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” and “ballistic input”. 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.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on 4/21/2026 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 of argument/remarks 4/21/2026 asserts that the claims describe a specific way to solve training problem. Accordingly, the specification's paragraph [0003] explains that the conventional technological processing fails to provide an accurate simulation of an aircraft aerodynamics of a ballistic impact event. Yet, current modern flight simulators cannot accurately simulate aircraft aerodynamics of such events to assess a pilot's reaction to these events and the resulting consequences of the pilot's reactions on aerodynamics of the aircraft.
Applicant further argued that present application's invention improves upon conventional functioning to accurately similar the aircraft aerodynamics of the ballistic impact event:
As a reference applicant provides further illustration :
The specification's paragraph [0036] further states:
The simulation environment also includes a physical flight simulator 104 in communication with the apparatus, the physical flight simulator being capable of simulating the flight and the event on the aircraft. Some example events the physical flight simulator and apparatus are configured to simulate include events (e.g., ballistic impacts) on the fuselage, engine, or wing(s) of the aircraft. For example, an event includes a bird or drone entering the engine of the aircraft.
causing damage to the engine. Another example event includes debris or ice striking the wing or fuselage of the aircraft causing damage to the wing or fuselage. As described further herein, the event causes an aerodynamic performance of the aircraft to change or a change to a center of gravity of the aircraft.
Examiner finds that 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 (that my include ballistic impact), 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 those 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/remarks is overcoming prior art combination.
Applicant has amended the claims to include 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 the ballistic impact event, the one or more aircraft parameters characterizing a current status of the aircraft or systems thereof during the flight.
Claim has included wherein the ballistic impact event affects a part of the aircraft during flight," and "executing, by the apparatus, a simulating application, via a computer processor configured to access the executable code stored in the data store, to simulate the ballistic impact event on the aircraft during the flight and, at least:" "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, and receive user input, via input device controls of the physical flight simulator, after the ballistic impact event," and "continuously update, by the apparatus, the one or more aircraft parameters in response to the user input by sending the one or more aircraft parameters to the physical flight simulator," as recited in claim 1, 8 and 15 and as amended
Applicant representative has also briefed examiner on the proposed amendments that potentially focus on study of after-affect simulation and on damage caused because of a ballistic event impacts on the aircraft.
Examiner finds amendments distinguishable over prior art combination for control selected maneuvering of e.g. angle of attack rejection as disclosed for a parameter in primary prior art Gato et al. and in combinations of prior art.
35USC103 rejection is withdrawn.
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
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
June 27, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights