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 office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on December 16, 2025 for the patent application 18/143,321 originally filed on May 4, 2023. Claims 45-48, 51-58 and 60-65 are amended. Claims 1-44, 49-50 and 59 are canceled. Claims 66-67 are new. 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; and the third office action of July 16, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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.
Claim 45 is directed to “a system for training a user of a vehicle platform,” (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.”
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:
“to monitor user operation during an activity session defining an objective to be achieved,
to virtually interact with and user operation in response to said interaction,
records at least one measurable parameter,
at least one action of said user as said user attempts to achieve said objective, said at least one action comprising:
(i) user input via said at least one input device resulting in at least one of maneuvering of said aircraft and modifying said at least one measurable parameter of said aircraft;
(ii) voice commands and/or vocal utterances of said user; and
(iii) said LOS of said user;
generate and record said at least one simulated entity configured to virtually interact; and
presents to said user said at least one action of said user and said interaction of said used
with said at least one simulated entity during said activity session as a result of said at least one action of said user.”
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.”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed elements of “a storage device,” “a processor,” “a head tracker,” “an output device,” “at least one on-board sensory system,” “at least one input device,” and “a briefing system,” 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.”
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,” “a head tracker,” “an output device,” “at least one on-board sensory system,” “at least one input device,” and “a briefing system,” 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.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “at least one input device,” is described in para. [0017] as follows: “The actions of the operator can include inputs of the operator on the platform via an input device of the control system of the platform. Input devices can include pedals, gauges, buttons, switches, levers, sensors and the like for interacting with the control system or systems of the platform for modifying parameters of the platform.” 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.
Further, the Applicant’s claimed “a head tracker,” and “at least one on-board sensory system,” are not sufficiently described in the written description of the specification as originally filed and is reasonably understood as “a sensor,” as previously described above with respect to “at least one on-board sensory system,” in para. [0017]. 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.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “a briefing system,” is not sufficiently described in the written description of the specification as originally filed. At best the word “briefings” is found in para. [0119] as follows:
“[0119] As mentioned above, the state of the vehicle, and the operator input are recorded during the activity session. Over time, such recordings are aggregated in a recordings database and can be employed for statistical analysis. In accordance with another embodiment of the disclosed technique, a plurality of recordings of vehicle states and operator input are employed for determining common mistakes repeated by a plurality of different operators. Such common mistakes can be stressed during training sessions, and mission briefings to allow future operators to avoid such common mistakes.”
As such, this element provides no details of anything to be remotely considered “significantly more” and instead reasonably warrants a “new matter” rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), as provided below.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 45-48, 51-58 and 60-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 45 recites the limitation “a briefing system, operably couplable to an aircraft and configured to monitor user operation of said aircraft during an activity session defining an objective to be achieved, said activity session comprising at least one simulated entity configured to virtually interact with said aircraft and user operation of said aircraft in response to said interaction.” This limitation is not adequately described in the specification as originally filed and forms the basis of the rejection. As such, the limitation is reasonably rejected under a theory of new matter. Therefore, claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Dependent claims 46, 51-58 and 60-67 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), based on their respective dependency to claim 45.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on December 16, 2025 related to claims 45-48, 51-58 and 60-67 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Examiner asserts that the claims of the present application relate to the abstract idea of "user training" either as a form of organizing human activity or as a mental process, which merely requires limitations that describe a process of gathering data and manipulating it. The claims have been amended to recite a training system and not merely the abstract notion of user training, which includes the elements needed to generate training simulations (i.e., activity sessions) wherein a pilot is piloting an actual aircraft yet interacting virtually with simulated entities. The briefing system of the training system records parameters of the aircraft, user operation of the aircraft during the activity session as well as the LOS of the pilot throughout the activity session such that these elements can be viewed by the pilot to evaluate and improve their performance. The claims of the present application thus relate to more than a mental process performed in the human mind or a form of organizing human activity. The answer to step 2A, prong one of the Alice/Mayo test is thus "no" and the subject-matter of the claims should be allowed under pathway B for patent eligibility.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Applicant’ amending to include “a briefing system” is simply not found in the written description of the specification as originally filed. Specifically, there are no details of anything to be remotely considered “a briefing system” which reasonably warrants a “new matter” rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a), as provided above.
Second, it was never the intent of the United States Patent Office to provide two forms of subject matter eligibility analysis. The streamline analysis is appropriate when the claims, as determined by the Examiner, satisfy subject matter eligibility. However, the streamline analysis is inappropriate when the claims do not satisfy subject matter eligibility. The Examiner must make the record clear to explain the basis behind the Examiner’s determination that the claims do not satisfy subject matter eligibility. In the present case, as previously stated above, the claims do not satisfy subject matter eligibility. As such, the streamlined analysis is not appropriate in the present case. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Regarding the Examiner's response to the applicant's arguments in the previously-submitted response, Applicant notes the following….”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this line of questioning, since these arguments were previously asked and answered. As such, no further discussion is necessary. Therefore the arguments continue to be unpersuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant thus argues that the claimed subject-matter of the present application is eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101 either through pathway B or pathway C under the subject-matter eligibility test for products and processes under MPEP 2106.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the results of the subject-matter eligibility analysis for application 18/143,321 are summarized as follows:
Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
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.
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 46-48, 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
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.
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 Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, 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 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715