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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 28, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on May 28, 2026 for the patent application 18/143,321 originally filed on May 4, 2023. Claims 45-48, 51-58 and 60-67 are amended. Claims 1-44, 49-50 and 59 are canceled. Claims 45-48, 51-58 and 60-67 are pending. The first office action of August 15, 2024; the second office action of February 5, 2025; the third office action of July 16, 2025; and the fourth office action of January 28, 2026 are fully incorporated by reference into this Non-Final Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 57 is objected to because of the following informality: typographical error.
Claim 57 recites the following: “FSTD according to claim 54, wherein said processor further determines a critical time point and a critical action preceding said critical time point.”
Specifically, the limitation is lacking an article (i.e. “The”). The Examiner reasonably believes the missing article is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim limitation as follows: “The FSTD according to claim 54, wherein said processor further determines a critical time point and a critical action preceding said critical time point.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 45-48, 51-58 and 60-67 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.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 45 is directed to “a flight simulator training device,” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “user training,” in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 45:
“track a line-of-sight (LOS) of said user and correspondingly output LOS measurements;
receive aircraft state data to generate and run a simulation of said aircraft and at least one simulated entity virtually interacting with said aircraft in an activity session;
capture data for storing at least said activity session, said LOS measurements, said aircraft state data, said user input resulting in at least one maneuvering of said aircraft and modifying said at least one measurable parameter of said aircraft; and
present said aircraft state data, data associated with said activity session, said simulation and said user input, and said LOS measurements of said user in the context of said simulation and during interaction between said aircraft and said at least one simulated entity in said activity session for review in selected time resolutions.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a storage device,” “a processor,” “an output device,” and “a head tracker,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “user training,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a storage device,” “a processor,” “an output device,” and “a head tracker,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a storage device,” and “a processor,” are described in para. [0069] as follows: “[0069] Generally speaking, debriefing system 302 and its components are constituted by a computer system including components such as a central processing unit that may be implemented with a conventional microprocessor (i.e., processor 306), a random access memory (RAM) for temporary storage of information, and a read only memory (ROM) for permanent storage of information. A memory controller is provided for controlling RAM. A bus interconnects the components of the computer system. A bus controller is provided for controlling the bus. An interrupt controller is used for receiving and processing various interrupt signals from the system components. Mass storage may be provided, for example, by a Hard Disc Drive (HDD) or by a flash drive.” These elements are reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “an output device,” is described in para. [0077] as follows: “[0077] Output device 308 is a device, or a plurality of devices, configured to output data to the operator (or to additional or other users), such as a display, a speaker, a tactile output device, and the like.” This element is reasonably interpreted as part of a generic computer as a generic computer component which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a head tracker,” is not sufficiently described in the written description of the specification as originally filed and is reasonably understood as “a sensor.” As such, this element is also reasonably interpreted as a generic computer component which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Therefore, all of the elements claimed are reasonably interpreted as part of, and including, a generic computer which exists among ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and are thereby reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 46, 51-58 and 60-67 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 46, 51-58 and 60-67 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 45. Therefore, claims 45-48, 51-58 and 60-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on May 28, 2026 related to claims 45-48, 51-58 and 60-67 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Step 2A Prong 1 - Judicial Exception: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (Abstract idea, law of nature, natural phenomenon)?
The Applicant respectfully argues “The claim is not directed to a judicial exception: The claim is not a law of nature. The claim is not a mathematical formula. The claim is not a mental process. The claim is not merely organizing human activity even though there's human-to-FSTD interaction. Why? Because the FSTD is a physical specific machine, where the processor generates simulations with simulated entities interacting with the aircraft. The claim includes integration of LOS measurements that are captured and presented within the simulation, integrating the aircraft state. The claimed invention is therefore not merely an abstract idea, law of nature, natural phenomenon, mental process, or method of organizing human activity.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The abstract idea is related to simulation in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), which are categorized as “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Also, MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “flight simulator training,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Likewise, with respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Appellant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong 2 - Practical Application: Does the claim as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Applicant respectfully argues “Yes, because the claim is integrated into a practical application of improving technology, i.e., a specialized flight simulator training system device (FSTD) and a head-tracker-coupled with real-time aircraft state data and vehicle input devices from the user. The claim doesn't recite merely gathering of data in a vacuum but rather it ties the data directly to a specific physical and simulated training environment to solve a technical problem in pilot training: (1) LOS is physically tracked by hardware, not merely guessed or mentally observed; (2) the processor runs technical simulations, using LOS, aircraft state, and user input; and (3) the output device presents LOS with simulations and user interaction in selected time resolutions.
Therefore, this integrates the information collection/presentation into the operation of the FSTD. The "activity session" is not abstract - it is a technical simulation of an aircraft with virtual entities incorporating LOS and aircraft state. The system is not merely collecting and displaying information to a human, it is a specialized simulator system that offers an improvement to that machine by further including LOS integration. This constitutes a functional improvement in training technologies because it integrates real-time physical human movements (LOS measurements) with simulated environmental entities and physical aircraft state data, allowing contextual playback at selected time resolutions. Even if the argument that LOS tracking might be considered "conventional", it doesn't make the combination abstract, because the key is integration into a simulator system with simulation output tied to LOS.
Additionally, the claimed invention provides a functional improvement (under MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) there needs to be an evaluation of whether the claim improves the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field.) The claimed invention improves the FSTD itself (specialized technical machine), because: (1) It integrates head-tracking with LOS into simulation output; (2) it integrates aircraft state sensors and input devices; and (3) it allows presentation of the user's LOS in the context of the simulation, enhancing system functionality, not just human cognition. Under USPTO guidance, these are sufficient for demonstrating "a practical application".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2B - Significantly More / Inventive Concept: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (that are more than conventional or generic technology)?
The Applicant respectfully argues “Yes, because the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts. While individual components, like processors and storage are conventional components, Step 2B requires evaluating the elements as an ordered combination. The claimed combination captures user-specific data stream (LOS) and maps it against simulated (e.g., adversarial) entities and physical aircraft telemetry. This specific architecture creates an improved, synchronized debriefing tool that is absent from the prior art. The end result constitutes a novel technological improvement to specific technology, the FSTD itself, which amounts to significantly more than any possible recited individual exception. An improvement to the relevant technology is explicitly listed by USPTO as an eligible inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claimed invention incorporates an "inventive concept" because the ordered combination of physical pilot tracking (LOS) synchronized with real-time aircraft state data creates a structural framework that fundamentally improves the technical capabilities of simulation training, meeting the criteria laid out by the MPEP requirement.
According to the Berkheimer Doctrine, the ordered combination of these elements-specifically combining real-world onboard aircraft sensing data, user input, and real-time head-tracking LOS inside a virtual entity simulation for time-resolved debriefing-is not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the aviation training industry. Under USPTO guidance, these are sufficient for "significantly more".
Accordingly, the claim as a whole is directed to a novel technologically integrated simulator system, and the limitations collectively amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, such that the claimed invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, arguments with regard to “specific architecture creates an improved, synchronized debriefing tool that is absent from the prior art,” are best suited for arguing rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The test for 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility requires claims to be examined using the “two-part Mayo test” for determining subject-matter eligibility, as previously performed above. As such, the argument is not proper for facilitating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility discussion.
Second, the Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The lack of prior art, clearing the claims of any 35 U.S.C. §§102 or 103 rejections, is not evidence of subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Third, a prior art search is not necessary to resolve whether the additional element is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity because lack of novelty (i.e., not finding the element in the prior art) does not necessarily show that an element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by those in the relevant field. In the present case, the Applicant’s claims merely recite a generic computer performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality which do not meaningfully limit the claims to amount to anything “significantly more.”
Finally, there are many cases where prior art was not present yet an abstract idea in and of itself was still at issue (i.e. Ultramercial, Inc. v Hulu, LLC (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v Google, Inc. (2014); and Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS LLC (2014)).
Finally, the Applicant’s argument is conclusory, since the Applicant has failed to provide any evidence supporting that the claimed limitations of “a storage device,” “a processor,” “an output device,” and “a head tracker,” are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Instead, as evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these 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), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo. Therefore, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Accordingly, for at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant submits that the amended claims are eligible as patentable subject-matter under 35 U.S.C. §101 and respectfully requests withdrawal of the §101 rejections and request that the claims be allowed. As amended independent claim 45 has been shown to relate to eligible subject-matter under 35 USC §101, by extension, dependent claims 46-49, 51-58 and 60-67 also relate to eligible subject-matter under 35 USC §101.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees for reasons previously discussed here and above in the office action. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of claims 45-48, 51-58 and 60-67 under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights