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 applicant’s filing date 11/03/2025. Claims 19-25 and 28-29 have been canceled. Claims 1-18, 26 and 27 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Application No. AU2021900347, filed on 02/12/2021.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C.103 of claims 1-18, 26 and 27 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1, Applicant argues:
Step 2A, Prong 1: that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed system allegedly cannot be performed in the human mind and involves a distributed, multi-modal sensor network.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner does not contend that the claims require literal performance by a human. Rather, the claims are directed to collecting, synchronizing, combining and analyzing information, and generating an alert based on the analysis. Such operations fall within the judicial exception of data collection, data analysis and evaluation, which is a recognized abstract idea under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), regardless of whether the steps are practically performed by a human or a computer system. The mere recitation of sensors, multiple locations, or a networked environment does not change the focus of the claims, which remains on processing information to determine safety events. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Applicant further argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application by virtue of being applied in an aviation environment, using multiple sensors, and allegedly providing improved monitoring and safety.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to Step 2A, prong two, Integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception 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 exception. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f). In contrast, the instant claims are different, the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. The claims here are not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality nor an inventive solution to any computer specific problem. The claims merely recite generic functions such as time synchronization, stitching, projecting, comparing, and alert generation. The claims do not recite an improvement to the underlying sensors, vehicle hardware or computer architecture, nor do they alter how the sensors operate or generate data. Examiner submits that under the current 35 USC 101 examining practice, the existence of such novel features would still not cure the deficiencies with respect to the abstract idea. See for example: Ultramercial, Inc. V. Hulu, LLC, 112 USPQ2d 1750, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No. 2010-1544, Decided November 14, 2014, 2014 BL 320546, 772 F.3d 709, Page 1754 last two ¶: Indeed, in this in instant case, the limitations simply narrow or limit the abstract idea without providing anything significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Lastly, dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are simply steps performed by a generic computer. The claim merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a processor, and is considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic processor to merely carry out the abstract idea itself.
Examiner notes the same arguments apply to independent claim 26.
For these reasons the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth in this office action is maintained.
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 1-18, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 2A – Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea concept of a system (Claim 1) of monitoring activities in an aviation environment. This abstract idea is described in at least claim 1 by, obtain information of at least two objects, including at least one runway and at least one aircraft, received said information and process said information to monitor and make predictions in relation to the at least two objects, combine the information by applying data fusion to associate information with temporal information and spatial information, applying a time-syncing process to the information acquired at the plurality of locations, stitching or otherwise combining the information acquired at plurality of locations, projecting or otherwise fusing the acquired information onto the acquired information, compare the temporally and spatially associated information of the at least two objects with predetermined safety operation criteria and to generate an alert signal when the compared information indicates a risk or likelihood of at least three different occurrence types from the following list of occurrence types: - runway excursion; - runway incursion; - foreign object damage / debris; - taxiing collision / near collision; - unstable approach; - wheels up landing; - controlled flight into terrain; - animal / bird strike are considered mental process steps. For example, the limitation of evaluation process is merely evaluating a data set. These limitations can be done with the aid of pen and paper. The identified claim limitations that recite an abstract idea fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section 1 of the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019.
The limitations of obtain information of at least two objects, including at least one runway and at least one aircraft, received said information and process said information to monitor and make predictions in relation to the at least two objects, combine the information by applying data fusion to associate information with temporal information and spatial information, applying a time-syncing process to the information acquired at the plurality of locations, stitching or otherwise combining the information acquired at plurality of locations, projecting or otherwise fusing the acquired information onto the acquired information, compare the temporally and spatially associated information of the at least two objects with predetermined safety operation criteria and to generate an alert signal when the compared information indicates a risk or likelihood of at least three different occurrence types from the following list of occurrence types: - runway excursion; - runway incursion; - foreign object damage / debris; - taxiing collision / near collision; - unstable approach; - wheels up landing; - controlled flight into terrain; - animal / bird strike as drafted, are process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system for generating process and evaluation process, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. 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, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A – Prong 2:
The claim recites additional elements to the abstract idea. However, these additional elements fail to integrate into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites, at least two monitoring units, each monitoring unit including at least two types of sensors comprising a range sensor and a camera sensor, the sensors are adapted to obtain sensor information, a processing system being configured to receive said information from the sensors, . Which are mere data gathering that is simply employed as a tool to collect information and reporting results, which is insignificant extra solution activity as the step simply gathers data necessary to perform the abstract idea. These additional steps amount necessary data gathering and reporting results, wherein all uses of the recited abstract idea require such data gathering or data output. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually or in combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of at least two monitoring units, each monitoring unit including at least two types of sensors comprising a range sensor and a camera sensor, the sensors are adapted to obtain sensor information, a processing system being configured to receive said information from the sensors, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra- solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood routine and convention activity in the field. The additional limitations of at least two monitoring units, each monitoring unit including at least two types of sensors comprising a range sensor and a camera sensor, the sensors are adapted to obtain sensor information, a processing system being configured to receive said information from the sensors, are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that the processor may, for example, be configured to perform the operations by performing hardware implemented logical functions, executing stored instructions, or executing algorithms for performing each of the operations. Further the mere collection of data or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as itis here). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 2-18 and 27:
Dependent claims 2-18 only recite limitations further defining the mental processes and recite further data gathering. These limitations are considered mental processes without significantly more elements to the abstract idea.
Claims 1-18, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Poojary et al., US12307912B1, discloses receiving camera image data of an aircraft while the aircraft is approaching or in the ramp area, receiving LIDAR/Radar sensor data of an aircraft while the aircraft is approaching or in the ramp area, merging the camera image data and the LIDAR/Radar sensor data into a merged data set, and wherein the merged data set includes at least one of: data for determining the position and orientation of the aircraft relative to the position and orientation of the ramp area, data for determining speed of the aircraft, data for determining direction of the aircraft, data for determining proximity of the aircraft to a particular object within the ramp area, and data for forming a three dimensional virtual model of at least a portion of the aircraft from the merged data.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
/M.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/David P. Merlino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights