DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims in application 17/980,306 filed on 11/20/2025.
The Pre-Grant publication # 20240153400 is published on 5/9/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claimed invention is to a process (claim 1--7) and a computer apparatus (8-14) and computer readable medium devices (15-20) and thus fall within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1,8 and 15 are directed to an aircraft simulating event that includes generating executable code including one or more scripts configured to be deployed on simulator to simulate one or more aircraft parameters on the aircraft during the event. The aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight. The computer deploys scripts to output the one or more aircraft parameters to simulator and receive user input in response to the event thereto.
The steps involve are drawn to concept of receiving, observing, identifying, evaluating and determination of trainee inputs and scripts reading aircraft parameters during an event. A concept that are mental processes and by including scripts to output the one or more aircraft parameters to simulator and processing of information thereof, the activities falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas subject to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. The use of revision by machine-learned model could also be categorized as a use mathematical calculations are falling within some mathematical concepts They are generally categorized as a grouping of an abstract idea (Step 2A: Prong 1 YES).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to be significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “a computer system with simulating interface display”, “computer processor’, “a memory’, " physical flight simulator", " aircraft parameters”, “simulating applications” , “ deployment of one or more scripts”, by an apparatus”, “from a data store”. The specified additional elements of input device control and during flight event effects of one or more of wing of the aircraft, both wings of the aircraft, a fuel tank of the aircraft, or a fuselage of the aircraft are also result oriented solution derived by organization of certain methods of human behavior involving steps that are drawn to concept of categorizing actions based on observing, identifying, generating, evaluating and judging of a prompt and to predicted set of requirement for response without any significant improvement in functionality of machines. This generally is linking the use of judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use tool to perform an abstract idea. Hence not indicative of integration of a practical application (Step 2A: Prong 2 NO).
The steps in the recited claims that are highlighted are a well-understood, routine, and conventional (WRC) activities known in art. Fig.2A,2B of the instant specification depict physical flight simulator connections to computing system for a hardware/ software in a standard environment with input/output panel implementing the process claimed here. They appear to be disclosed in their specification in a manner that indicates that those features are well-known, routine, and conventional. They are not dealing with actual improvements to flight simulating or to machine learning. As an example in case of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the activities of storing and retrieving of information in a memory of consumer electronic for a field of use purposes are recognized to be computer functions well-understood, routine, and conventional, when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, there found to be no additional elements here in the claim recitation that improves the functioning of a computer itself to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No).
Claims 2-7, 9-14,16-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, taking the claimed elements individually yields no difference from taking them in combination because each element simply performs its respective simulator function as discussed above. In other words, these claims merely apply an abstract idea to a programmable processor or computer and do not improve the performance of the process or computer itself or provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. They do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, the underlying computing elements remain the same. The change of the center of gravity of the aircraft being characterized by one or more aircraft parameters conditions as that relates to one or both wings of the aircraft, a fuel tank of the aircraft, or a fuselage of the aircraft being updated. The computer processor or another computing device further compares the data to threshold output data that is characterized by one or more threshold aircraft parameters for the event. These additional features in the dependent claims merely apply software instruction to abstract idea by using generic, functional, and conventional definitions and components well-known in the art. Mere instructions to apply an exception using the generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, for these reasons, the claims 2-7,9-14,16-20 are not patent-eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication Number US 20170046968 A1 Gato et al.(Gato) in view of US Patent Application Publication Number US 20210241645 A1 to Onur et al.(Onur).
Claim 1. Gato teaches a method for simulating an event on an aircraft flight using a physical flight simulator capable of simulating the flight and the event on a aircraft model (Para 0004 behavior of a simulated aircraft in a flight simulation; Para 0033 actual flight simulation model), the method comprising:
Generating, by an apparatus and a from a data store, executable code including one or more scripts configured to be deployed on the physical flight simulator to simulate one or more aircraft parameters on the aircraft during an event ( Fig.10 element 1032 coded instructions physical flight simulator), the one or more aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight (Para 0030 characteristic curve) and
Wherein the event effects a part of the aircraft during flight (Para 0029 part variation on AOA have event effects that my effect at a location but may not be considered as effecting a part of the aircraft); and
executing by an apparatus a simulating application, via a computer processor configured to access the executable code, to simulate the event on the aircraft during a flight ( para 0035 simulating application logic) and, at least:
deploy by an apparatus, the one or more scripts to output the one or more aircraft parameters to the physical flight simulator, subject to the one or more aircraft parameters, and receive user input, via input device controls of the physical flight simulator response to the event (Para 0053 input devices control on screen instrumental panel response etc. elevator Para 0058 deployment of example model generation; Fig. 8 element 810 model generator) thereto;
continuously update by an apparatus, the one or more aircraft parameters in response to the user input (Para 0062 simulation updating on various inputs and/or parameter) ; and
output by display device of the apparatus data, including data characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters, for analyzing user reaction to the event (Para 0071-0072 output devices connected to interface circuit for analyzing user command into the processor) .
Gato does not identify simulating an event on an aircraft during a flight wherein the event only affects a of the aircraft during flight, using a physical flight simulator capable of simulating the flight and the event on the aircraft. Onur, however, teaches the executing a simulating application, via a computer processor configured to access the executable code executing, by the apparatus ,to simulate the event on the aircraft during the flight (¶0033 pilot activity data is based on a portion or part of the sensor data received from one or more pilot monitoring senso; ¶0006 pilot evaluation is during aircraft operation event includes a memory, an interface, and one or more processors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate simulating application, via a computer processor configured to access the executable code, to simulate the event on the aircraft executing, by the apparatus, during the flight, as taught by Onur, into the simulating an event on an aircraft flight of Gato, in order to receive sensor data and aircraft state data of an aircraft to include pilot activity and motion data, so the interface could efficiently contribute towards an overall training goal.
Claim 2. Gato teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the data output by the computer processor includes a change of a center of gravity of the aircraft during or after the event, the change of the center of gravity of the aircraft being characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters (Para 0024 change in center of gravity).
Claim 3. Gato teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more aircraft parameters characterize aerodynamic parameters that simulate an aerodynamic performance of the aircraft during the flight (Para 0019 flight simulators employ aerodynamic models to predict the behavior of the simulated aircraft based on one or more model components ).
Claim 4. Gato teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the computer processor is configured to: deploy one of the one or more scripts to thereby change the aerodynamic parameters of the aircraft to simulate an impact on the aerodynamic performance, and continuously update the aerodynamic parameters of the aircraft in response to the user input ( Fig.8 elements 806, 812 flight data and model component calculator; Para 005-0058 parameters updating aerodynamic parameters ).
Claim 5. Gato teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the aerodynamic parameters include physical parameters of the aircraft that alter a center of gravity of the aircraft and a simulated condition of: one or both wings of the aircraft, a fuel tank of the aircraft, or a fuselage of the aircraft ((para 0026 continues updating parameters for simulated conditions on wings, fuselage etc.) .
Claim 6. Gato teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the computer processor being configured to continuously update the aerodynamic parameters includes being configured to update the physical parameters (Fig.9 element 912 calculation to update the physical parameters).
Claim 7. Gato teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the computer processor being configured to output the data includes the method further comprising: comparing, by the computer processor or another computing device to which the computer processor is in communication with, the data to threshold output data that is characterized by one or more threshold aircraft parameters for the event (Para 0019 flight simulators employ aerodynamic models to predict the behavior of the simulated aircraft based on one or more model components ;Para 0056 threshold comparison for triggering parameters in modeling).
Claim 8. Gato teaches an apparatus for simulating an aircraft event during a flight, the apparatus in communication with a physical flight simulator capable of simulating the flight, the apparatus comprising a computer processor and a memory, the computer processor (Para 0004 behavior of a simulated aircraft in a flight simulation; Para 0033 actual flight simulation model) being configured to: access executable code including one or more scripts configured to be deployed on the physical flight simulator to simulate one or more aircraft parameters on the aircraft during the event, the one or more aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight;
wherein, during flight, the event affects one or more of: one wing of the aircraft, both wings of the aircraft, a fuel tank of the aircraft, or a fuselage of the aircraft (Para 0020, 0021 wing level reference line)
execute a simulating application to simulate, on the physical flight simulator, the event on the aircraft during the flight; execute the executable code to deploy the one or more scripts and output the one or more aircraft parameters to the physical flight simulator, subject to the one or more aircraft parameters, and receive user input in response to the event thereto; continuously update the one or more aircraft parameters in response to the user input; and output data, including data characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters, for analyzing user reaction to the event (Fig.10 element 1032 coded instructions physical flight simulator), the one or more aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight; Para 0030 characteristic curve; para 0035 simulating application logic; Para 0062 simulation updating on various inputs and/or parameter) ; and
output data, by a display device of the apparatus, including data characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters, for analyzing user reaction to the event (as in Para 0071-0072 output devices connected to interface circuit for analyzing user command into the processor and display).
Gato does not explicitly simulate an event on an aircraft during a flight using a physical flight simulator capable of simulating the flight and the event on the aircraft. Onur, however, teaches the executing a simulating application, via a computer processor configured to access the executable code, to simulate the event on the aircraft during the flight (¶0006 pilot evaluation during aircraft operation includes a memory, an interface, and one or more processors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate simulating application, via a computer processor configured to access the executable code, to simulate the event on the aircraft during the flight, as taught by Onur, into the simulating an event on an aircraft flight of Gato, in order to receive sensor data and aircraft state data of an aircraft to include pilot activity and motion data, so the interface could efficiently contribute towards an overall training goal.
Claim 9. Gato teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the data output by the computer processor includes a change of a center of gravity of the aircraft during or after the event, the change of the center of gravity of the aircraft being characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters( Para 0024 change in center of gravity).
Claim 10. Gato teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein at least one of the one or more aircraft parameters characterize aerodynamic parameters that simulate an aerodynamic performance of the aircraft during the flight (Para 0019 flight simulators employ aerodynamic models to predict the behavior of the simulated aircraft based on one or more model components ).
Claim 11. Gato teaches the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the computer processor is configured to: deploy one of the one or more scripts to thereby change the aerodynamic parameters of the aircraft to simulate an impact on the aerodynamic performance, and continuously update the aerodynamic parameters of the aircraft in response to the user input (Fig.8 elements 806, 812 flight data and model component calculator; Para 005-0058 parameters updating aerodynamic parameters ).
Claim 12. Gato teaches the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the aerodynamic parameters include physical parameters of the aircraft that alter a center of gravity of the aircraft and a simulated condition of: one or both wings of the aircraft, a fuel tank of the aircraft, or a fuselage of the aircraft (para 0026 continues updating parameters for simulated conditions on wings, fuselage etc.) .
Claim 13. Gato teaches the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the computer processor being configured to continuously update the aerodynamic parameters includes being configured to update the physical parameters (Fig.9 element 912 calculation to update the physical parameters).
Claim 14. Gato teaches the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the computer processor being configured to output the data includes the computer processor, or another computing device in communication with the apparatus, configured to: compare the data to threshold output data that is characterized by one or more threshold aircraft parameters for the event (Para 0056 threshold comparison for triggering parameters in modeling).
Claim 15. Gato teaches a computer-readable storage medium for simulating an event on an aircraft during a flight, the computer-readable storage medium being non-transitory and having computer-readable program code stored therein that, in response to execution by a computer processor in communication with a physical flight simulator capable of simulating the flight, causes an apparatus to: access executable code including one or more scripts configured to be deployed on the physical flight simulator to simulate one or more aircraft parameters on the aircraft during the event, the one or more aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight; execute a simulating application to simulate, on the physical flight simulator, the event on the aircraft during the flight;
wherein, during flight, the event affects one or more of: one wing of the aircraft, both wings of the aircraft, a fuel tank of the aircraft, or a fuselage of the aircraft (Para 0020, 0021 wing level reference line) .
execute the executable code and deploy the one or more scripts to output the one or more aircraft parameters to the physical flight simulator, subject to the one or more aircraft parameters, and receive user input, via input device controls of the physical flight simulator, in response to the event thereto; continuously update the one or more aircraft parameters in response to the user input; and output data, including data characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters, for analyzing user reaction to the event (Para 0021 changing of aircraft parameters in response to input controls; Fig.10 element 1032 coded instructions physical flight simulator), the one or more aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight; Para 0030 characteristic curve; para 0035 simulating application logic; Para 0062 simulation updating on various inputs and/or parameter) ; and output data, including data characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters, for analyzing user reaction to the event as in Para 0071-0072 output devices connected to interface circuit for analyzing user command into the processor)).
Gato does not identify simulating an event on an aircraft during a flight using a physical flight simulator capable of simulating the flight and the event on the aircraft. Onur, however, teaches the executing a simulating application, via a computer processor configured to access the executable code, to simulate the event on the aircraft during the flight (¶0006 pilot evaluation during aircraft operation includes a memory, an interface, and one or more processors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate simulating application, via a computer processor configured to access the executable code, to simulate the event on the aircraft during the flight, as taught by Onur, into the simulating an event on an aircraft flight of Gato, in order to receive sensor data and aircraft state data of an aircraft to include pilot activity and motion data, so the interface could efficiently contribute towards an overall training goal.
Claim 16. Gato teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the data output by the computer processor includes a change of a center of gravity of the aircraft during or after the event, the change of the center of gravity of the aircraft being characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters (Para 0024 change in center of gravity).
Claim 17. Gato teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein at least one of the one or more aircraft parameters characterize aerodynamic parameters that simulate an aerodynamic performance of the aircraft during the flight (Para 0019 flight simulators employ aerodynamic models to predict the behavior of the simulated aircraft based on one or more model components).
Claim 18. Gato teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the computer processor is configured to: deploy one of the one or more scripts to thereby change the aerodynamic parameters of the aircraft to simulate an impact on the aerodynamic performance, and continuously update the aerodynamic parameters of the aircraft in response to the user input (Para 0021 changing of aerodynamic parameters).
Claim 19. Gato teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the aerodynamic parameters include physical parameters of the aircraft (Fig.9 element 912 calculation to update the physical parameters) that alter a center of gravity of the aircraft and a simulated condition of: one or both wings of the aircraft, a fuel tank of the aircraft, or a fuselage of the aircraft, and wherein the computer processor being configured to continuously update the aerodynamic parameters includes being configured to update the physical parameters (para 0026 continues updating parameters for simulated conditions on wings, fuselage etc.) .
Claim 20. Gato teaches the computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the computer processor being configured to output the data includes the computer processor, or another computing device in communication with the computer processor, configured to: compare the data to threshold output data that is characterized by one or more threshold aircraft parameters for the event (Para 0056 threshold comparison).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on November 20, 2025 have been considered.
Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as necessitated by amendments changing the scope of the claims.
35USC101
Applicant on pages 10-16 asserts that the claims describe a specific way to solve training problem such as by,
"generating apparatus from stored data execute code including one or more scripts configured to be deployed on the physical flight simulator to simulate one or more aircraft parameters on the aircraft during the event. The one or more aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight, wherein the event affects a part of the aircraft during flight. Similarly the apparatus deployed one or more scripts to output the one or more aircraft parameters to the physical flight simulator, subject to the one or more aircraft parameters. A continuously updating, by the apparatus, the one or more aircraft parameters in response to the user input, and outputting, by a display device of the apparatus data is achieved by including data characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters, for analyzing user reaction to the event."
Examiners characterize this as an abstract in terms of collecting data (e.g., user input), analyzing that data (e.g., deploy scripts and update aircraft parameters in response to user input), and providing outputs based on that analysis (e.g., output display data) and, therefore, a mental process. This could also be a method of organizing human activity in terms of teaching/training a human being to learn how to read input parameter effects get trained and fly a plane. It is also a rules of a game in terms of providing a flight simulator game, similar to the guitar simulator game found to be patent ineligible in Yousician.
The additional elements could also be argued, e.g., the claimed “apparatus” and/or the “physical flight simulator” does not add “significantly more”. In terms of there is so little disclosure in regard to either of these those disclosures would not be enabling were these devices not already well-known, routine, and conventional.(WRC) Paragraphs 0036,0037 of instant application could be reviewed.
The “apparatus” in amendment would appear to be possibly any general purpose computer (processor, memory, executable code, and display). It is not very clear what exactly the “physical flight simulator” is other than it has a user input device and a display. Again, these must be WRC otherwise this limited disclosure may not be enabling. Or, putting in another way, there is no improvement here to these devices qua devices. In terms of Applicant’s invention that does not result in them being able to, e.g., run faster, use less power, and/or be manufactured more cheaply etc.. So the addition of these devices does not claim “significantly more” than applicant’s abstract idea.
There are specific visual displays providing by the “apparatus” and/or, possibly, the “physical flight simulator”. But not distinguishable from, e.g., Electric Power Group, University of Florida Research Foundation, and/or Yousician in terms of what they are concerned in providing certain visual displays via a computing device.
For at least these or similar reasons, claims not integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. 35USC101 rejection is maintained..
35USC103
Applicant asserting on Pages 16-17 for amendments, as below overcoming prior art rejection is respectfully traversed.
simulate one or more aircraft parameters on the aircraft during the event, the one or more aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight, wherein the event affects a part of the aircraft during flight, “deploy, by the apparatus, the one or more scripts to output the one or more aircraft parameters to the physical flight simulator, subject to the one or more aircraft parameters, “continuously update, by the apparatus, the one or more aircraft parameters in response to the user input," and "output, by a display device of the apparatus, data, including data characterized by the updated one or more aircraft parameters, for analyzing user reaction to the event."
Examiner could not find much argument supporting the amendments distinguishable over prior art combination. Citations from prior art has been added to address the amendments. #%USC103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 7236914 B1 Zyskowski; Michael K.
Integrated aircraft flight dynamics prediction and simulation
US 11592791 B1 Wiegman; Herman
Systems and methods for flight control system using simulator data
US 11932387 B2 Wittmaak, Jr.; John Robert et al.
Adaptive transition systems for VTOL aircraft
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 SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. Gato teaches the examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. Gato teaches 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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
February 12, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715