DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing of 7-30-2025. Claims 1 and 3-4 are pending and have been considered below:
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-4 are allowable over prior art. The claims remain rejected under 101, and must be overcome before the claims are allowed.
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 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 3-4 represent method, system and medium type claims. Therefore claims 1 and 3-4 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Regarding claim 1:
2A Prong 1:
different inertia weight settings in different iterative evolution stages of the particle swarm: using a maximum inertia weight to make global convergence in a set early stage of evolution, and using a minimum inertia weight to make local convergence in a set late stage of evolution;
and selection of infeasible particles based on constraints: comparing constraint violation functions of infeasible particles, keeping infeasible particles with small constraint violation functions to continue to participate in the iterative evolution of the particle swarm, and discarding non-winning particles directly due to violating constraints.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can determine weightings and further make comparison judgements).
wherein the track space is set with multiple optimization parameters, that is, for the multi-dimensional track space, different inertia weights are used for different dimensions: the inertia weights are set to change according to the following rules:
PNG
media_image1.png
131
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, wo is the minimum value of the inertia weights, w, is the maximum value of the inertia weights,0<K, 1, K, is a closeness of particle i to an optimal position of the swarm in the j-th dimensional space, £ is the number of iterations, and max is the maximum number of iterations.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
three-dimensional track planning method based on improved particle swarm optimization algorithm, wherein during the process of particles searching an optimal three-dimensional track in a track space (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
the method comprises following steps, by a computing device based on execution of instructions stored in a computer readable medium (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
adding disturbance mutation operation in a motion process of particles based on swarm diversity, wherein the disturbance mutation operation comprises position disturbance of particles, mutation update of global extremum and individual extremum, and setting of number of divergence generations of particles; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
three-dimensional track planning method based on improved particle swarm optimization algorithm, wherein during the process of particles searching an optimal three-dimensional track in a track space (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
the method comprises following steps, by a computing device based on execution of instructions stored in a computer readable medium (mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component)
adding disturbance mutation operation in a motion process of particles based on swarm diversity, wherein the disturbance mutation operation comprises position disturbance of particles, mutation update of global extremum and individual extremum, and setting of number of divergence generations of particles; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 3:
2A Prong 1:
wherein when the particle swarm gathers at an optimal track space position in the early set stage of evolution, position disturbance is performed on a set number of particles; when the global extremum of the particle swarm optimization algorithm has stagnated in a set past stage evolution, a new global extremum is calculated by interpolation algorithm, and it is judged whether the new global extremum is better than the global extremum before calculation, and if so, the global extremum before calculation is replaced by the new global extremum; when the individual extremum of the particle swarm optimization algorithm has stagnated in a set past evolution stage, reverse mutation is performed on the particle i to calculate a new individual extremum, and it is judged whether the new individual extremum is better than the individual extremum before mutation, and if so, the individual extremum before mutation is replaced by the new individual extremum; and when the swarm diversity of the particle swarm tends to converge in the set early stage of evolution,
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion-user can evaluate and make judgements).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Additional elements:
a set number of particles is selected, and the number of divergence generations of the selected particles is set to make them diverge in a search motion region in the track space.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
a set number of particles is selected, and the number of divergence generations of the selected particles is set to make them diverge in a search motion region in the track space.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding claim 4:
2A Prong 1:
wherein the infeasible particles are particles that do not meet constraints of terminal height, terminal landing, dynamic pressure range and overload range, and a constraint violation function is defined as:
PNG
media_image2.png
61
89
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein, My is a total number of the infeasible particles in the swarm; uv is a degree evaluation of deviation from a constraint value;
PNG
media_image3.png
50
103
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein, TI1,'T21314 are normalized values of the deviation degree of the above four constraints respectively; and a plurality of infeasible particles are compared and the infeasible particles with small fv are kept.
As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers Mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation).
2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
No Additional elements:
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
No Additional elements:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 previously rejected under 103, has been overcome by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s remarks have been considered and have overcome the prior art, however have not overcome the 101 rejection.
Regarding the 101, incorporating a computing device and readable medium merely provide instructions to apply to the exception using generic computer components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
20130338977 A1 KAZAMA ET AL. ABSTRACT
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 U.S.P.Q. 275, 277 (C.C.P.A. 1968)).
In the interests of compact prosecution, Applicant is invited to contact the examiner via electronic media pursuant to USPTO policy outlined MPEP § 502.03. All electronic communication must be authorized in writing. Applicant may wish to file an Internet Communications Authorization Form PTO/SB/439. Applicant may wish to request an interview using the Interview Practice website: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
Applicant is reminded Internet e-mail may not be used for communication for matters under 35 U.S.C. § 132 or which otherwise require a signature. A reply to an Office action may NOT be communicated by Applicant to the USPTO via Internet e-mail. If such a reply is submitted by Applicant via Internet e-mail, a paper copy will be placed in the appropriate patent application file with an indication that the reply is NOT ENTERED. See MPEP § 502.03(II).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERROD KEATON whose telephone number is 571-270-1697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor MICHELLE BECHTOLD can be reached at 571-431-0762. 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.
/SHERROD L KEATON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2148
8-26-2025