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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the searching and analyzing are not abstract because there is a lot of data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant argues that an improvement to aircraft data stream analyzers are improvement to a technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Data streams are not RF signals. See Ex parte Prothero, No. 2023-001647, pg. 2 (P.T.A.B. September 5, 2023). Unlike analyzing an RF signal, which is not practically performable in the human mind, analyzing a data stream is practically performable in the human mind; I can look at Figure 6B and understand what it means. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Unlike cardiac monitoring, aircraft data analysis does not treat or prevent a disease or medical condition. See Cardionet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2020); MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2).
“Smart time slices,” as claimed, are not specific types of data structures but are rather, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, temporal subsets of time-sequenced data streams without any limitation to the structure of the data. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If electrical power grid data stream analyzers are not technology, it is difficult to see how airplane data stream analyzers are technology. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353-54.
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 1-7, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1 and 9:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “searching the time-sequenced data streams to select therefrom smart time slices comprising temporal subsets of the time-sequenced data streams that comply with the defined temporal beginning of the signal-defined event and the defined temporal end of the signal-defined event,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “searching” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to a period of time during which the time sequenced data meets the event condition. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation, “analyzing the selected smart time slices to determine whether the selected smart time slices additionally satisfy the specification of the at least one criterion,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a calculation. Specification [0051]. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The limitation, “generating a data structure that specifies (a) subsets of the time sequenced data streams that meet the event specification and (b) whether or not the subsets of the time-sequenced data streams that meet the event specification additionally satisfy the specification of the at least one criterion,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “generating” encompasses a person performing recordkeeping using pen and paper. Specification [0056] (“8.3.1.1.3. Append the name of the current file, number of the current slice, analysis name, equation result, criteria result of the current analysis to a table “). This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a). These abstract ideas can be considered together as a single abstract idea, namely collecting information and analyzing it. MPEP § 2106.04(II)(B). This falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving the event specification comprising a first input defining a temporal beginning of a signal-defined event, and a second input defining a temporal end of the signal-defined event,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The additional element, “receiving a specification of at least one criterion,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to collect information and analyze it using a computer as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving the event specification comprising a first input defining a temporal beginning of a signal-defined event, and a second input defining a temporal end of the signal-defined event,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect collecting user responses to provided offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The additional element, “receiving a specification of at least one criterion,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect collecting user responses to provided offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 2 and 10:
The abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “receiving user input specifying an event beginning and an event end,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to collect information and analyze it using a computer as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “receiving user input specifying an event beginning and an event end,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect collecting user responses to provided offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 3 and 11:
The abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the event beginning and event end specify behavior of signals within the time-sequenced data streams,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to collect information and analyze it using a computer as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the event beginning and event end are specified by behavior of a signal within the time sequenced data,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect collecting user responses to provided offers. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 4 and 12:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “testing whether a specified time-varying signal within the selected subset of the time-sequenced data streams satisfy the at least one criterion,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “testing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the signal satisfies the criterion. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 5 and 13:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the at least one criterion defines characteristics of the time-varying signals over durations of the selected subsets,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “testing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the signal satisfies the criterion. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 6 and 14:
The claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
The limitation, “the characteristics comprise overshoot characteristics,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, in the context of this limitation, “testing” encompasses a person forming a judgment as to whether the signal satisfies the criterion. This limitation therefore falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a).
As the claim(s) recites no additional elements, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the abstract idea, and the claim(s) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.07. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claims 7 and 15:
The abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “wherein the time-sequenced data streams comprise a plurality of discrete digital and digitized time-varying airborne sensor signal, control signal, and aircraft system state signal data streams,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to collect information and analyze it using a computer as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “wherein the time-sequenced data streams comprise a plurality of discrete digital and digitized time-varying airborne sensor signal, control signal, and aircraft system state signal data streams,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because Applicant stated that they were during prosecution, Applicant’s Remarks 22 December 2025, pg. 1 (citing federal regulations requiring the use of such data streams), and it is described, Specification [0003]-[0005], in a manner that indicates that the additional element is 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). MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III)(A).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
As per claim 17:
The abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it is not integrated into a practical application.
The additional element, “the processor system is further configured to provide a human user interface that enables a user to input the event specification and the specification of the at least one criterion, the human user interface comprising:(a) a first input specification specifying at least one time-sequenced data stream to run analysis against, the at least one time-sequenced data stream time- encoding plural signal behavior parameters,(b) a second input specification specifying plural signal-defined event conditions,(c) a third input specification selecting a subset of the plural signal behavior parameters, and(d) a fourth input specification specifying a Boolean expression and criteria based on metadata markers marking the at least one time-sequenced data stream,” is insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
As an ordered combination, the invention is mere instruction to collect information and analyze it using a computer as a tool. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, even viewing the claim(s) as a whole, and therefore the claim is directed to an abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the conclusions for the additional elements being generic computer components and mere instructions to apply on a computer, insignificant extra-solution activity, and/or mere field of use limitations are carried over and these additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(II). In re-evaluating the limitations that are insignificant extra-solution activity, the following limitations represent elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity within the field of computer functions:
The additional element, “the processor system is further configured to provide a human user interface that enables a user to input the event specification and the specification of the at least one criterion, the human user interface comprising:(a) a first input specification specifying at least one time-sequenced data stream to run analysis against, the at least one time-sequenced data stream time- encoding plural signal behavior parameters,(b) a second input specification specifying plural signal-defined event conditions,(c) a third input specification selecting a subset of the plural signal behavior parameters, and(d) a fourth input specification specifying a Boolean expression and criteria based on metadata markers marking the at least one time-sequenced data stream,” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because it is collecting a response to presented information that is recited at a high level of generality similar to the activity of using a computer interface to collect user input. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
As an ordered combination, the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing it because the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement the abstract idea. MPEP §§ 2106.07(a)(III)(B), 2106.05(d)(II); see BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, the claim(s) does not recite additional elements, either individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05. Therefore, as the claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim(s) is not patentable. MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
Applicant has invented a novel method of analyzing time sequence signal data that is not significantly more than the analysis itself. This is not patentable.
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 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 WILLIAM SPIELER whose telephone number is (571)270-3883. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 11-3.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
WILLIAM SPIELER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2159
/WILLIAM SPIELER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159