DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to application 18/260,986 filed on 07/11/2023. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Application No. FR2100243, filed on 01/12/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/11/2023 and 11/13/2025 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation “a terrain zone likely to be overflown by the aircraft” is unclear. The term “likely” does not presently specify the basis upon which likelihood is determined. It is therefore unclear how the terrain zone is defined. Clarification is required so that the scope of the claim may be more readily understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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 1-17 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III).
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 7. A generating method for generating a terrain database for an avionics system, intended to be stored in an electronic storage device configured to be carried on board an aircraft, the terrain database corresponding to a terrain zone likely to be overflown by the aircraft represented in the form of a surface divided into meshes, each mesh corresponding to a sector of the terrain zone, the terrain database having a first resolution and comprising first terrain elevation values, each being associated with a respective mesh the method being computer-implemented and comprising:
calculating, for each mesh, an uncertainty value associated with the respective first elevation value, at least one uncertainty value being calculated from a plurality of second terrain elevation values associated with said mesh and taken from a second terrain database having a second resolution, the second resolution being higher than the first resolution; [mental process/step]; and
including each calculated uncertainty value in the terrain database [insignificant extra solution activity (generic computer component)].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation/steps of calculating, for each mesh, an uncertainty value associated with the respective first elevation value, at least one uncertainty value being calculated from a plurality of second terrain elevation values associated with said mesh and taken from a second terrain database having a second resolution, the second resolution being higher than the first resolution. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the “terrain database” in base claim 1. That is, other than reciting “terrain database” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for terrain database language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of terrain database limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the database, were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Specification does not provide any indication that the “database” are anything other than a conventional computer system (See at least ¶30 of applicant’s specification).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “database” elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent device claim 1, respectively, recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 7. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 7 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6 and 8-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
Thus, claims 1-17 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bourret et al., US 9561868B2 discloses a method and device for vertical guidance of an aircraft, particularly a transport aircraft, during an approach. More particularly, the present disclosure is applicable to an approach to a landing runway of an airport along a lateral approach trajectory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665