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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This is a Non-Final Rejection office action in response to the request for continued examination, received 8/21/25. Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-14 have been examined and fully considered. Claim 3 has been canceled without prejudice. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, and 10 have been amended. Claims 11-14 are newly added.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4-14 are pending in Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of App #FR2107655 filed 07/15/2021.
Response to Arguments/Rejections
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/25/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are not sufficient for overcoming the rejection.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As amended, the claims recite(s) a “mental processes” that includes observation, evaluation/judgement and opinion (i.e., “determining a trajectory of an aircraft intended to fly over a field of operation with a view to performing an action on a target at a given time”). The human mind is capable of carry out these “mental processes”. As an example, for the purpose of illustration, humans as “air-traffic controllers” continue make evaluation of air-traffic operation to make correct judgements continuously “validating flight processes”. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea. Examiner notes that the Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The improvements asserted by Applicant (e.g., trajectory planning based on threat level, compliance with time constraints, etc.) are directed to improvements in abstract concepts, rather than to the technology for computing or to flight technology itself. As explained below, the claims recite the use of generic computer components to implement the abstract processes identified below. In addition, the delivery of flight instructions to an aircraft merely represents post-solution activity as claimed and the recitation of “for subsequent control” does not actively recite a control function, but rather the potential for future application of received information in the control of said aircraft.
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments directed to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) introduce further ambiguity about the scope of the claims and the sufficiency of the written description support for the amended claim limitations. See the updated rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s amendments and associated arguments directed to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §103 are persuasive and have been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-14 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, 5, and 7-8 are amended with new limitations that do not have written descriptions support. While there is support for communication between the platform and the aircrafts for synchronization purposes, there is nothing in the specification to suggest that the synchronization are used to effect the control of the aircraft. Note that the specification provides multiple examples of aircraft, including fighter jets and helicopters, which may be manned, and the interpretation of the claims under BRI include synchronization planning to occur before takeoff rather than responsive to detected triggers.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6 and 10-14 do not act to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations directed to “module” functions recited in claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because, for example, the “device” that implements the “intelligent algorithm” and comprises a “situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module” suggests a structure with processing capability, but that structure may be a system with multiple processing units or a singular processing unit with software programing provided thereon. Therefore, the discretization module and computing module may represent software, or a combination of hardware and software (e.g., a processor that implements instructions stored in memory). The specification presents the relationship between the device and the modules in a similar fashion, and further states that the method is implemented by computerized means The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 11 recites “the aircraft”, but it is unclear if this aircraft is the first aircraft or the second aircraft identified in independent claim 9, or any aircraft (including the first/second/third…) within a plurality of aircraft, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 12 and 13 recite that the first and second aircraft have a constant speed and constant altitude and that the synchronization consists in modifying a departure time of the second aircraft. It is unclear how a grounded aircraft has a constant speed and altitude without being airborne, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Examiner interprets speed and altitude to be variables in the synchronization planning, rather that an instant speed or altitude evaluated in real time.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6 and 10-14 do not act to cure the deficiencies of the independent claims 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 and are thereby rejected for at least the same rationale.
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, and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1: Yes, the claims are drawn to one or more statutory categories.
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-14 are directed to a methods (processes) and systems (machine or manufacture), respectively. As such, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Yes, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites abstract limitations, including those bolded below.
A method, implemented in a device, for determining a flight trajectory to be followed by an aircraft over a field of operation for performing an action on a target at a given time (Tid), wherein said trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) between a starting point of said trajectory and the target, said device implementing an intelligent algorithm and comprising a situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module, wherein the method comprises: receiving information from the situation database storing information related to said field of operation, dividing, by the intelligent algorithm, said field of operation into a plurality of secure areas (Z1, Z3) assigned to a low risk level and a plurality of non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) assigned to a high risk level, using the information received from the situation database, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, determining, by the discretization module, a trajectory frame in said secure areas and non-secure areas determined by the intelligent algorithm, the trajectory frame being a trajectory discretized in said intermediate points, said trajectory frame comprising a succession of segments (S1, S2, S3, S4), arranged between the starting point and the target and relating said intermediate points, said succession of segments being determined from a trajectory planning and a temporal constraint associated with said given time (Tid), computing (E3), by the computing module, a set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5) between said starting point, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) and said target, said computing step using a location of the plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) over the field of operation and said trajectory frame determined by the discretization module, said set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4) comprising at least one section of a first section type (T2, T4) and at least one section of a second section type (T1, T3) (Z1, Z3), a section of the first section type (T2, T4) extending over non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and having a rectilinear overall shape adapted to limit time spent by the aircraft in said non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and a section of said second section type (T1, T3) extending over secure areas and having a sinusoidal shape adapted to allow a time reserve to adjust a position of the aircraft over the target at said given time (Tia) to perform the action, said flight trajectory comprising said set of sections determined by the computing module, and the method further comprising: delivering said flight trajectory to the aircraft for subsequent control of the aircraft.
Claim 5 recites similar abstract limitations, including those bolded below.
A device for determining a flight trajectory to be followed by an aircraft over a field of operation for performing an action on a target at a given time (Tid), wherein said device implements an intelligent algorithm and comprises a situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module, said trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) between a starting point of said trajectory and the target, wherein: the intelligent algorithm is adapted to receive information from the situation database, the situation database storing information related to said field of operation, the intelligent algorithm being adapted to divide said field of operation into a plurality of secure areas (Z2, Z4) assigned to a low risk level and a plurality of non-secure areas (Z1, Z3) assigned to a high risk level, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) being positioned on borders between secure areas and non- secure areas, the discretization module is adapted to determine a trajectory frame in said secure areas and non-secure areas determined by the intelligent algorithm, the trajectory frame being a trajectory discretized in said intermediate points, said trajectory frame comprising a succession of segments (S1, S2, S3, S4) arranged between the starting point and the target and relating said intermediate points, said succession of segments being determined from a trajectory planning and a temporal constraint associated with said given time (Tid), the computing module is adapted to compute a set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5) between said starting point, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) and said target, said computation performed by the computing module using a location of the plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) over the field of operation, and said trajectory frame determined by the discretization module, said set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4) comprising at least one section of a first section type (T2, T4) and at least one section of a second section type (T1, T3), a section of the first section type (T2, T4) extending over non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and having a rectilinear overall shape adapted to limit time spent by the aircraft in the non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and a section of the second section type (T1, T3, T5) extending over secure areas and having a sinusoidal shape adapted to provide a time reserve to adjust a position of the aircraft over the target at said given time (Tid) to perform the action, said flight trajectory comprising said set of sections determined by the computing module, and the device being adapted to deliver said flight trajectory to the aircraft for subsequent control of the aircraft.
Claim 7 recites similar abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A method, implemented in a device, for synchronizing actions on a target between a first aircraft intended to fly over a field of operation to perform a first action on said target at a first given time (Tid) and at least one second aircraft intended to fly over said field of operation to perform a second action on said target at a second given time (T'id), wherein each of said aircraft a flight trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4; P'1, P'2,P'3, P'4) between a starting point and the target, said intermediate points being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, wherein said device implements an intelligent algorithm and comprises a situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module, the method comprising;
receiving information from the situation database, the situation database storing information related to said field of operation, dividing, by the intelligent algorithm, said field of operation into a plurality of secure areas (Z1, Z3) assigned to a low risk level and a plurality of non- secure areas (Z2, Z4) assigned to a high risk level, using said information received from the situation database, each aircraft having a trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4: P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) between a starting point and the target, said intermediate points being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, wherein said method further comprises for each of said aircraft: determining, by the discretization module, a trajectory frame in said secure areas and non-secure areas determined by the intelligent algorithm, the trajectory frame being a trajectory discretized in said intermediate points, said trajectory frame comprising a succession of segments (S1, S2, S3, S4) arranged between the starting point and the target and relating said intermediate points, said succession of segments being determined from a trajectory planning and a temporal constraint associated with an instant time Tid corresponding to the time for performing the action by said aircraft, computing (E'3), by the computing module, a set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5; T'1, T'2, T'3, T'4, T'5) between said starting point, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4; P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) and said target, said computing step using a location of the plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) over the field of operation and said trajectory frame determined by the discretization module, said set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5; T'1, T'2, T'3, T'4, T'5) comprising at least one section of a first section type (T2, T4;T'2; T'4) and at least one section of a second type (T1, T3; T'1, T'3), said first section type (T2, T4; T'2; T'4) extending over non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and having a rectilinear overall shape adapted to limit a time spent by the aircraft in the non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and said second section type (T1, T3, T5; T'1, T'3, T'5) extending over secure areas (Z1, Z3) and having a sinusoidal shape adapted to provide a time reserve to adjust the position of the aircraft over the target at said given time (Tid; T'id) to perform said action, and the flight trajectory of said aircraft comprising said set of sections determined by the computing module, the method comprising delivering, by said computing module, said flight trajectory to said aircraft for subsequent control of the aircraft, wherein said first given time (Tid) and said second given time (T'id) are selected to synchronize the first action performed by the first aircraft and the second action performed by the second aircraft on said target.
Claim 8 (and claim 9, which embodies the entirety of claim 8) recites similar abstract limitations, including those bolded below.
A synchronization device for synchronizing actions on a target between a first aircraft intended to fly over a field of operation to perform a first action on said target at a first given time (Tid) and at least one second aircraft intended to fly over said field of operation to perform a second action on said target at a second given time (T' id), wherein each aircraft has a flight trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4; P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) between a starting point and the target, said intermediate points being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, wherein said synchronization device implements an intelligent algorithm and comprises a situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module, wherein, for each aircraft: the intelligent algorithm is adapted to receive information from the situation database, the situation database storing information related to said field of operation, the intelligent algorithm being adapted to divide said field of operation into a plurality of secure areas (Z1, Z3) assigned to a low risk level and a plurality of non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) assigned to a high risk level, each aircraft having a trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1,P2, P3, P4: P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) between a starting point and the target, said intermediate points being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, the discretization module is adapted to determine a trajectory frame, for said aircraft, in said secure areas and non-secure areas determined by the intelligent algorithm, the trajectory frame being a trajectory discretized in said intermediate points, said trajectory frame comprising a succession of segments (S1, S2, S3, S4) arranged between the starting point and the target and relating said intermediate points, said succession of segments being determined from a trajectory planning and a temporal constraint associated with said given time (T id),the computing module is configured to compute, for said aircraft, a set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5; T'1, T'2, T'3, T'4, T'5) between said starting point, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4; P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) and said target, said computation performed by the computing module using a location of the plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) over the field of operation, and said trajectory frame determined by the discretization module, said set of sections comprising at least one section of a first section type (T2, T4; T'2, T'4) and at least one section of a second type of section (T1, T3, T5; T'1, T'3, T'5), a section of said first section type (T2, T4; T'2, T'4) extending over non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and having a rectilinear overall shape adapted to limit time spent by the aircraft in the non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and a section of said second section type (T1, T3, T5; T'1, T'3, T'5) extending over secure areas (Z1, Z3) and having a sinusoidal shape adapted to provide a time reserve to adjust a position of the aircraft over the target at said given time (Tia; T'id) to perform the action, and the flight trajectory of said aircraft comprising said set of sections determined by the computing module, the device being adapted to deliver said flight trajectory to said aircraft for subsequent control of the aircraft, wherein said first given time (T id) and said second given time (T' id) are selected to synchronize the first action performed by the first aircraft and the second action performed by the second aircraft on said target.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. More specifically, claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8 and 9 recite(s) a “mental processes” that includes observation, evaluation/judgement and opinion (i.e., “determining a trajectory of an aircraft intended to fly over a field of operation with a view to performing an action on a target at a given time”). The human mind is capable of carry out these “mental processes”. As an example, for the purpose of illustration, humans as “air-traffic controllers” continue make evaluation of air-traffic operation to make correct judgements continuously “validating flight processes”. Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: No: the claims does not recite additional that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
If the claim recites a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One , the claim requires further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements, including those underlined below.
A method, implemented in a device, for determining a flight trajectory to be followed by an aircraft over a field of operation for performing an action on a target at a given time (Tid), wherein said trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) between a starting point of said trajectory and the target, said device implementing an intelligent algorithm and comprising a situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module, wherein the method comprises: receiving information from the situation database storing information related to said field of operation, dividing, by the intelligent algorithm, said field of operation into a plurality of secure areas (Z1, Z3) assigned to a low risk level and a plurality of non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) assigned to a high risk level, using the information received from the situation database, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, determining, by the discretization module, a trajectory frame in said secure areas and non-secure areas determined by the intelligent algorithm, the trajectory frame being a trajectory discretized in said intermediate points, said trajectory frame comprising a succession of segments (S1, S2, S3, S4), arranged between the starting point and the target and relating said intermediate points, said succession of segments being determined from a trajectory planning and a temporal constraint associated with said given time (Tid), computing (E3), by the computing module, a set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5) between said starting point, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) and said target, said computing step using a location of the plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) over the field of operation and said trajectory frame determined by the discretization module, said set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4) comprising at least one section of a first section type (T2, T4) and at least one section of a second section type (T1, T3) (Z1, Z3), a section of the first section type (T2, T4) extending over non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and having a rectilinear overall shape adapted to limit time spent by the aircraft in said non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and a section of said second section type (T1, T3) extending over secure areas and having a sinusoidal shape adapted to allow a time reserve to adjust a position of the aircraft over the target at said given time (Tia) to perform the action, said flight trajectory comprising said set of sections determined by the computing module, and the method further comprising: delivering said flight trajectory to the aircraft for subsequent control of the aircraft.
Claim 5 recites similar additional elements, including those underlined below.
A device for determining a flight trajectory to be followed by an aircraft over a field of operation for performing an action on a target at a given time (Tid), wherein said device implements an intelligent algorithm and comprises a situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module, said trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) between a starting point of said trajectory and the target, wherein: the intelligent algorithm is adapted to receive information from the situation database, the situation database storing information related to said field of operation, the intelligent algorithm being adapted to divide said field of operation into a plurality of secure areas (Z2, Z4) assigned to a low risk level and a plurality of non-secure areas (Z1, Z3) assigned to a high risk level, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P5) being positioned on borders between secure areas and non- secure areas, the discretization module is adapted to determine a trajectory frame in said secure areas and non-secure areas determined by the intelligent algorithm, the trajectory frame being a trajectory discretized in said intermediate points, said trajectory frame comprising a succession of segments (S1, S2, S3, S4) arranged between the starting point and the target and relating said intermediate points, said succession of segments being determined from a trajectory planning and a temporal constraint associated with said given time (Tid), the computing module is adapted to compute a set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5) between said starting point, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) and said target, said computation performed by the computing module using a location of the plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4) over the field of operation, and said trajectory frame determined by the discretization module, said set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4) comprising at least one section of a first section type (T2, T4) and at least one section of a second section type (T1, T3), a section of the first section type (T2, T4) extending over non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and having a rectilinear overall shape adapted to limit time spent by the aircraft in the non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and a section of the second section type (T1, T3, T5) extending over secure areas and having a sinusoidal shape adapted to provide a time reserve to adjust a position of the aircraft over the target at said given time (Tid) to perform the action, said flight trajectory comprising said set of sections determined by the computing module, and the device being adapted to deliver said flight trajectory to the aircraft for subsequent control of the aircraft.
Claim 7 recites similar abstract limitations, including those bolded below:
A method, implemented in a device, for synchronizing actions on a target between a first aircraft intended to fly over a field of operation to perform a first action on said target at a first given time (Tid) and at least one second aircraft intended to fly over said field of operation to perform a second action on said target at a second given time (T'id), wherein each of said aircraft a flight trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4; P'1, P'2,P'3, P'4) between a starting point and the target, said intermediate points being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, wherein said device implements an intelligent algorithm and comprises a situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module, the method comprising;
receiving information from the situation database, the situation database storing information related to said field of operation, dividing, by the intelligent algorithm, said field of operation into a plurality of secure areas (Z1, Z3) assigned to a low risk level and a plurality of non- secure areas (Z2, Z4) assigned to a high risk level, using said information received from the situation database, each aircraft having a trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4: P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) between a starting point and the target, said intermediate points being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, wherein said method further comprises for each of said aircraft: determining, by the discretization module, a trajectory frame in said secure areas and non-secure areas determined by the intelligent algorithm, the trajectory frame being a trajectory discretized in said intermediate points, said trajectory frame comprising a succession of segments (S1, S2, S3, S4) arranged between the starting point and the target and relating said intermediate points, said succession of segments being determined from a trajectory planning and a temporal constraint associated with an instant time Tid corresponding to the time for performing the action by said aircraft, computing (E'3), by the computing module, a set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5; T'1, T'2, T'3, T'4, T'5) between said starting point, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4; P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) and said target, said computing step using a location of the plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) over the field of operation and said trajectory frame determined by the discretization module, said set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5; T'1, T'2, T'3, T'4, T'5) comprising at least one section of a first section type (T2, T4;T'2; T'4) and at least one section of a second type (T1, T3; T'1, T'3), said first section type (T2, T4; T'2; T'4) extending over non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and having a rectilinear overall shape adapted to limit a time spent by the aircraft in the non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and said second section type (T1, T3, T5; T'1, T'3, T'5) extending over secure areas (Z1, Z3) and having a sinusoidal shape adapted to provide a time reserve to adjust the position of the aircraft over the target at said given time (Tid; T'id) to perform said action, and the flight trajectory of said aircraft comprising said set of sections determined by the computing module, the method comprising delivering, by said computing module, said flight trajectory to said aircraft for subsequent control of the aircraft, wherein said first given time (Tid) and said second given time (T'id) are selected to synchronize the first action performed by the first aircraft and the second action performed by the second aircraft on said target.
Claim 8 (and claim 9, which embodies the entirety of claim 8) recites similar abstract limitations, including those bolded below.
A synchronization device for synchronizing actions on a target between a first aircraft intended to fly over a field of operation to perform a first action on said target at a first given time (Tid) and at least one second aircraft intended to fly over said field of operation to perform a second action on said target at a second given time (T' id), wherein each aircraft has a flight trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4; P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) between a starting point and the target, said intermediate points being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, wherein said synchronization device implements an intelligent algorithm and comprises a situation database, a discretization module, and a computing module, wherein, for each aircraft: the intelligent algorithm is adapted to receive information from the situation database, the situation database storing information related to said field of operation, the intelligent algorithm being adapted to divide said field of operation into a plurality of secure areas (Z1, Z3) assigned to a low risk level and a plurality of non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) assigned to a high risk level, each aircraft having a trajectory comprising a plurality of intermediate points (P1,P2, P3, P4: P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) between a starting point and the target, said intermediate points being positioned on borders between secure areas and non-secure areas, the discretization module is adapted to determine a trajectory frame, for said aircraft, in said secure areas and non-secure areas determined by the intelligent algorithm, the trajectory frame being a trajectory discretized in said intermediate points, said trajectory frame comprising a succession of segments (S1, S2, S3, S4) arranged between the starting point and the target and relating said intermediate points, said succession of segments being determined from a trajectory planning and a temporal constraint associated with said given time (T id), the computing module is configured to compute, for said aircraft, a set of sections (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5; T'1, T'2, T'3, T'4, T'5) between said starting point, said intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4; P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) and said target, said computation performed by the computing module using a location of the plurality of intermediate points (P1, P2, P3, P4, P'1, P'2, P'3, P'4) over the field of operation, and said trajectory frame determined by the discretization module, said set of sections comprising at least one section of a first section type (T2, T4; T'2, T'4) and at least one section of a second type of section (T1, T3, T5; T'1, T'3, T'5), a section of said first section type (T2, T4; T'2, T'4) extending over non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and having a rectilinear overall shape adapted to limit time spent by the aircraft in the non-secure areas (Z2, Z4) and a section of said second section type (T1, T3, T5; T'1, T'3, T'5) extending over secure areas (Z1, Z3) and having a sinusoidal shape adapted to provide a time reserve to adjust a position of the aircraft over the target at said given time (Tia; T'id) to perform the action, and the flight trajectory of said aircraft comprising said set of sections determined by the computing module, the device being adapted to deliver said flight trajectory to said aircraft for subsequent control of the aircraft, wherein said first given time (T id) and said second given time (T' id) are selected to synchronize the first action performed by the first aircraft and the second action performed by the second aircraft on said target.
A platform configured to communicate with a first aircraft and at least with a second aircraft in order to synchronize actions on a target.
The data processing functions of the device (implementing an intelligent algorithm and comprising a discretization module, and a computing module) are recited at a high level of generality and merely describes how to generally “apply” (implement) the abstract idea in a generic or general purpose computing environment. Each system component is recited at a high level of generality and merely acts to automate the aforementioned abstract limitations.
The data storage and retrieval function of the (synchronization) device comprising the intelligent algorithm (retrieval of data from a database) merely amounts to extra-solution activity.
The data communication functions between devices (e.g., transmitting information from a device/platform to an aircraft) also merely mounts to extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B. No, the additional element(s) of these claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
As discussed above, the data processing functions of the device (implementing an intelligent algorithm and comprising a discretization module, and a computing module) are recited at a high level of generality and merely describes how to generally “apply” (implement) the abstract idea in a generic or general purpose computing environment. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
As discussed above, the data storage and retrieval function of the (synchronization) device comprising the intelligent algorithm merely amounts to extra-solution activity. The Versata and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that storing and retrieving data in memory is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
As discussed above, the data communication functions between devices (e.g., transmitting information from a device/platform to an aircraft) also merely mounts to extra-solution activity. The Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs. and buySAFE court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
In addition, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements as it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
It is noted that, as currently recited, the aircraft and the field of operation merely characterize factors considered when performing the mental process. However, when interpreted as additional elements, the aircraft and the field of operation would merely indicate a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2, 4, 6, and 12-14 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (data utilized in synchronization planning). Claims 2 further recite additional elements including “the computing module, …., and a primitive database”, where the computing module applies the abstract idea and the function of receiving information from a database represents extra-solution activity (receipt of data from storage as indicated above with respect to the analysis of the independent claims). Claim 6 further recites the receipt of information from the situation database, which is extra-solution activity (receipt of data from storage as indicated above with respect to the analysis of the independent claims). For the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 further characterizes the platform being installed on multiple aircraft to facilitate communication between aircraft. At this level of breadth, these limitations merely amount to characterizing a field of use, and further recite the communication between aircraft which represents extra-solution activity (communication between devices as indicated above with respect to the analysis of the independent claims).
Claim 11 further recites the function of installing the platform on the aircraft. At this level of breadth, these limitations are extra-solution and represent the information transmitted between devices, which as indicated in the analysis of the independent claims above is well-understood, routine and conventional activity.
Possible Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4, 5, and 11-14 are being rejected to being dependent upon the independent claims 1, 5 and 7-9. However, claim(s) 1-2, and 4-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m)
Relative Prior Art
Valerio Manetti (WO2009093276A1; the NPL citations are based on the provided English Translation, previously recorded) hereinafter, referred to as “Manetti” teaches a device and a method that will enable planning of a surveillance mission according to the real capabilities of observation of the target by the reconnoitring system in the conditions of visibility encountered during reconnoitring, ensuring a complete observation of the areas, and that will be able to plan in an altogether automatic way the flight and observation path most suited to the areas to be observed.
Pele (Pub. No.: US 2022/0270495), teaches a method is proposed for modeling a three-dimensional environment by digital processing in order to establish pathways for unmanned aerial devices optimized according to different priorities, characterized in that it comprises the following digital processing steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAKARI UNDERWOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-8462. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 TO 4:30.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on 571-272-9588. 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.
/B.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663