defines an additional limitation that does not recite a judicial exception because the physical manipulation of a tangible instrument is not a mental process or a mathematical concept.
Examiner agrees that the added limitation is not a further recitation of an abstract idea (as a mental process or mathematical concept). However, the examiner has interpreted the inclusion of this limitation as an additional element which does integrate of the recited exceptions into a practical application, nor amount to significantly more that the judicial exceptions. As per this action, the newly added limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering as well as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Particularly, receiving and transmitting data have been recognized as computer functions that are well understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a merely generic manner. The mechanism by which Gaussian pulses are provided (transmitted/received) is recited as a generic transmission of data in a computing environment. Additionally, the limitation has been identified as mere instructions to apply an exception because firstly the limitation provides the idea of an outcome or a solution (providing gaussian pulses) without particularly reciting how the outcome of the solution is achieved. Stating that physical manipulation of one or more tangible instruments provides Gaussian pulses does not provide a clear mechanism by which the outcome is achieved. Furthermore, the claim limitation appears to be using generic computing components functioning in their normal capacity (tangible instruments of an interactive computer simulation station) as tools to perform an existing process. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, a tangible instrument of a computer simulation station may include items such as a mouse and keyboard at a computer wherein such components functioning in their normal capacity would enable the receiving or transmittal of data for further processing. Additional elements that have been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are well understood, routine, and conventional as well as elements that have been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) have not been shown to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. The claim appears to be using generic computing components functioning in their normal capacity to enable the performance of a task which can be performed practically in the human mind or using pen and paper as assistive physical aids.
Applicant further argues that the claimed method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium is able to efficiently create CGF entities which is accomplished by exciting input-output relationships of a nonlinear model at various trim conditions to create frequency responses, wherein such responses are used to calculate parameters of state-space models to linearly approximate a nonlinear model. Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides an improvement in the technical field of modeling simulated objects in interactive computer simulations due to the use of Gaussian pulses provided by physical manipulation of tangible instruments to generate frequency response matrices.
Examiner disagrees. Any purported improvement by the applicant is supplied by the steps which can be construed as mental process or mathematical concepts. Per MPEP 2106.05(a), “An inventive concept cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”. Applying such steps in a computing environment or using computing component as tools to perform existing processes to increase efficiency and speed does not yield an improvement in the functioning of the computer or the technology. There are no additional elements which demonstrate an inventive concept, as described herein this action. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been maintained.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8, and 15 in response to the previously set forth rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness per the terms “efficiently” and “very short”. Applicant has also amended claims 4, 11, and 18 to remove indefinite language “very short” which renders the claim indefinite similar to the independent claims.
The amendments resolve the deficiencies of indefinite language and therefore the rejections to claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 have been withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant has amended the independent claims to incorporate the limitation “using Gaussian pulses each having a period no longer than 2 seconds, wherein the Gaussian pulses are provided by physically manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station” and asserts that there is no teaching by the prior art of record (Wang, Silva, and Seywald) which would disclose or suggest the amended limitation.
Applicant argues that Silva discloses a method which uses computational inputs for computing state-space models and does not disclose physically manipulating tangible instruments to generate inputs nor in an interactive CGF environment. Applicant further asserts that modifying the prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention would not have been obvious to one having skill in the art in view of the cited references.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner agrees that the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the amended limitation. After further search and consideration, Examiner was unable to find additional prior art that would have rendered the entirety of the claimed invention obvious over the prior art. Accordingly, the rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
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 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following section follows the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) for analyzing subject matter eligibility:
Step 1 - Statutory Category:
Step 1 of the PEG analysis entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial exception:
In Step 2A Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea, law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Step 2a Prong 2 - Integration into a practical application:
If claims recite a judicial exception, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A Prong 2. In Step 2A Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B - Significantly More:
If the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception and requires further analysis under Step 2B- Significantly More.
As noted in the MPEP 2106.05(II): The identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong 2, as well as the conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c), (e), (f), and (h) are to be carried over. Claim limitations identified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activities are further evaluated to determine if the elements are beyond what is well -understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activity, as dictated by MPEP 2106.05(II).
Independent Claims:
Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4-7 are directed to a method which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
creating an array of state-space model structures having initially unknown parameters that, once known, will define a linearized approximation of a non linear model of the simulated external vehicle; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a system for its inputs, outputs, and behavior to derive a mathematical representation of the system as state space models. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because a state-space model is a mathematical representation of a system, this claim also includes the recitation of a mathematical relationships and calculations. Therefore, this claim includes the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
generating frequency response matrices by exciting each input-output relationship of the non-linear model of the simulated external vehicle at a plurality of trim conditions using Gaussian pulses each having a period no longer than 2 seconds,[[…]] wherein the frequency response matrices define a plurality of linear equations; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating input-output relationships of a non-linear model to quantify the frequency response in the form of a set of linear equations represented by matrices. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, linear equations are mathematical equations and therefore this claim includes the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
calculating the parameters by solving the linear equations of the frequency response matrices to thereby provide an array of state-space models that defines the linearized approximation of the non-linear model of the simulated external vehicle; and. The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating linear equations to obtain parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of calculating parameters by solving linear equations is the recitation of mathematical calculations and is therefore the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
wherein the Gaussian pulses are provided by physically manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station - -This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation provides the idea of an outcome or solution without providing specifics as to how the solution is accomplished (providing Gaussian pulses by physically manipulating instruments does not provide sufficient details to describe how the physical manipulation of the instruments and the pulses are related, thereby only reciting the idea of an outcome or solution.). Furthermore, the recitation of using a tangible instrument of an interactive computer simulation station, under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to perform the existing process of transmitting and receiving data. The limitation has also been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering with regard to providing the Gaussian pulses.
using the array of state-space models to generate the CGF entity.- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to the words “apply it” with regard for the values obtained as part of the recited judicial exception(s), which in this case is the array of state-space models.
The courts have found that merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does invoking the use of computers or other machinery to perform an existing task. The limitations of the claim does not provide a particular solution to a particular problem or provide a particular way to achieve a desired outcome and therefore does not meaningfully limit the claim such as to integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. The courts have also found that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, an additional element was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore requires further evaluation to determine if the element is beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
wherein the Gaussian pulses are provided by physically manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station - -This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering with regard to providing the Gaussian pulses, as stated previously. The courts have found that transmitting and receiving data, where claimed in a generic manner such as “providing” in this claim, are computer functions that have been established as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The remaining limitations were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as stated previously. The courts have found that adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception and have further found that appending insignificant extra solution activity that had been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity is also not enough to quality the claim as “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim describes a method of executing a series of mathematical evaluations that can be performed within the human mind and subsequently “using” the obtained state space models in a generic and unspecified way to achieve a desired outcome. The inclusion of gathering data using an unspecified instrument as input to a computer to gather data by which to complete the mental process on does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that an inventive concept is apparent. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 and its dependent claims 9, 11-14 are directed to a system which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a machine.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
create an array of state-space model structures having initially unknown parameters that, once known, will define a linearized approximation of a nonlinear model of the simulated external vehicle; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a system for its inputs, outputs, and behavior to derive a mathematical representation of the system as state space models. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because a state-space model is a mathematical representation of a system, this claim also includes the recitation of a mathematical relationships and calculations. Therefore, this claim includes the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
generate frequency response matrices by exciting each input-output relationship of the non-linear model of the simulated external vehicle at a plurality of trim conditions using Gaussian pulses each having a period no longer than 2 seconds [[…]], wherein the frequency response matrices define a plurality of linear equations; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating input-output relationships of a non-linear model to quantify the frequency response in the form of a set of linear equations represented by matrices. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, linear equations are mathematical equations and therefore this claim includes the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
calculate the parameters by solving the linear equations of the frequency response matrices to thereby provide an array of state-space models that defines the linearized approximation of the non-linear model of the simulated external vehicle; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating linear equations to obtain parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of calculating parameters by solving linear equations is the recitation of mathematical calculations and is therefore the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
The claim recites the usage of a computer system, recited at a high level of generality, to perform the recited mental processes. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
wherein the Gaussian pulses are provided by physically manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station - -This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation provides the idea of an outcome or solution without providing specifics as to how the solution is accomplished (providing Gaussian pulses by physically manipulating instruments does not provide sufficient details to describe how the physical manipulation of the instruments and the pulses are related, thereby only reciting the idea of an outcome or solution.). Furthermore, the recitation of using a tangible instrument of an interactive computer simulation station, under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to perform the existing process of transmitting and receiving data. The limitation has also been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering with regard to providing the Gaussian pulses.
use the array of state-space models to generate the CGF entity.- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to the words “apply it” with regard for the values obtained as part of the recited judicial exception(s), which in this case is the array of state-space models.
The courts have found that merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does invoking the use of computers or other machinery to perform an existing task. The limitations of the claim does not provide a particular solution to a particular problem or provide a particular way to achieve a desired outcome and therefore does not meaningfully limit the claim such as to integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. The courts have also found that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, an additional element was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore requires further evaluation to determine if the element is beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
wherein the Gaussian pulses are provided by physically manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station - -This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering with regard to providing the Gaussian pulses, as stated previously. The courts have found that transmitting and receiving data, where claimed in a generic manner such as “providing” in this claim, are computer functions that have been established as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The remaining limitations were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as stated previously. The courts have found that adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception and have further found that appending insignificant extra solution activity that had been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity is also not enough to quality the claim as “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim describes a method of executing a series of mathematical evaluations that can be performed within the human mind and subsequently “using” the obtained state space models in a generic and unspecified way to achieve a desired outcome. The inclusion of gathering data using an unspecified instrument as input to a computer to gather data by which to complete the mental process on does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that an inventive concept is apparent. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15:
Step 1: Claim 15 and its dependent claims 16, 18-21 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which falls within one of the four statutory categories of a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 15 recites a judicial exception, noted in bold:
creating an array of state-space model structures having initially unknown parameters that, once known, will define a linearized approximation of a non-linear model of the simulated external vehicle; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating a system for its inputs, outputs, and behavior to derive a mathematical representation of the system as state space models. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, because a state-space model is a mathematical representation of a system, this claim also includes the recitation of a mathematical relationships and calculations. Therefore, this claim includes the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
generating frequency response matrices by exciting each input-output relationship of the non-linear model of the simulated external vehicle at a plurality of trim conditions using Gaussian pulses each having a period no longer than 2 seconds [[...]], wherein the frequency response matrices define a plurality of linear equations; The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating input-output relationships of a non-linear model to quantify the frequency response in the form of a set of linear equations represented by matrices. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, linear equations are mathematical equations and therefore this claim includes the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
calculating the parameters by solving the linear equations of the frequency response matrices to thereby provide an array of state-space models that defines the linearized approximation of the non-linear model of the simulated external vehicle; and The claim limitation can be reasonably read to entail evaluating linear equations to obtain parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, the recitation of calculating parameters by solving linear equations is the recitation of mathematical calculations and is therefore the additional recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas as a mathematical concept.
The claim recites the usage of a processor, recited at a high level of generality, to perform the recited mental processes as a result of executing computer-readable code. The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. Therefore, the claim recites a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements were identified and are noted in italics.
wherein the Gaussian pulses are provided by physically manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station - -This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitation provides the idea of an outcome or solution without providing specifics as to how the solution is accomplished (providing Gaussian pulses by physically manipulating instruments does not provide sufficient details to describe how the physical manipulation of the instruments and the pulses are related, thereby only reciting the idea of an outcome or solution.). Furthermore, the recitation of using a tangible instrument of an interactive computer simulation station, under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes generic computing components recited at a high level of generality and functioning in their normal capacity to perform the existing process of transmitting and receiving data. The limitation has also been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering with regard to providing the Gaussian pulses.
using the array of state-space models to generate the CGF entity.- This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to the words “apply it” with regard for the values obtained as part of the recited judicial exception(s), which in this case is the array of state-space models.
The courts have found that merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor does invoking the use of computers or other machinery to perform an existing task. The limitations of the claim does not provide a particular solution to a particular problem or provide a particular way to achieve a desired outcome and therefore does not meaningfully limit the claim such as to integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application. The courts have also found that appending insignificant extra solution activity to a judicial exception does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
When viewed independently and within the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: As discussed in Step 2A Prong 2, an additional element was identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and therefore requires further evaluation to determine if the element is beyond WURC activities. Additional elements identified otherwise and conclusions from Step 2A Prong 2 are carried over for evaluating if the claim, as a whole, amounts to an inventive concept that is significantly more than the judicial exception:
wherein the Gaussian pulses are provided by physically manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station - -This limitation has been identified as Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) of mere data gathering with regard to providing the Gaussian pulses, as stated previously. The courts have found that transmitting and receiving data, where claimed in a generic manner such as “providing” in this claim, are computer functions that have been established as well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The remaining limitations were identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as stated previously. The courts have found that adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception and have further found that appending insignificant extra solution activity that had been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional activity is also not enough to quality the claim as “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
With the additional elements viewed independently and as part of the ordered combination, the claim as a whole does not appear to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception because the claim describes a method of executing a series of mathematical evaluations that can be performed within the human mind and subsequently “using” the obtained state space models in a generic and unspecified way to achieve a desired outcome. The inclusion of gathering data using an unspecified instrument as input to a computer to gather data by which to complete the mental process on does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that an inventive concept is apparent. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Conclusion: Based on this rationale, the claim has been deemed to be ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent Claims:
Examiner notes limitations identified as judicial exceptions are indicated in italicized bold and limitations identified as additional elements are indicated using italics.
Claim 2
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 2, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 2 additionally recites the limitation simulating the simulated external vehicle as part of the interactive computer simulation. This limitation has been identified as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) because the limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. The courts have ruled merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 4
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 4, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation each of the Gaussian pulses has a period no longer than 1 second. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 5
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 5, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 additionally recites the limitation calculating the parameters by solving the linear equations of the frequency response matrices comprises calculating the frequency response matrices over a wider range of frequencies than a band of frequencies of the Gaussian pulses, which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating frequency responses to derive numerical solutions in the form of matrices and solving linear equations to derive parameter values. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process. Furthermore, this claim includes the recitation of performing mathematical calculations and therefore the claim additionally includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts.
Step 2a Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 5 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 6
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 6, the judicial exception of independent claim 1 is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 does not recite any additional judicial exceptions.
Step 2a Prong 2: Claim 6 additionally recites the limitation wherein the simulated external vehicle is a simulated aircraft, wherein the trim conditions comprise one or more of a rudder position, an elevator position, an aileron position, angle-of-attack, center of gravity and altitude. This limitation has been identified as Field of Use and Technological Environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the limitation links the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use. The courts have ruled generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. With the additional element viewed in conjunction with the other limitations, the claim as a whole does not appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The courts have found that limitations that amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to qualify the claim as significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements, alone or in the ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7
Step 1: Regarding dependent claim 7, the judicial exception of independent claim # is further incorporated. The claim falls within the corresponding statutory category as stated previously.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 additionally recites the limitation further comprising using pole placement controllers to eliminate spectral leakage without impairing frequency resolution and wherein the controllers cause an output to return to an unperturbed trim condition which can reasonably be read to entail evaluating the state-space system to make a judgement as to where to assign closed-loop poles to achieve desired outputs. This task can be performed within the human mind or using a pen and paper as an assistive physical aid. Therefore, this claim includes the recitation of the judicial exception of abstract ideas of a mental process.
Step 2a Prong 2 & Step 2B: Claim 7 does not include any additional elements and therefore there are no additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
This claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 2 but with respect to independent claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 4 but with respect to independent claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 5 but with respect to independent claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 6 but with respect to independent claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 14
Claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 7 but with respect to independent claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 16
Claim 16 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 2 but with respect to independent claim 15 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 18
Claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 4 but with respect to independent claim 15 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 19
Claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 5 but with respect to independent claim 15 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 20
Claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 6 but with respect to independent claim 15 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Claim 21
Claim 21 recites substantially similar limitations as that recited in claim 7 but with respect to independent claim 15 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale stated previously.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-21 are objected to as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. A complete prior art search has been performed for the claims; however, the search did not reveal prior art that fairly teaches or suggests the features in the claims. Specifically, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are considered allowable over the prior art since when reading the claims in light of the specification, as per MPEP 2111.01, none of the references of record either alone or in combination fairly disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the claims, including at least:
“generating frequency response matrices by exciting each input-output relationship of the non-linear model of the simulated external vehicle at a plurality of trim conditions using Gaussian pulses each having a period no longer than 2 seconds, where in the Gaussian pulses are provided by physically manipulating one or more tangible instruments of the interactive computer simulation station, wherein the frequency response matrices define a plurality of linear equations”
The closest prior art of record includes:
Wang et al. (Wang, S., Liu, Y., “Modeling and Simulation of a CGF Aerial Targets for Simulation Training”, 2020, International Conference on Computer Intelligent Systems and Network Remote Control), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Wang discloses a methodology for generating a computer generated force air target for use in simulation training, wherein the CGF air targets are distinct forces from that forced used by the trainer. ((Wang, 358, ¶3) "In this case, simulation training is an important means for combat commanders to conduct large-scale simulations such as tactical exercises and equipment training, which can achieve the purpose of reducing equipment loss, enhancing training safety, and improving combat capabilities. This paper uses computer programs to control the generation and behavior of CGF air targets, so that the number of targets increases and their behavior has an autonomous intelligence level. It can respond, judge and make decisions based on the real-time situation of the battlefield, so as to provide high-quality combat trainers with opponents or friendly forces."). Wang further discloses creating an array of state sub-models to define the air target, wherein the target is generated as a response to a combat scenario ((Wang, Page 359, ¶2) "CGF air targets are composed of several functional components, including maneuver model, radar fire control model, decision model, tactical rule library and action library. The relationship between them is relatively independent, and the calling methods between these components are carried out. Therefore, the CGF air target belongs to the platform-level combat model, which is a collection of all functional components."), ((Wang, Page 370, ¶2) "In order to monitor the motion and state parameters of the generated target, this article uses the usual table format to display all target parameters in the design of the target simulator software."), ((Wang, Page 368, ¶2) "In equipment simulation training, combat scenarios are generally embodied in some form of script or configuration file, which contains elements such as battlefield environment description, force deployment, weapon equipment, action plans, and propulsion mechanisms. According to the combat scenario file, most of the information generated by the target can be obtained, and the motion trajectory and behavior parameters of the corresponding target can be generated."). Wang discloses the calculation of state parameters of the simulated vehicle through a dynamic equation ((Wang, Page 359, ¶3) "Based on model granularity analysis, the CGF system model is generally composed of an entity maneuver model, an entity decision model and an action execution model. The entity maneuvering model performs physical understanding and calculation of the moving entity, and obtains its state parameters such as attitude and position through the dynamic equation; the entity decision model analyzes the real-time battlefield situation and makes the optimal decision according to the tactical rule base; the action execution model draws conclusions through the reasoning mechanism and further solves the corresponding parameters of the entity."). ((Wang, Page 359, ¶2) "In addition, the CGF air target constructed in the simulation training system has the ability to perceive the battlefield situation, respond to changes in the external environment, and make intelligent decisions and actions, and can accept the centralized and unified guidance management of the entire CGF system.")
Wang; however, does not disclose generating frequency response matrices by excitation of an input-output relationship of the simulated external vehicle at a plurality of trim conditions using short Gaussian pulses, wherein the pulses are provided from manipulating an instrument of the simulation station.
Silva (Silva, W., Raveh, D., "Development of Unsteady Aerodynamic State-Space Models from CFD-Based Pulse Responses, August 2001, 19th AIA A Applied Aerodynamics Conference), hereinafter referred to as Silva.
Silva discloses obtaining parameters that are applied through a nonlinear flow solver to produce a linearized approximation of a nonlinear aeroelastic model and suggests that the approach may be incorporated into simulations ((Silva, Page 2, Col 2, ¶5) "By applying a separate excitation to each mode through the nonlinear flow solver, the total nonlinear aeroelastic response is being approximated by a linear superposition of its individual responses. For a linear flow solver, this approach would be exact. In this case, because the flow solver is nonlinear, this approach is a linearized approximation."). Silva further discloses generating frequency response matrices by Gaussian pulse excitation for multiple modes using computational fluid dynamics code ((Silva, Page 3, Col 1, ¶3) "A second, more elegant approach, involves the use of an exponential (Gaussian-shaped) pulse. The exponential pulse can be shaped to excite a particular range of frequencies with a broad exponential pulse exciting primarily low frequency modes and a sharper exponential pulse exciting primarily higher frequency modes.")., ((Silva, Page 2, Col 2, ¶4) " Using the CFD code, each mode is individually excited to obtain the response of all the modes to this excitation. This process is applied to all n modes, resulting in an n by n "matrix" of responses. The term "matrix" is in quotes to indicate that the responses obtained using this method are usually time-domain functions rather than the constants that usually populate a standard matrix."). ((Silva, Page 4, Col 1, ¶1) "The mode-by-mode excitation technique provides the unsteady aerodynamic response in all four modes due to an excitation of one of the modes. In this fashion, the matrix of four-by-four response functions is developed, resulting in a total of sixteen response functions.")
However, the generation of Gaussian excitation by CFD codes described in Silva does not disclose or directly suggest alternatively using manipulation of tangible instruments to provide the Gaussian excitations.
Seywald (Seywald, K., "Impact of Aeroelasticity on Flight Dynamics and Handling Qualities of Novel Aircraft Configurations", 2016, PhD Dissertation, Technische Universitat Munchen), hereinafter referred to as Seywald
Seywald discloses short period excitation of pitch doublet maneuver and other trim conditions for an aircraft ((Seywald, Page152, ¶1) "Figure C.16 shows a simulation using a pitch doublet excitation of the flexible aircraft for the direct time domain method (DTM, cp. Section 2.5) and the fast time simulation model (FTM ,cp. Section 2.6). ")
However, Seywald does not particularly disclose manipulating tangible instruments of an interactive computer simulation station to impart the excitation.
When taken as a whole, the dependent claims have been found allowable over the prior art for at least the above features recited in the independent claims upon which they depend.
Conclusion
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 EMILY GORMAN LEATHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1880. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, EMERSON PUENTE can be reached at (571) 272-3652. 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.
/E.G.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/BRIAN S COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187