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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application 18/055,990 filed on 04/03/2026. Claims 1, 10 and 16 have been amended. Claims 4-5, 13 and 19 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-18 and 20-21 are pending and examiner in the instant office action. The rejections are as stated below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 04/03/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been fully considered and persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 04/03/2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been fully considered and unpersuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues:
The Amended Claims Recite a Specific, Non-Conventional Computing Configuration — Not a Generic Processor Implementing an Abstract Idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The same updated analysis based on the new 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) applies to the newly added claimed limitations as discussed in the previous office action.
As a result, Step 2A Prong 1 determines if a claim is directed to those grouping and subgroupings along with an explanation of why it is directed to such.
“First, the rejection should identify the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea enumerated in Section I of the 2019 PEG, laws of nature, or a natural phenomenon) by referring to what is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim and explaining why it is considered to be an exception (Step 2A Prong One). There is no requirement for the examiner to provide further support, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), for the conclusion that a claim recites a judicial exception.”
“For abstract ideas, the rejection should explain why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim falls within one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity) or provide a justification for why a specific limitation(s) recited in the claim is being treated as an abstract idea if it does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in accordance with the “tentative abstract idea” procedure in the 2019 PEG.”
The claims are still directed to a mathematical concept and the mental process of organizing/analyzing data. While the Applicant identifies the “VAE” as a “specific architectural component,” the specification (See at least ¶35 of Applicant’s specification) confirms that the underlying hardware (processor and memory) is conventional. The recitation of a VAE, as described, is a functional limitation defined by mathematical algorithm (e.g., probability distributions, KL divergence, and ELBO calculations). Under the 2019 PEG, mathematical formulas and algorithms, even when limited to a particular technological environment like aircraft trajectory, remain abstract ideas.
Step 2a, Prong 2 – The amended claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application:
Applicant argues, the amended claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are 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). In contrast, the instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. The claims do not recite an improvement to the computer architecture. Examiner submits that under the current 35 USC 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶ : Indeed, in this in instant case, the limitations simply narrow or limit the abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2b – The VAE with ELBO/KL Confidence Metrics Constitutes Significantly more than any abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the combination of VAE-ELBO-KL is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field of aircraft anomaly detection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The components used to perform these steps-processor and memory are admitted to be conventional. Variational Autoencoders, KL divergence and ELBO are additional elements that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. The claims recite the results of the math (generating vectors, computing loss) rather than a specific, non-conventional technical implementation of the hardware that achieves these results. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claims 10 and 16
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are objected to for a lack of antecedent basis. In claims 1, 10 and 16, the term “the aircraft trajectory anomaly” lacks a proper antecedent basis in the singular. The claim previously recites “aircraft trajectory anomalies” in the plural. For clarity and consistency, the Applicant should ensure the terminology matches throughout the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 6-12, 14-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 45 U.S.C. 112(b) because:
Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite the limitations “a latent vector" and “a latent space vector" in lines 14-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if said “a latent vector” limitation refers to “a latent space vector” in claim 1, lines 14-16, or of being the same or different vector. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner notes claims 2-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20-21 depend from claims 1, 10 and 16.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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 1-3, 6-12, 14-18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III).
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. An anomaly detection device for an aircraft comprising:
a memory and a processor configured to [applying the abstract idea using generic computer components];
receive satellite position data collected by the aircraft and comprising a sequence of aircraft positions defining an aircraft trajectory [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
process the satellite position data [mental process/step] using a plurality of different deep learning models [applying the abstract idea using generic computing model] to determine respective aircraft trajectory anomalies in a runway approach flight path for the aircraft [mental process/step],
implement a variational autoencoder (VAE) comprising an encoder configured to generate a mean vector and a standard deviation vector from the satellite position data, and generate a latent vector from the mean vector and the standard deviation vector, to analyze a latent space vector and compute evidence lower bound (ELBO) loss and Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence loss to gather confidence metrics for a game theoretic model [applying the abstract idea using generic computing model]
select a given deep learning model that determines the aircraft trajectory anomalies in the runway approach flight path [mental process/step based upon the game theoretic model using the confidence metrics [applying the abstract idea using generic computing model],
generate an alert if the respective aircraft trajectory anomaly in the runway approach flight path determined by the given deep learning model exceeds a threshold [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results)].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a device including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation/steps of process the satellite position data to determine respective aircraft trajectory anomalies in a runway approach flight path for the aircraft and select a given deep learning model that determines the aircraft trajectory anomalies in the runway approach flight path. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the “a memory/processor and deep learning models” and the “a memory/processor and deep learning models” in base claim 1. That is, other than reciting “a memory/processor and deep learning models” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for a memory/processor and deep learning models language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of memory, processor and deep learning models. In particular, memory, processor and deep learning models limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, even 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 evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the memory/processor and deep learning models were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Specification does not provide any indication that the “memory/processor and deep learning models” are anything other than a conventional computer within an aircraft (See at least ¶35 of applicant’s specification).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “memory/processor and deep learning models” elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent method claim 10, respectively, recites similar limitations performed by the device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Independent medium claim 16, respectively, recites similar limitations performed by the device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20-21 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-3, 6-9, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18 and 20-21 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 16.
Thus, claims 1-3, 6-12, 14-18, 20 and 21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Clayton et al., US10410113B2 discloses a variational inference machine, a sequential data forecast machine including a hidden state, and a machine learning model. The sequential data forecast machine exports a version of the hidden state. The variational inference machine receives as inputs time series data and the version of the hidden state, and outputs a time dependency infused latent distribution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights