DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 8 June 2025.
This office action is made Final.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-9, and 11 have been amended.
Claims 16-17 have been amended.
The objection to the drawings, the objection to the specification, and all art rejections from the previous office actions have been withdrawn as neccessited by the amendment. Regarding the 112b rejection, the limitations comprising “steering means” and “controller configured to” (previously “control means”) have been withdrawn in response to the persuasiveness of Applicant’s remarks and as neccessited by the amendment, respectively.
Claims 1-13, 15-17 are pending. Claims 1, 10, 11 and 15-16 are independent claims.
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed on 7/8/2025 has been accepted and entered. The drawings are longer objected as a result of the replacement drawings and amendment to the specification filed on 7/8/25.
Specification
The amendments to the specification and abstract filed on 7/8/25 has been accepted and entered.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation containing “steering means” of Claims 2-3 no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) in response to the persuasiveness of Applicant’s arguments.
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:
Calculator configured to determine in claim 1, 10-11, 15-16
Controller configured to control in claim 1, 4, 5, 10-11, 15-16
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 1-13, 15 remain and 16-17 are 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 1-13 and 15-17, all of the claim limitations containing "... calculator configured to" or “…means 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 “unit”/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 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 1-13, 15-17 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”, 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” and “aircraft”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “steer” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “steering means” and “aircraft”, “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” and “first communication means” “, “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 – aircraft, steering means, calculator, and controller perform the steer, determine, and control 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 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the aircraft, steering means, 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 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” 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” 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.
Independent Claim 16
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitation of “steering means that include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft, the steering means configured to steer the aircraft on the ground, each steering means being associated with at least one 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. That is, other than reciting “steering means”, “include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel”, “a plurality of thrust reversers” “engine of the aircraft”, and “aircraft”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “steer” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “steering means”, “include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel”, “a plurality of thrust reversers” “engine of the aircraft”, and “aircraft”, “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 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. For example, but for “calculator” and “first communication means” “, “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 – aircraft, steering means, nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, plurality of thrust reversers, engine of the aircraft, calculator, and controller perform the steer, determine, and control 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 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the aircraft, steering means, aircraft, steering means, nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel, plurality of thrust reversers, engine of the aircraft, 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.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 12-13
As per dependent claim(s) 2-7, 12-13, and 17, 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) 1-13, 15-17 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 Davis et al (US20210049919, EFD 8/15/2019). 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; (0064-0065: body gear and nose gear used for steering.)
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, Turcios disclosing an act of controlling steering (paragraphs 0053-0054, 067 -0079: steering is impacted due to pilot reacting to guidance data)); however, Turcios fails to disclose a specific entity/system controlling (more specifically see amended: “…at least one controller configured to …”) to control each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter. However, Davis et al discloses a nose wheel steering system configured to 1) steer the aircraft by rotating the nose wheel of landing gear (not numbered) to a steering angle that will achieve a desired turn of aircraft by following a defined and approved route calculated by taxi assistance algorithm (0029) and 2) set a desired nose wheel angle based on maintaining a taxiway centerline indicated by the navigation sensors. (0048) In other words, the nose wheel steering system receives instructions from a taxi assistance algorithm on how to control/steer nose wheel and performs the instructions to control/steer nose wheel. (0024) Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) controlling the steering of the nose wheel
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 ability to control steering, such that a specific controller is the entity/system that is used to perform the steer control, as taught by Davis et al. The combination would have provided the benefit of provide aircraft taxi assistance for pilots to facilitate a smooth taxi. (0004)
As per dependent claim 2, Turcios discloses wherein the steering means include a nose landing gear comprising at least one wheel and a plurality of thrust reversers each fitted to an engine of the aircraft (0064 discloses having nose landing gear. Furthermore, FIG 7 and 0047 discloses an aircraft which may be a Boeing 747 having engines attached to the wings. 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)
As per dependent claim 3, Turcios discloses wherein the steering means further include a rudder (FIG 7 and 0047 discloses an aircraft which may be a Boeing 747. 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)
As per dependent claim 4, Turcios discloses wherein the controller include a central controller (FIG 1, 110) Furthermore, as a result of the amendment, the Examiner adds Davis et al discloses a central controller (0024)
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 Davis et al discloses a one controller per storage means (0024, 0029-034; FIG 1, 3)
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.
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)); however, Turcios fails to disclose a specific entity/system controlling (more specifically see amended: “…at least one controller configured to …”) to control each steering means determined in accordance with each corresponding determined usage parameter. However, Davis et al discloses a nose wheel steering system configured to 1) steer the aircraft by rotating the nose wheel of landing gear (not numbered) to a steering angle that will achieve a desired turn of aircraft by following a defined and approved route calculated by taxi assistance algorithm (0029) and 2) set a desired nose wheel angle based on maintaining a taxiway centerline indicated by the navigation sensors. (0048) In other words, the nose wheel steering system receives instructions from a taxi assistance algorithm on how to control/steer nose wheel and performs the instructions to control/steer nose wheel. (0024) Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) controlling the steering of the nose wheel
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 ability to control steering, such that a specific controller is the entity/system that is used to perform the steer control, as taught by Davis et al. The combination would have provided the benefit of provide aircraft taxi assistance for pilots to facilitate a smooth taxi. (0004)
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)
As per independent claim 16, Claim 16 recites the limitations of Claims 1 and 2 combined and is rejected under similar rationale. Furthermore, Turcios disclosing an act of controlling steering (paragraphs 0053-0054, 067 -0079: steering is impacted due to pilot reacting to guidance data)); however, Turcios fails to specifically each of the steering means (nose gear and thrust reversers) being associated with at least one usage parameter and a specific entity/system controlling (more specifically see amended: “…at least one controller configured 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, along with the motivation, incorporated, Davis et al discloses a nose wheel steering system configured to 1) steer the aircraft by rotating the nose wheel of landing gear (not numbered) to a steering angle (parameter) that will achieve a desired turn of aircraft by following a defined and approved route calculated by taxi assistance algorithm (0029) and 2) set a desired nose wheel angle based on maintaining a taxiway centerline indicated by the navigation sensors. (0048). 0047 discloses receiving the desired angle. In other words, the nose wheel steering system receives instructions from a taxi assistance algorithm on how to control/steer nose wheel and performs the instructions to control/steer nose wheel. (0024) Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) controlling the steering of the nose wheel. Furthermore, Davis et al discloses an engine thrust system used to control the thrust reverser. Davis discloses the engine thrust system receives instructions from the taxi assistance algorithm which results in actuating thrust reverser doors as necessary to assist with control of taxi speed. (0033; the actuating the doors or not is a form of a usage parameter) In addition, Davis discloses control system may be programmed to command the thrust reverser by deploying and stowing thrust reverser. (0039: stowing is a form of usage parameter) Furthermore, 0043 discloses a/the control system controlling the thrust reverser in concert to stop the aircraft and 0006 discloses a/the control system controlling command the thrust reverser to achieve and maintain the desired taxi speed in response to receiving the request to hold taxi speed only. Thus, Davis et al discloses a system (form of a controller) controlling the plurality of thrust reversers. Thus, Davis et al discloses at least one controller to control the steering means.
As per dependent claim 17, Davis et al discloses the usage parameter of each of the plurality of thrust reversers is a power. (0033: discloses that thrust reverser can be stowed or actuate thrust reverser 108 doors to assist with control of taxi speed ;0039: discloses command the thrust reverser by deploying and stowing thrust reversers. Therefore, Davis discloses the usage of the thrust reversers of having no power (when in stowed) or having power (when the thrust reversers doors are actuated)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, in regards to the 112(b) rejection and 112(f) claim interpretation, Applicant argues that the “steering means” is properly supported in Paragraph 0005, 0016-0017 of Applicant’s specification which discloses specific examples of the steering means. Applicant argues that the term “calculator configured to” does not use the word “means” and is not written in purely functional language. Applicant argues that 0009, FIG 2 and FIG 3 show structure for the term “calculator”. Therefore, Applicant argues, “calculator” is not a nonce word, and sufficient structure is disclosed. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the term “control means” has been amended to structural term “controller”. Therefore, Applicant argues neither the calculator or controller invokes 112(f) and rejects the 112(b) rejection be withdrawn. However, the Examiner disagrees.
Note: The Examiner respectfully states that Applicant’s arguments, on pages 9-10, towards the “steering means” should not be rejected under 112(b) are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection towards the term “steering means” no longer applies. However, “steering means” still invokes 112(f) as explained below.
The Examiner respectfully the claim limitations containing “steering means”, “a calculator configured to”, and “controller configured to” are limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 15 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The “steering means” invokes 112f since it explicitly uses the term "means" or "step", includes functional language, B) is modified by functional language (“configured to”) and C) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. 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). The “controller” 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 (control). The language of the claim does not disclose the controller a type of computer to process and execute the instructions to perform the steering means.
Furthermore, for the “calculator” term being rejected under 112(b), The Examiner respectfully states that 0009 and FIGs 2, 3 do not clearly, explicitly, and definitely state that the navigator has the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. 0009 merely repeats the same language/wording of claim 1. 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 navigator. 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).” Therefore, the Examiner was unable to find an algorithm for the
claimed calculator limitation. Therefore, 112(b) rejection remains for this reason.
On pages 10-11, in regards to 101 rejection, 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. Applicant argues that the “steering means” is not a mental process or organized human activity that could be performed in the mind or with pen and paper. Applicant argues that the function of steering the aircraft is performed by concrete mechanical components such as a rudder, thrust reversers, or nose landing gear, as described in the specification. These components cannot be mentally manipulated or substituted with human cognition; they require physical actuation by onboard systems. Therefore, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in aircraft guidance technology 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 system disclosed and claimed enables aircraft to remain on a safe runway trajectory following touchdown by selecting and applying control inputs to various available steering systems. The invention improves safety by reducing the risk of runway excursions in variable weather and runway conditions, as
explained in the specification. The controller determines how to apply each available steering mechanism in real-time based on external and internal data, such as wind, runway friction, aircraft deceleration, and component wear or availability. These functions are not abstract-they are directly tied to controlling physical systems and improving aircraft operational reliability. As such, the claims are clearly integrated into a practical application under USPTO guidance and MPEP § 2106.05(a)”
Furthermore Applicant argues C) the claims also include an inventive concept under Step 2B. The rejection has not cited any evidence showing that it was conventional in the art to dynamically allocate steering control across thrust reversers, nose landing gear, and rudder based on usage parameters derived from weather, braking force, and component availability. Nor has any prior art shown a system that optimizes ground trajectory in real-time by accounting for cost of usage and safety tradeoffs between available steering components. These specific and meaningful improvements in aircraft control systems are not "well-understood, routine, and conventional" in the field and thus satisfy the "significantly more" test of Step 2B. However, the Examiner disagrees
In response to Argument A) the Examiner respectfully states that the language of steering means within the independent claim is broad and does not explicitly recite or state mechanicals component actually being perform or used controlling the steering the aircraft. In other words, The claims do not discloses the intent of the steering be performed by the mechanical 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 performed by 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 perform the steering. Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are general summary or conclusion of Applicant’s invention, but provided no cited 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. Therefore, the limitation of “steering means configured to steer the aircraft on the ground, each steering means being associated with at least one 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. That is, other than reciting “steering means” and “aircraft”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step “steer” from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “steering means” and “aircraft”, “steer” in the context of this claim encompasses a person can move an object/vehicle towards any direction.
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 – aircraft, steering means, calculator, and controller perform the steer, determine, and control 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 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., claimed enables aircraft to remain on a safe runway trajectory following touchdown by selecting and applying control inputs to various available steering systems; controller determines how to apply each available steering mechanism in real-time based on external and internal data, such as wind, runway friction, aircraft deceleration, and component wear or availability) 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. The claim language makes no mentioning of the claimed invention occurring 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. 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. Limitations/features from the specification such remain on a safe runway trajectory following touchdown by selecting and applying control inputs to various available steering systems; controller determines how to apply each available steering mechanism in real-time based on external and internal data, such as wind, runway friction, aircraft deceleration, and component wear or availability, are not read into the claims. Thus, Applicant’s argument(s) are not persuasive and the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
In response to argument C) 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., dynamically allocate steering control across thrust reversers, nose landing gear, and rudder based on usage parameters derived from weather, braking force, and component availability, optimizes ground trajectory in real-time by accounting for cost of usage and safety tradeoffs between available steering components) 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). Therefore, only the features recited in the rejected claim are analyzed under step 2B. 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 discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using the aircraft, steering means, 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. Therefore, the additional elements were also explained to encompass use of generic computer elements/components, and thus, the claim as a whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55, in which case the claim is maintained to be directed to the judicial exception. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection for at least this reason.
D) Furthermore, within arguments A and C), Applicant argues that the claims are directed to a specific improvement in aircraft guidance technology and not to any judicial exception such as a mathematical concept, mental process, or human activity since the invention is directed to a real-time trajectory control system for an aircraft on a runway-an application in a clearly technological and physical domain (page 10, Argument A) and specific and meaningful improvements in aircraft control systems such as dynamically allocate steering control and optimizes ground trajectory in real-time (page 11, Argument C). 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 “solving the problem of precisely estimate the position of the lane using position sensors when the precision of positioning decreases”, 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 “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 an aircraft, steering means, calculator, and controller perform the steer, determine, and control to perform the of steer, determine, and/or control steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component since they are recited at a high-level of generality. 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 1-13, 15-17 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
The amendment to claims (e.g. claims 1, 4-5, 10, 11, 15) changes the scope of the claims and the interpretation of the claimed invention when interpreted as whole. The changing of “control means” to a more specific “controller” means which redefines the metes and bounds of the controlling step which was previously claimed. In other words, the Applicant change "control means" to "controller" means to better correlate to Applicant's specification. Therefore, the Examiner has updated the rejection to address Applicant’s amendment of an added automated process within the claim. Therefore, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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. Please refer to MPEP 713.09 for scheduling interviews after the mailing of this office action.
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.
/D.F/ Examiner, Art Unit 2172
/WILSON W TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights