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 .
This office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 6 January 2026.
This office action is made Non Final
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-3 and 16-17 have been cancelled.
The 101 and 112 rejections of claims 2-3 and 16-17 and the art rejections from the previous office actions have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 15 are independent claims.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation containing “steering means” of Claims 1 no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) in response to Applicant’s amendment.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Steering means for steering in claim 11
Calculator configured to determine in claim 1, 10-11, 15
Controller configured to control in claim 1, 4, 5, 10-11, 15
First communication means (for/to) obtain in claim 11
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The limitation containing “steering means” of Claims 1, 10-11, 15 still invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 1, 4-13 and 15, all of the claim limitations containing "... calculator configured to", “… means” or “…controller configured for”, are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function of each limitation listed above. Also, no clear algorithm is shown in the specification to correspond to each of the claimed “controller”/means/calculator. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any claim not specifically addressed, above, is being rejected as its failure to overcome the incorporated deficiencies of a claim upon which is depends on.
Claim 11 recites the limitations/elements “aircraft”, “ground runway”, “aircraft data”, “external data”, “runway state data” “ground weather data”, “each steering means”, “each corresponding usage parameter” throughout the claim. However, Claim 1 already introduced each of these elements/term(s) “aircraft”, “ground runway”, “aircraft data”, “external data”, “runway state data” “ground weather data”, “each steering means”, “each corresponding usage parameter”. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner if the elements/term(s): “aircraft”, “ground runway”, “aircraft data”, “external data”, “runway state data” “ground weather data”, “each steering means”, “each corresponding usage parameter” of claim 11 should depend on “aircraft”, “ground runway”, “aircraft data”, “external data”, “runway state data” “ground weather data”, “each steering means”, “corresponding usage parameter”. of Claim 1 or each viewed as its own element. Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will these limitations/elements as: “the aircraft”, “the ground runway”, “the aircraft data”, “the external data”, “the runway state data” “the ground weather data”, “each of the steering means”, “each of the corresponding usage parameter”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “implementing each steering means determined according to each corresponding usage parameter determined, by the at least one controller.” It is unclear what “implementing each steering means” means. It is unclear to the Examiner if “implementing each steering means” means 1) a physical implementation of each steering means and are they different from the ““steering means” than those referenced in Claim 1, and/or 2) controlling the steering means in some fashion and is that different from how it is done in Claim 1 (e.g. operating the left and right thrusters as claimed). Therefore, the claim is vague and indefinite. For examining purposes, the Examiner will interpret “implementing each steering means” as controlling the steering means in some fashion under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
As per dependent claim 11, Claim 11 just repeats the “determining” limitation/subject matter and “each steering means determined according to each corresponding usage parameter determined (by the controller)” already being claimed in independent claim 1. In addition, claim 11 fails to include every limitation of the claim from what it depends on resulting the dependent claim to be broader. Claim 11 does not include, for example, the steering means is being done by “…such that the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at…” as it is recited in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 does not further limit the subject matter as originally disclosed in Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation of “steering means configured to steer the aircraft on the ground, each steering means being associated with at least one usage parameter; wherein the steering means include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “steering means”, “aircraft”, “nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel”, “rudder”, “plurality of thrust reverser”, “engine”, “left thrust reverser” and “right thrust reverser”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “steer” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “steering means”, “aircraft”, “nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel”, “rudder”, “plurality of thrust reverser”, “engine”, “left thrust reverser” and “right thrust reverser”, “steer” in the context of this claim encompasses a person can move an object/vehicle towards any direction.
Similarly, the limitation of “a calculator configured to determine, from aircraft data and external data and including runway state data and ground weather data each steering means for steering the aircraft along a predetermined trajectory and each corresponding usage parameter” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “calculator “, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to calculate the angle of a turn of a wheel to stay on course using a pen and paper.
Similarly, the limitation of “at least one controller configured to control each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for “controller”, “control” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually control the steering of a vehicle to make it move a certain way.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the claim recites these other additional elements – such that the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and the rudder is operated at a given angle.
The “operated” limitations is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The thrust reversers and the rudder in the operated limitations are claimed at a high level of generality such that the launch data microprocessor and the memory are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation(s) “the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power”, and “the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power” reciting “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a … given power” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power” is performed using “left/right thrust reverser” The left/right thrust reverser is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the left/right thrust reverser operates with the given power (value). Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power” and do not include any details about how the “operate” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a left/right thrust reverser is merely as a tool for making the recited operate at given/power (value) rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).. Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (aviation) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The limitation(s) “the rudder is operated at a given angle” reciting “rudder is operated at a given angle” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of “rudder is operated at a given angle” is performed using “the rudder” The left/right thrust reverser is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the rudder is operated at a given angle (value). Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “rudder is operated at a given angle” and do not include any details about how the “operate” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of rudder is operated at a given angle without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the rudder is operated at a given angle solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a rudder merely as a tool for making the recited operate at given angle (value) rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of aviation.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of “rudder is operated at a given angle” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “rudder is operated at a given angle” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (aviation) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements - steering means, aircraft, nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, rudder, plurality of thrust reverser, engine, left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser, calculator, and controller perform the steer, determine, and control steps. The steering means, aircraft, nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, rudder, plurality of thrust reverser, engine, left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of steer, determine, and control functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do 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.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The “operated” limitations are recited at a high level of generality. This element amounts to storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (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). See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The recitation of a left/right thrust reverser and rudder to perform the operate limitations in these steps, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a left/right thrust reverser and rudder and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the steering means, aircraft, nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, rudder, plurality of thrust reverser, engine, left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser, calculator, and controller to perform the steer, determine, and control steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites the corresponding aircraft of the system of claim 1 wherein the aircraft of Claim 10 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the system of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding aircraft of Claim 10 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the system of Claim 1.
Independent Claim 11
Claim 11 recites the corresponding method of the system of claim 1 wherein the method of Claim 11 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the system of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding method of Claim 11 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the system of Claim 1. Furthermore, the additional limitations and elements of Claim 11 will be addressed:
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation of “determining, by a calculator, from aircraft data and external data obtained by first communication means and including runway state data and ground weather data each steering means for steering the aircraft along a predetermined trajectory and each corresponding usage parameter” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “calculator” and “first communication means”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “steer” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “calculator” and “first communication means”, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to calculate the angle of a turn of a wheel to stay on course using a pen and paper.
Similarly, the limitation of “implementing each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter by the at least one controller” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, “implementing”, but for the “controller” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually control the steering of a vehicle to make it move a certain way.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organized human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the claim recites these other additional elements – aircraft, steering means, controller and calculator perform the determining, and implementing steps. The aircraft, steering means, calculator, and controller in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining, and implementing functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do 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.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the aircraft, steering means, controller, and calculator to perform the steer, determining, and implementing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15
Claim 15 recites the corresponding medium of the system of claim 1 wherein the medium of Claim 15 contains similar subject matter/limitations and (additional) elements of the system of Claim 1. Therefore, the corresponding medium of Claim 15 is rejected under similar rationale found in the rejection of the system of Claim 1.
Dependent Claims 4-9, 12-13
As per dependent claim(s) 4-7, 12-13, the claims do not appear to add additional elements beyond those described in claim 1.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 8, the limitation of “…communicate with the ground station…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, communicate data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim 9, the limitation of “…communicate with at least one other aircraft…” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As noted above, communicate data has been found by the courts to be well understood, routine, and conventional functionality (See e.g. buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-13, 15 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Turcios et al (US20200302809, pub 9/24/2020)(Disclosed in IDS filed on 3/28/23) in further view of Hodges et al (US20190127076, 2019). Blanding et al, US20150279539, is cited as evidence regarding actuators/controllers in aircraft/field of aeronautics
As per independent claim 1, Turcios et al discloses a system for controlling in real time a trajectory of an aircraft on a ground runway (FIG 8-11; 0064-0080), the system comprising:
steering means configured to steer the aircraft on the ground, each steering means being associated with at least one usage parameter; wherein the steering means include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft (0064-0065: body gear and nose gear used for steering.) wherein the steering means include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft (FIG. 4; 0047, 0064-0065: nose gear landing with a wheel. Furthermore, FIG 7 and 0047 discloses an aircraft which may be a Boeing 747 having engines attached to the wings and also a tail. A skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts have plurality of engines, such as shown in FIG 7, which each engine is fitted with thrust reversers. In addition, a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7, have a tail in which the tail of the aircraft has a rudder.)
a calculator configured to (0007,processor calculates):
determine, from aircraft data (0035-0038) and external data ( 0007, 0039, 0050, 0056: obtain from the pilot, database, tower control) and including runway state data (0042) and ground weather data (0036), each steering means for steering the aircraft along a predetermined trajectory and each corresponding usage parameter (0038, 0052-0053: disclose calculation result in generated elements that include nose gear arc, a start turn point, a distance to start turn point, a target turn speed, a commanded nose wheel steering angle, and an end turn point. These elements collectively used to form a path/trajectory to make a turn from taxiway 510 to taxiway 520 shown in FIG. 5 and 6. FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080) show the displayed guidance incorporating these generated elements (0083) to have the pilot steer the aircraft according to the generated elements. (0054)
control each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter. (0053-0054; 0067- 0079: based on the inputs, calculations are made for turn data to assist the pilot making a turn onto the runway. Calculations result in generated elements that include nose gear arc, a start turn point, a distance to start turn point, a target turn speed, a commanded nose wheel steering angle, and an end turn point. FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080) show a displayed guidance incorporating these generated elements (0083) to have the pilot steer the aircraft according to the generated elements (0054) . Furthermore, as explained, 0047 discloses a Boeing 747 which contain thrust reversers and a rudder. In addition, one of a skill artisan would have understand that a rudder, when in use, is set to a given angle at any time and that thrust reversers, when in use, are set to a given power at any time as well)
Furthermore, Turcios disclosing an act of controlling steering (paragraphs 0053-0054, 067 -0079: steering is impacted due to pilot reacting to guidance data)). In addition, FIG 7 discloses a four engine aircraft and 0047 mentions a Boeing 747 in which understand that exemplary aircrafts each have steering means such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular means. Thus, Turcios discloses a form of one controller per steering means. However, Turcios fails to disclose the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser and a specific entity/system controlling to control each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter which each controller gives each (left and right) thrust receiver its own given power and gives a rudder its given angle. (…a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser;; … at least one controller configured to control each steering means such that the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and the rudder is operated at a given angle).
However, Hodges et al discloses an aircraft that having a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser. (FIG 1). Hodges discloses multiple engines on an aircraft wherein an engine is on a left side and right side of a plane. Furthermore, each engine has its own thrust reverser. (FIG. 1; 0035) Thus, Hodges discloses a left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser. Furthermore, each thrust reverser is associated with a thrust lever which control the respective thrust lever (0048, 0069-0071: thrust level to a reverse idle position to initiate a thrust reverse command to a (particular) reverse thrust or a maximum reverse thrust ). Thus, each thrust reverser, on each engine, has a level to control its thrust (form a given power). 0046-0047 discloses a controller that controls the thrust reverser. Claim 10 and 18 discloses a processor/controller that controls both engines and thrust reversers. Further, Hodges discloses aircraft has a vertical rudder/tail and nose landing gear. 0034 discloses several components such nose landing gear and rudder are designed to maintain control of the aircraft, on their own. In other words, 0034-0035 discloses that there is independent control for multiple controls. Thus, Hodges discloses that the nose landing gear, the rudder, and each thrust reverser, explained in Hodges, are controlled independently. One of a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts having a rudder and nose landing gear, as explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular means. The Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering means, such as a rudder, landing gears, and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). Thus, a skilled artisan would know an actuator, such as in Hodges, is provided for each steering means as disclosed. In addition, Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, discloses actuator of the rudder is moved to control the aircraft. Thus, a skilled artisan would have known controlling the rudder results in placing the rudder at a given angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of Applicant’s invention to have modified the steering means of Turicos with the disclosed independent steering controls of different aircraft components for steering of Hodges since it would have provided the benefit of improvements needed to optimize airplane landing efficiencies.
As per dependent claim 4, Turcios discloses wherein the controller include a central controller (FIG 1, 110) Furthermore, as a result of the amendment and as previously explained, the Examiner discloses a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7 and Boeing 747 mention in 0047, each have steering means such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular means. In addition, the Examiner discloses one of a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts having a rudder and nose landing gear, as explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular means. The Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering means, such as a rudder, landing gears, and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). Thus, a skilled artisan would know an actuator, such as in Hodges, is provided for each steering means as disclosed. Furthermore, each controller/actuator for each steering means is central to that particular steering means; thus, includes a form of a central controller.
As per dependent claim 5, Turcios discloses one controller per steering means (A skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7 and Boeing 747 mention in 0047, each have steering means such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular means. The Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering means, such as landing gears and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). Thus, a skilled artisan would know a controller is provided for each steering means) Furthermore, as a result of the amendment, the Examiner adds 0046-0047 of Hodges discloses a controller that controls the thrust reverser. Claim 10 and 18 of Hodges discloses a processor/controller that controls both engines and thrust reversers. Further, Hodges discloses aircraft has a vertical rudder/tail and nose landing gear. 0034 discloses several components such nose landing gear and rudder are designed to maintain control of the aircraft, on their own. In other words, 0034-0035 discloses that there is independent control for multiple controls. Thus, Hodges discloses that the nose landing gear, the rudder, and each thrust reverser, explained in Hodges, are controlled independently. One of a skilled artisan would understand that aircrafts having a rudder and nose landing gear, as explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular means.
As per dependent claim 6, Turcios discloses wherein the aircraft data includes speed of the aircraft and/or availability data of steering means and/or usage data of a brake of the aircraft and/or usage data of engines of the aircraft. (0035, 0049:speed)
As per dependent claim 7, Turcios discloses wherein the availability data of a steering means includes data relating to the state of the steering means and/or data relating to the cost of using the steering means (0035, 0046: steering angle)
As per dependent claim 8, Turcios et al disclose configured to communicate with a ground station (0050: connected with ATC)
As per dependent claim 9, the cited art does not explicitly configured to communicate with at least one other aircraft. However, Turcios et al discloses a data link connected to the ATC (Air Traffic Control) (0050). Thus, Turcios et al discloses communications means. In addition, FIG 7 and 0047 discloses an aircraft which may be a Boeing 747. Furthermore, it is well-known in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date that aircrafts, such as shown in FIG 7, are equipped with radios that are typically used to communicate with other aircrafts. The use of radios on aircrafts provides the benefit of allowing pilots of aircraft to exchange information for coordinating positions and avoiding mid-air collisions.
As per independent claims 10 and 15, Claims 10 and 15 recite similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Turicos discloses a medium (0007, 0040)
As per independent claim 11, Claim 11 recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Turcios et al discloses implementing each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter. (0053-0054; 0067- 0079: based on the inputs, calculations are made for turn data to assist the pilot making a turn onto the runway. Calculations result in generated elements that include nose gear arc, a start turn point, a distance to start turn point, a target turn speed, a commanded nose wheel steering angle, and an end turn point. FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080) show a displayed guidance incorporating these generated elements (0083) to have the pilot steer the aircraft according to the generated elements (0054))
Furthermore, Turcios disclosing an act of controlling steering (paragraphs 0053-0054, 067 -0079: steering is impacted due to pilot reacting to guidance data)). In addition, FIG 7 discloses a four engine aircraft and 0047 mentions a Boeing 747 in which understand that exemplary aircrafts each have steering means such as a engines/thrust reversers and landing gear have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft’s cockpit to control that particular means. Thus, Turcios discloses a form of one controller per steering means. However, Turcios fails to disclose a specific entity/system controlling (more specifically see: “…at least one controller configured to …”) to control each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter. However, based on the rejection of Claim 1 and the rationale, including the motivation, incorporated, Hodges et al discloses an aircraft that multiple steering means such nose landing gear, vertical rudder/tail, a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft (FIG 1). Hodges discloses multiple engines on an aircraft wherein each engine has its own thrust reverser. Furthermore, each thrust reverser is associated with a thrust lever which control the respective thrust lever (0048, 0069-0071: thrust level to a reverse idle position to initiate a thrust reverse command to a (particular) reverse thrust or a maximum reverse thrust ). Thus, each thrust reverser has a level to control its thrust (form a given power). Furthermore, 0034 discloses the nose landing gear and rudder are designed to maintain control of the aircraft, on their own. In other words, 0034-0035 discloses that there is independent control for multiple controls. Thus, Hodges discloses that the nose landing gear, the rudder, and each thrust reverser are controlled independently. One of a skilled artisan would have understood that aircrafts have the disclosed rudder and nose landing gear, explained in Hodges, have their own control unit (controller) in the aircraft to control that particular means. The Examiner provides Blanding et al, entered as extrinsic evidence, stating steering means, such as a rudder, landing gears, and thrust reversers, each have their own actuator to control said means (0003, 0080). Thus, a skilled artisan would know a controller is provided for each steering means.
As per dependent claim 12, Turcios et al discloses wherein the implementation is automatic or manual. (FIG 8-11 (with 0073-0080): providing guidance for the pilot to (manually) perform the turning/steering.)
As per dependent claim 13, Turcios et al discloses wherein the determination step wherein the determination step is performed as soon as the aircraft data and/or the external data are modified. (0055, 0059: Disclosing receiving data at any time (continuously) and updating the calculations accordingly)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-8, in regards to the 112(b) rejection and 112(f) claim interpretation, Applicant argues that the term “calculator configured to” does not use the word “means”, there is a strong presumption that §112(f) does not apply to limitations that omit the term "means", is not a nonce word as listed in the MPEP. Applicant argues “calculator” is a well-known structure term in the art which Applicant argues their specification reinforces the known structure for the term “calculator”. Therefore, Applicant argues, “calculator” is not a nonce word, and sufficient structure is disclosed. Furthermore, Applicant states/argues Figures 2-4 and paragraphs [0068]-[0083] describe the sufficient corresponding and algorithm for “calculator”. Therefore, Applicant argues the calculator invokes 112(f) and rejects the 112(b) rejection be withdrawn. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, the Examiner states while the calculator limitations do not use the terms "means" or "step", each of these limitations disclose a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function for overcoming the presumption to invoke 112f analysis. The Examiner refers the Applicant to MPEP 2181(I)(A) that states "The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means")." This description is referring prong (A) of the 3-prong analysis to determine if a claim limitation invokes 35 USC 112f/sixth paragraph. Prong (A) states "the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function. Thus, the Examiner respectfully the claim limitations containing “calculator configured to” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 15 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The “calculator” is A) a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning), B) use the linking words "configured to” along with the associated function modifying the language, and C) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function (determine).
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s argument provides no evidence that Applicant’s specification indicates sufficient structure for the terms/elements “calculator”. In addition, the Examiner was unable to find any suggestion or explanation that either of these elements/terms have sufficient structure. Thus, since no evidence was provided and the Examiner was unable to locate in Applicant’s specification that either these terms is associated with sufficient structure, then one of ordinary skill in the art reading the specification understand that the listed terms/elements (e.g. calculator) did not have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for the structure that performs the function. Furthermore, no evidence was provided that “calculator” is a well known term in the art having structure such as an on-board flight computer. The Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s specification would have described the calculator in such of a way if the term had well-known structural meaning. Therefore, the term(s) “calculator” would still invoke 112(f)
Furthermore, for the “calculator” term being rejected under 112(b), The Examiner respectfully states that 0068-0083 and FIG 2-4 do not clearly, explicitly, and definitely state that the navigator has the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. In fact, Applicant’s specification only goes up to paragraph 0073. In addition, calculator is only mentioned in 0069 and merely states “to determine each steering means 110 and each corresponding usage parameter based on aircraft data and external data. Thus, 0069 merely repeats the same language/wording of claim 1. FIG 2-4 only show boxes with reference characters and provides other information or details in any way. In addition, Applicant’s specification does not further define “calculator” other than it perform the determine functionality as claimed. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is applied. Thus, term “calculator” is not explicitly defined in the specification resulting in structure being explicitly defined/present; therefore, resulting in the “calculator” not having any specific, limited, structural meaning in Applicant’s specification. In other words, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function of the navigator limitation. Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason.
Furthermore, even if Applicant’s specification does disclose corresponding
structure for the calculator limitation (Which the Examiner disagrees), a clear algorithm
must also be shown in the specification to correspond to the claimed calculator. Applicant’s arguments did not indicate where a clear algorithm for the claimed navigator within Applicant’s specification. 2181 II.B. clearly states “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under
35 U.S.C. 112(b).” 0068-0073 do not recite any algorithm for the 112(f) step involving the term “calculator”. Therefore, the Examiner was unable to find an algorithm for the
claimed “calculator” limitation. Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason.
Note: The 112(f) invoked limitation comprising “at least one controller configured” in claims 1 and 11 and “steering means” for claim 11 were not argued by the Applicant explicitly. Thus, these limitations still invoke 112(f) and the limitations comprising “controller” are still rejected under 112(b)
On pages 8-12, in regards to 101 rejection for claim 1, Applicant argues
A) the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the USPTO's subject matter eligibility test. 1)Applicant argues that the amended “steering means include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, a rudder, and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser, and that the controller operates these actuators at defined powers and angles” is not a mental process or organized human activity that could be performed in the mind or with pen and paper. Applicant argues these are concrete aircraft components, not mental constructs, and steering via nose landing gear, thrust reversers, and rudder necessarily requires physical actuation of those components on the aircraft; no person "steers" a commercial transport category aircraft on a runway purely in his or her mind. 2) In addition, Applicant argues that the “calculator configured to” limitation is not mental either since the specification explains that the calculator 201 determines, in real time, which steering means to use and what usage parameters (e.g., power levels, angles) to apply based on both aircraft data and external data, including runway state data such as friction coefficient and weather data such as wind strength and direction. Applicant argues that such multi- variable, high-frequency control of a large transport aircraft on landing roll is far beyond what can be "practically" conducted in a human mind or with "pen and paper," particularly under the time constraints and safety margins required in the aerospace field. 3) In addition, Applicant argues that “at least one controller limitation” does not fall under any of the grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1. Therefore, the claims "directed to" a technological system for real-time control of an aircraft's ground trajectory using multiple coordinated steering actuators and not to any judicial exception such as a mathematical concept, mental process, or human activity.
Furthermore, Applicant argues B) the claims are integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and are therefore patent-eligible. Applicant argues the additional elements are not generic "post-solution" activity; rather, they constitute the heart of the invention: a system "for controlling in real time a trajectory of an aircraft on a ground runway," in which the controller is configured to operate the left thrust reverser at a first given power, the right thrust reverser at a second given power, and the rudder at a given angle, all determined from real-time aircraft data and external runway and weather data. This is a concrete application of any intermediate calculations to physically steer a very specific machine-a multi-engine aircraft-along a predetermined runway trajectory and thereby reduce runway-excursion risk… These limitations impose meaningful limits on any intermediate determination step: the claimed system is actually implemented as a multi-actuator aircraft control system that transforms the state of the aircraft on the runway, not as a generalized "calculation" in isolation.
However, the Examiner disagrees
In response to Argument A) A1) the Examiner respectfully states that the language of steering means within the independent claim is broad. In regards to the “steering means”, While the steering means DOES state that steering means includes mechanical components, the steering means limitation does not explicitly recite or state the mechanicals components actually being perform or used controlling the steering the aircraft. In other words, the claims do not disclose the intent of the steering be performed by the mechanical components, just merely lists the components. The language does not disclose how exactly the steering is applied. The claims themselves do not discloses recite that the function of steering the aircraft is explicitly performed/control by the concrete mechanical components such as a rudder, thrust reversers, or nose landing gear. Therefore, the claims are silent on any mechanical components being used to control the steering. That is, other than reciting “steering means”, “aircraft”, “nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel”, “rudder”, “plurality of thrust reverser”, “engine”, “left thrust reverser” and “right thrust reverser”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “steer” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “steering means”, “aircraft”, “nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel”, “rudder”, “plurality of thrust reverser”, “engine”, “left thrust reverser” and “right thrust reverser”, “steer” in the context of this claim encompasses a person can move an object/vehicle towards any direction. The recitation of the elements “…the steering means include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, a rudder and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, the plurality of thrust reversers including a left thrust reverser and a right thrust reverser." is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which further addressed in Step 2A, prong 2 (see below)
A2) In regards to the “calculator” limitation, the language only states determining each steering means for steering the aircraft along a predetermined trajectory and each corresponding usage parameter. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., The specification explains that the calculator 201 determines, in real time, which steering means to use and what usage parameters (e.g., power levels, angles) to apply based on both aircraft data and external data, including runway state data such as friction coefficient and weather data such as wind strength and direction; "real-time control of the aircraft trajectory" means that data relating to the actual aircraft trajectory are processed immediately after acquisition, and that the time between acquiring trajectory data and generating control instructions to adjust the trajectory is minimized. In practice, this requires continuous ingestion of multiple sensor streams, ongoing computation of a safe trajectory given changing runway and weather conditions, and dynamic allocation of control effort between the left and right thrust reversers and the rudder to keep the aircraft on a predetermined runway trajectory.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). That is, but for “calculator “, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually able to calculate the angle of a turn of a wheel to stay on course using a pen and paper. A3) In regards to the “…control” limitation, the language only states control each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter. That is, but for “controller”, “control” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually control the steering of a vehicle to make it move a certain way. The language does not recite the controller controlling any actuators to operate at a defined power and angle explicitly and based on the determined usage parameter corresponding to its corresponding determined steering means. Furthermore, while this limitation recites “the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and the rudder is operated at a given angle ”is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use which further addressed in Step 2A, prong 2 (see below)
Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are general summary or conclusion of Applicant’s invention, but provided no persuasive evidence/reasoning/rationale from Applicant’s specification to counter the Examiner’s reasoning/rationale for each limitation considered under step 2A, prong 1.Therefore, these limitations still do not satisfy step 2A, prong 1.
In response to Argument B, the Examiner respectfully states that
Applicant’s invention does not result in integrating the claimed abstract into a
practical application being performed, particularly Step 2A, Prong Two. In other words,
the Examiner states that the claim recites judicial exception wherein Applicant’s invention recite additional elements that do not integrate claimed abstract into a practical application. In particular, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the claim recites these other additional elements – such that the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power, the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power and the rudder is operated at a given angle.
The “operated” limitations is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”) The microprocessor and the memory device in the storing limitation are claimed at a high level of generality such that the launch data microprocessor and the memory are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The limitation(s) “the left thrust reverser is operated at a first given power”, and “the right thrust reverser is operated at a second given power” reciting “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a … given power” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power” is performed using “left/right thrust reverser” The left/right thrust reverser is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the left/right thrust reverser operates with the given power (value). Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power” and do not include any details about how the “operate” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a left/right thrust reverser is merely as a tool for making the recited operate at given/power (value) rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).. Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of computers.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “left/right thrust reverser is operated at a …given power” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (aviation) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
The limitation(s) “the rudder is operated at a given angle” reciting “rudder is operated at a given angle” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The judicial exception of “rudder is operated at a given angle” is performed using “the rudder” The left/right thrust reverser is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the rudder is operated at a given angle (value). Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “rudder is operated at a given angle” and do not include any details about how the “operate” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the limitation recites only the idea of rudder is operated at a given angle without details on how this is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how the rudder is operated at a given angle solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. Thus, fails to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Also, the claim invokes a rudder merely as a tool for making the recited operate at given angle (value) rather than purporting to improve the technology or a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitation represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of aviation.
In addition, the claim not does provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. This is because the claim is claimed at a broad applicability. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In addition, the recitation of “rudder is operated at a given angle” in the limitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “rudder is operated at a given angle” limits the identified judicial exceptions in the limitation, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (aviation) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
In addition, the claim recites these other additional elements - steering means, aircraft, nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, rudder, plurality of thrust reverser, engine, left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser, calculator, and controller perform the steer, determine, and control steps. The steering means, aircraft, nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, rudder, plurality of thrust reverser, engine, left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of steer, determine, and control functionality) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Accordingly, these additional elements do 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.
Furthermore, the Examiner states in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e (ii) a calculator that uses aircraft speed, steering-means availability, engine and brake usage, runway friction, and weather to select which of those structures to use and with what usage parameters; and (iii) at least one controller that actually commands those structures so that the left and right thrust reversers are driven at distinct power levels and the rudder is driven to a defined angle in real time. These limitations impose meaningful limits on any intermediate determination step: the claimed system is actually implemented as a multi-actuator aircraft control system that transforms the state of the aircraft on the runway; control in real time the trajectory of a landing aircraft on a runway by mentally computing, moment-by-moment, the respective power levels of left and right thrust reversers and the rudder angle based on live runway friction, wind vector, aircraft speed, brake usage, and component wear.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner respectfully states that claims themselves do not recite any of these features in particular, steering the aircraft on a safe trajectory after touchdown/landing such as control in real time the trajectory of a landing aircraft on a runway. While the claim languages discloses thrust reversers are at a given power and the rudder at a given angle, the claim language makes no mentioning of the claimed invention of how the thrust reversers and rudder are used once the plane has landed. The claimed language only discloses when the aircraft on the ground and steering the aircraft when on the ground (e.g. changing taxiways, preparing to enter a taxiway) Furthermore, while the claimed language does mention determine weather data, the claimed language does not mention the weather being wind. In addition, the language does not disclose the determined data includes or involves runway friction, aircraft deceleration, and component wear or availability. In addition, the language does not mention, at all, how to steer with any of these elements in particular. Therefore, the examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s amendment does not result in integrating the claimed abstract idea in a practical application being performed. For example, the claim itself does not explain exactly or how the controller controls the steering means based on the determined data and usage parameters when a thrust reverser is a given power or a rudder is at given angle. The language is silent on any additional functionally element to further explain how the steering means is controlled or implemented according to the usage parameters with the thrust reverser or rudder. Limitations/features from the specification such control in real time the trajectory of a landing aircraft on a runway by mentally computing, moment-by-moment, the respective power levels of left and right thrust reversers and the rudder angle based on live runway friction, wind vector, aircraft speed, brake usage, and component wear, are not read into the claims. Thus, Applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive and the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
C) Furthermore, within arguments pages 8-11, Applicant argues that the claims are directed to such a system and, at a minimum, integrate any intermediate "determinations" into a practical application that improves the technical field of aircraft ground-trajectory control. However, the Examiner disagrees.
In response, in regards to improvement of a technological field, the Examiner respectfully states MPEP 2106.05(a) states “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome”. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In addition, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states “To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology”.
The Examiner respectfully states the applicant fails to identify that the claims and the limitations themselves at issue are directed toward overcoming a problem within the technology. In addition, the Examiner respectfully states the claims themselves provide no evidence of an improvement in computer- related technology beyond the abstract idea, and the computer hardware is merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea as opposed to claiming the process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result. Thus, the claims are merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. In addition, Furthermore, while the Applicant states that the present invention provides the effect of “improves the technical field of aircraft ground-trajectory control”, the Examiner states these statement(s) are merely conclusionary statements that provide no evidence/reasoning to counter the Examiner’s reasoning/rationale on how the claims or elements within the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
As explained in the rejection above, the limitations of “steer”, “determine”, and “control” falls within the “Mental Processes” or “Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas; thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the steering means, aircraft, nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, rudder, plurality of thrust reverser, engine, left thrust reverser and right thrust reverser, calculator, and controller to perform the steer, determine, and control steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The MPEP 2105.06(a) states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” Thus, the additional elements of Applicant’s claims are merely improving the abstract idea and not an improvement in technology. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the 101 rejection of the claims still remains and the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-13, 15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new ground(s) of rejection(s) since the new ground(s) of rejection(s) was necessitated by Applicant's amendment.
Conclusion
If the Applicant chooses to amend the claims in future filings, the Examiner kindly states any new limitation(s) added to the claims must be described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art in order to meet the written description requirement of 35 USC 112, first paragraph. To help expedite prosecution, promote compact prosecution and prevent a possible 112(a)/first paragraph rejection, the Examiner respectfully requests for each new limitation added to the claims in a future filing by the Applicant that the Applicant would cite the location within the specification showing support for that new limitation within the remarks. In addition, MPEP 2163.04(I)(B) states that a prima facie under 112(a)/first paragraph may be established if a claim has been added or amended, the support for the added limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where added the limitation is supported.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID FABER whose telephone number is (571)272-2751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Adam Queler can be reached at 5712724140. 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.
/ADAM M QUELER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights