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 06/08/2026. Claims 1, 7, 10, 13 and 14 have been amended. Claims 1-2 and 4-17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/08/2026, with respect to the previous claim objections have been considered. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 7 thereby rendering previous objection moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. Upon reconsideration of the claims as amended and Applicant’s arguments, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn with respect to the claims 1-5 and 12-17. However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive with respect to claims 6-11. Claims 6-11 recite mathematical concepts and calculations, including calculations and comparisons involving terrain elevation, altitude, height above ground, and uncertainty values. The additional elements, including the recited sensors, terrain databases, computer components, and monitoring elements, obtain, supply, store or process the information used in mathematical operations and do not integrate the mathematical concepts into a practical application. Applicant’s arguments that the claimed operations cannot be performed mentally are not persuasive because the maintained rejection is based on the recitation of mathematical concepts, rather than on the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Further, the presence of physical or computer components does not, by itself, remove the expressly recited mathematical relationships and calculations from the judicial exception analysis. Applicant’s argument that the claims provide an improvement to avionics technology has also been considered. However, claims 6-11 do not require the result of the mathematical processing to control the aircraft, modify operation of the latitude sensor or radio altimeter, or otherwise produce a particular improvement in the functioning of the recited technological components. Rather, the components provide the data and technological environment in which the mathematical analysis is performed. Similarly, storing or using calculated uncertainty information does not recite an improvement in the functioning of the computer or database itself. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive with respect to claims 1-5 and 12-17, and the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn. The rejection of claims 6-11 are maintained under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without reciting additional elements sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
EACH CLAIM HAS BEEN EVALUATED AS A WHOLE BASED ON THE LIMITATIONS RECITED THEREIN.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claims 6-11 fall within a statutory category of invention. Accordingly, the claims are analyzed under Step 2A.
Step 2A, Prong One – Judicial Exception
Claim 6 recites an avionics system including an electronic monitoring device configured to monitor an altitude of an aircraft via a comparison between an altitude from an altitude sensor and a sum of a first terrain elevation value from a terrain database and a height above ground from a radio altimeter, wherein the comparison depends on an uncertainty value associated with the respective first terrain elevation value. The recited operation of summing the terrain elevation value and the height above ground value and comparing the resulting value with the altitude value, with the comparison further depending on an uncertainty value, recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 6 recites a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites calculating, for each mesh, an uncertainty value from a plurality of second terrain elevation values, wherein the uncertainty value is selected from a difference between a maximum and minimum value of the plurality of second terrain elevation values or a standard deviation of the second terrain elevation values relative to the maximum value. The recited determination of a difference, maximum and minimum values, and a standard deviation constitutes mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations. Accordingly, claim 7 recites a mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations corresponding to the terrain database generation method, including calculating uncertainty values from terrain elevation values. Thus, the instructions cause the computer to perform the uncertainty value calculations identified above with respect to claim 7. The recited computer and non-transitory computer readable medium are additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Claim 9 recites monitoring a vertical positioning of an aircraft via a comparison between an altitude sensor and a sum of a first terrain elevation value from a terrain database and a height above ground from a radio altimeter, wherein the comparison depends on an uncertainty value associated with the respective first terrain elevation value. The claim further requires the terrain database to be generated using calculated uncertainty values. Thus, claim 9 recites mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations involving altitude, terrain elevation, height above ground, and uncertainty values. Accordingly, claim 9 recites mathematical concept, which is an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites determining an error in the comparison and generating an alert as a function of the determined error. The determination of the error is based on the preceding mathematical comparison, and the generated alert communicates the result of that analysis. Accordingly, claim 10 continues to include the judicial exception identified with respect to claim 9.
Claim 11 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations including the comparison of altitude, terrain elevation, height above ground, and uncertainty values identified with respect to claim 9. The recited computer and non-transitory computer readable medium are additional elements considered under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Accordingly, claim 6-11 includes the judicial exception identified above.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Integration into a Practical Application
The claims are next evaluated as a whole to determine whether the additional elements integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to claim 6, the additional elements include the aircraft, avionics system, electronic storage device, terrain database, electronic monitoring device, altitude sensor, and radio altimeter. The altitude sensor and radio altimeter provide numerical altitude and height above ground information used as inputs to the mathematical comparison, while the terrain database provides the terrain elevation and uncertainty information used in the comparison. Thus, these elements obtain, supply or store the information upon which the mathematical analysis is performed. The computer, electronic monitoring device, and computer-readable media perform the recited processing and storage operations. Although claims 6 and 9 recite monitoring an altitude or vertical positioning of an aircraft, the claims do not require the result of the mathematical comparison to control the aircraft, modify flight of the aircraft, alter operation of the altitude sensor or radio altimeter or otherwise cause a particular technological action. Rather, the recited components provide the information and technological environment in which the mathematical comparison is performed. Similarly, claim 7 and 8 calculate and store uncertainty information without reciting an improvement to the functioning of the computer or terrain database. Claim 10 generates an alert based on the result of the analysis but does not require the alert to cause corrective operation of the aircraft or another technological change. Accordingly, when considered as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The sensors and terrain database supply the information used in the analysis, while the computer, monitoring device, and computer readable media perform the recited processing, storage, and output functions. The claims do not recite a specific improvement in the functioning of these components, an unconventional arrangement of the recited components, or require the mathematical result to cause further technological operation. The alert of claim 10 likewise communicates the determined result without requiring corrective technological action.
Accordingly, claims 6-11 are directed to a judicial exception and do not recite additional elements sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more and therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 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
Prosecution Insights