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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 10, 12 and 13 are amended. Claim 9 is cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10-14 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 1-8, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Although claims 1-8, 10-14 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 1-8, 10-14 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c).
The identified limitations of independent claims 1, 12, 13 recite:
As to claim 1, A flight support apparatus, comprising
an input device configured to be operated by a user;
a display device configured to display flight information; and
a flight support unit configured to:
have the display device display a reference flight profile that is a flight profile as a reference, the flight profile indicating a flight specification at a plurality of spots included in a path from a departure place to a destination, the reference flight profile being calculated based on times of departure and arrival included in the flight plan data provided by a server [mimic human thought processes of calculating based on the time of departure and arrival, i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil; and/or mathematical relationship];
correct the reference flight profile according to a flight condition input by the user via the input device to prepare a plurality of corrected flight profiles, the flight condition including a) button selection for fuel economy, comfort, punctuality, fastest arrival, or balance, or b) input of at least one of altitude, indicated airspeed, and speed [mimic human thought processes of correcting, i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil; and/or mathematical relationship];
have the display device display the prepared corrected flight profile together with the reference flight profile;
calculate a plurality of equal time-of-arrival points that are spots for which an arrival at an identical time of day is predicted when a flight is performed using the reference flight profile and each of the plurality of corrected flight profiles [mimic human thought processes of calculating i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil; and/or mathematical relationship];
calculate a plurality of equal remaining-fuel points that are spots for which an identical amount of the remaining fuel is predicted when a flight is performed using the reference flight profile and each of the plurality of corrected flight profiles [mimic human thought processes of calculating i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil; and/or mathematical relationship];
prepare an equal time-of-arrival line and an equal remaining-fuel line, wherein the equal time-of-arrival line is obtained by connecting the plurality of equal time-of-arrival points, wherein the equal remaining-fuel line is obtained by connecting a-the plurality of equal remaining-fuel points [mimic human thought processes of preparing i.e., evaluation, and creating, perhaps with paper and pencil; and/or mathematical relationship],
have the display device display the prepared equal time-of-arrival line and the equal remaining-fuel line to intersect with or come into contact with the reference flight profile and the plurality of corrected flight profiles, thereby prompting the user to select one of the plurality of corrected flight profiles; and
transmit the selected one of the plurality of corrected flight profile-profiles to a control system of an aircraft to be used to control the aircraft.
The identified limitations recite in system, a method and CRM for data center resource allocation. The claim limitations fall within the Mental concepts – preforming by a human (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I) groupings of abstract ideas. The claim limitations using generic computing components does not preclude the claim limitations from being in the certain Mental concepts – preforming by a human concept grouping. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “…calculating…correcting…preparing…” encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or using pen and paper, and/or mathematical relationship. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
As to claim 1, A flight support apparatus, comprising
an input device configured to be operated by a user;
a display device configured to display flight information; and
a flight support unit configured to:
have the display device display a reference flight profile that is a flight profile as a reference, the flight profile indicating a flight specification at a plurality of spots included in a path from a departure place to a destination, the reference flight profile being calculated based on times of departure and arrival included in the flight plan data provided by a server;
correct the reference flight profile according to a flight condition input by the user via the input device to prepare a plurality of corrected flight profiles, the flight condition including a) button selection for fuel economy, comfort, punctuality, fastest arrival, or balance, or b) input of at least one of altitude, indicated airspeed, and speed;
have the display device display the prepared corrected flight profile together with the reference flight profile;
calculate a plurality of equal time-of-arrival points that are spots for which an arrival at an identical time of day is predicted when a flight is performed using the reference flight profile and each of the plurality of corrected flight profiles;
calculate a plurality of equal remaining-fuel points that are spots for which an identical amount of the remaining fuel is predicted when a flight is performed using the reference flight profile and each of the plurality of corrected flight profiles;
prepare an equal time-of-arrival line and an equal remaining-fuel line, wherein the equal time-of-arrival line is obtained by connecting the plurality of equal time-of-arrival points, wherein the equal remaining-fuel line is obtained by connecting a-the plurality of equal remaining-fuel points,
have the display device display the prepared equal time-of-arrival line and the equal remaining-fuel line to intersect with or come into contact with the reference flight profile and the plurality of corrected flight profiles, thereby prompting the user to select one of the plurality of corrected flight profiles; and
transmit the selected one of the plurality of corrected flight profile-profiles to a control system of an aircraft to be used to control the aircraft.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describe how to mere data gathering and notifying i.e….input device…display device…flight support unit…transmitting…, recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. processor, non-transitory medium in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of the claimed invention, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the as explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements. The additional element of “….input device…display device…flight support unit…transmitting …“ in are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Additional elements that were underline were both found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) states that “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner: Storing and retrieving information in memory, 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; Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 1-8, 10-14, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 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. For example, claims 2-11 and 14 limitations mere abstract [which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or using pen and paper]. Therefore, dependent claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1, 12-13.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-8, 10-14 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant argues "...This is plainly a practical application, which includes improving the control of the aircraft based on the user-selected corrected flight profile, the selection being based on the displayed equal time-of-arrival line and equal remaining-fuel line that are prepared using the calculated equal time-of-arrival points and equal remaining-fuel points. The calculation of the points and preparation and displaying of the lines allows the user to immediately visually grasp the relative characteristics between profiles, advantageously allowing the user to quickly select a correct flight profile while maneuvering and collecting information from other instruments, such as when approaching turbulence. The selected flight profile is then transmitted and used to improve the control of the aircraft. This linkage of all of these steps shows an inventive concept that is integrated into a practical application, including user intervention (via the selection of the flight profile) and improved aircraft control. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. §101.. ” (from remarks pages 9-10).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees, The argument is not persuasive because the claims do not include limitations that are “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the limitations, in the instant claims, are done by the generically recited computer products. The generically recited computer elements such “non-transitory computer-readable storage memory, data center” do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation. The steps for resource allocation for the data centers do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they would be routinely used by those of ordinary skill in the art in order to apply the abstract idea. Note the court’s analysis in Ultramercial:
And adding a computer to otherwise conventional steps does not make an invention patent-eligible. Any transformation from the use of computers or the transfer of content between computers is merely what computers do and does not change the analysis.
Further note the court’s analysis in Alice Corp.:
These cases demonstrate that the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words `apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Mayo, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 3). Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea "`to a particular technological environment.'" Bilski, supra, at 610-611. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[t]" an abstract idea "on . . . a computer," Mayo, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 16), that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, see 717 F. 3d, at 1286 (Lourie, J., concurring), wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of "additional featur[e]" that provides any "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself." Mayo, 566 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8-9).
In the case of the instant claims, the generic application of the computing devices similarly does not make the invention patent-eligible. The use of these computing devices is merely what computers do, and does not change the analysis. As such, the claims' invocation of the computer merely amounts to the limiting of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that the applicant’s disclosure recites general computer products which are suitable to perform the claimed method:
(Paragraph [0060])
FIG. 3 shows a hardware configuration of the flight support apparatus.
[0061] The flight support apparatus 10 includes a control circuit 100, a storage device 14, a communication interface 15, an operation device 16, a display device 17, the acceleration sensor 18, and a bus B that connects those components.
[0062] The control circuit 100 is a system-on-a-chip (SoC) including a central processing unit (CPU) 11, a read only memory (ROM) 12, and a random access memory (RAM) 13. The CPU 11 loads a flight support program stored in the ROM 12 to the RAM 13 and executes the flight support program. The ROM 12 fixedly stores programs, data, and the like to be executed by the CPU 11. The ROM 12 is an example of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. The control circuit 100 further includes a dedicated hardware circuit, a graphics processing unit (GPU), and the like (not shown).
[0063] The storage device 14 includes a large-scale nonvolatile recording medium such as (Solid State Drive).
[0064] The operation device 16 includes a touch panel, various switches, and the like. The operation device 16 detects an operation from the user and outputs the operation to the CPU 11. The operation device 16 is an embodiment of an input device. The flight support apparatus 10 may further include a sound input device such as a microphone.
[0065] The display device 17 includes an LCD, an organic EL display, or the like integrated with a touch panel. The display device 17 performs arithmetic processing on the basis of information received from the control circuit 100 and displays generated image signals on the screen. The display device 17 is an embodiment of an output device. The flight support apparatus 10 may further include a sound output device such as a speaker..
Moreover, the specification does not contribute any specific computer algorithm or code, but rather merely states that the claimed steps may be performed by the generic modules with the expectation that one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of implementation without further instruction.. Any problems which are addressed do not appear to require a technical, but rather an enhanced by common generic hardware. Whilst the implementation of such a solution may include the use of generic technical features, these merely serve their well-known functions as would be recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art in the technical field under consideration. Here, the involvement of the genetic computer products does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In Ultramercial, it is noted that limitations narrowing the idea, such as receiving copyrighted media, selecting an ad, offering the media in exchange for watching the selected ad, displaying the ad, allowing the consumer access to the media, and receiving payment from the sponsor of the ad, further describe the abstract idea but do nothing to render the concept less abstract. Similarly, in buySafe it is noted that narrowing transactions to particular types of relationships or particular parts of that transaction would not render the concept less abstract. Similarly, in the case of the instant claims, limitations drawn to the implementation of the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
White (US 2021/0325906 A1) disclose an approach is provided for mapping geo-referenced environmental factors and generating navigation routes. The approach, for example, involves receiving environmental quality data and determining from that data geo-referenced environmental factors over a geographic and/or three-dimensional region. The determined geo-referenced environmental factors can be based on real-time data, historical data, or a combination thereof. The approach also involves generating a map data layer of a geographic database based on the geo-referenced environmental factors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HITESH R PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, James Trammell can be reached at 571-272-6712. 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.
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
6/23/26
Prosecution Insights