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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 06/08/2026, in which claims 1 and 11 are amended and claims 2-5 are canceled. Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see REMARKS filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, under 35 USC § 112a, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, under 35 USC § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are maintained.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11, under 35 USC §103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections are withdrawn
Examiner notes that the Applicant did not address the previous interpretation of claim 9 under 35 USC § 112f. Therefore, the interpretation is maintained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 6-11, under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant has amended the independent claims to include previously identified allowable subject matter. Therefore, the previous rejections under 35 USC
§
103 are withdrawn. However, the claims are not in condition for allowance because the previous rejections under 35 USC § 112a and § 101 are maintained.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 112a, the Applicant argues:
While Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection and the Office Action's analysis of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), Applicant amends the claims as included herein. As an example, independent claim 1 is amended to recite, inter alia, "configuring traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient, wherein the real data recorded in an onboard computer of the aircraft are recovered, and wherein the recovered real data are decoded and the decoded real data are filtered wherein, during the filtering of the recovered real data, the data are filtered by comparing a geolocation of the aircraft with corresponding runway-geolocation data, wherein, during filtering, a weighting is allocated to the data according to the type of aircraft and/or a frequency of data acquisition, and wherein the filtered data include geolocated and weighted data relating to dynamics of the aircraft, to the type of aircraft and braking, and to a runway segment."
Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments obviate the rejections at least since the claims no longer recite "controlling," on which the rejections were based. Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that paragraph [0099] of the originally filed application provides support for various uses for the predicted frictional coefficient. For example, paragraph [0099] states "the method furthermore includes a step 38 of transferring the results of the calculations of frictional coefficients. They can thus be used by other applications, such as the one that is used by the platform 5 for calculating airport runway conditions, or other tools for optimising operational costs, or to embedded applications for anticipating braking procedures." One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at least from the above-recited disclosure in paragraph [0099] that the disclosure includes various ways to implement the frictional coefficients such as in amended claim 1.
While the Applicant has removed the term “controlling” the introduction of the word “configuring” does not comply with the written description requirement. It is unclear from the claims and the specification what is meant by “configuring traffic on the runway based on the runway determined from the predicted friction coefficient.” The specification never provides an example or explanation of what “configuring” is. With respect to the way that the claim is written, it could be reasonably interpreted to mean providing an order/schedule of aircraft landings, physically moving traffic that already exists on the runway, physically controlling the aircraft to land based on the predicted frictional coefficient, sending a message to an aircraft explaining the landing procedure/order, displaying information to an aircraft, pilot, ATC, or other entity relating to air traffic or landing procedures, etc. While there are many interpretations of what could be meant by “configuring traffic on a runway” there is no disclosure in the specification that performs any of the interpretations. Instead, the invention appears to only disclose modeling aircraft, runways, and their environment to determine frictional coefficients, then predicting a frictional coefficient based on real data recorded by the aircraft.
As far as what the use of those frictional coefficients are the specification states: “the present invention relates, in general terms, to optimizing the traffic on airports and reducing the number of runway closures which may have very great financial consequences for the airport operators.” (pg. 1, ln. 5-10) Additionally providing: “Finally, the method furthermore includes a step 38 of transferring the results of the calculations of frictional coefficients. They can thus be used by other applications, such as the one that is used by the platform 5 for calculating airport runway conditions, or other tools for optimising operational costs, or to embedded applications for anticipating braking procedures.” (pg. 9, 25-30) In both cases it appears that the only thing the invention is doing is transferring its data to another entity which may use it how to perform their functions. By only transferring data to another entity, the invention is not performing a function that can reasonably be understood as “configuring traffic on the runway.”
Therefore, the Examiner finds the above argument unpersuasive.
The Office is reminded that the standard for the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand based on reading the disclosure at the time of filing, as opposed to what was only described, for example, expressly or verbatim. See, e.g., MPEP § 2163(I)(B): "there is no in haec verba requirement" and "claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure." (Emphasis added to show that express support is allowed, but not exclusively required, to satisfy the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).) Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims overcome the rejections. And Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections and allowance of the claims.
As provided above, the specification is silent with respect to a written description that provides for “configuring traffic on the runway.” The Examiner agrees that there does not need to be an express disclosure, however, the Examiner does not find in the specification an express, implicit, or inherent disclosure that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand as “configuring traffic on the runway.”
Therefore, the Examiner does not find the above argument persuasive. Thus, the rejection under 35 USC § 112a is maintained.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC §101, the Applicant argues:
Claims 1-11 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections. Specifically, the Office Action failed to form a complete and proper rejection against the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For example, the Office Action at page 13 alleged that "[t]he specification does not provide any indication what the 'controlling' function consists of, thus this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception." Here the Office Action is clearly conflating the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). 35 U.S.C. § 101 relates to whether the claimed subject matter is patent eligible and does not involve determining whether the written description requirement is satisfied (which, as discussed above, it is). The Office Action made a specific argument that "[t]he specification does not provide any indication what the 'controlling' function consists of (with which Applicant disagrees) and then used this argument to support the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. But 35 U.S.C. § 101 is about whether the claimed subject matter is patent-eligible (e.g., whether it is directed to a judicial exception), not what the specification discloses. Thus, the Office Action's rejection is improper at least since the Office Action tried to use 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)-based allegations as support for a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
The Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that “Here the Office Action is clearly conflating the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). 35 U.S.C. § 101 relates to whether the claimed subject matter is patent eligible and does not involve determining whether the written description requirement is satisfied (which, as discussed above, it is). The Office Action made a specific argument that "[t]he specification does not provide any indication what the 'controlling' function consists of (with which Applicant disagrees) and then used this argument to support the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. But 35 U.S.C. § 101 is about whether the claimed subject matter is patent-eligible (e.g., whether it is directed to a judicial exception), not what the specification discloses.”
On page 9, the Office Action presents that the claims are directed towards one of the four statutory categories. On pages 9-10, the Office Action demonstrates that the claims are directed towards a judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. On pages 11-14, the Examiner performs an analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2 to determine if any additional claim elements are recited that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the database and module recited in claims 1 and 11 were nothing more than a generic computer to perform the abstract idea, they did not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (pg. 13) The remaining limitation that could integrated the judicial exception into a practical application was “controlling traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted friction coefficient.” However, the term “controlling” has many and varied interpretations within the context of the claim. Depending on what is meant by “controlling” determines if the limitation integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. For example, if controlling were to mean a processor automatically controlling the landing function, e.g., descent, braking, and taxiing, then that type of controlling would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, if controlling traffic meant displaying a modified schedule to an ATC or pilot, then this type of “controlling” would be considered a form of extra-solution activity, i.e., the post-solution activity of displaying data. Finally, pages 14-15 provide an analysis under Step 2B. Here, the Examiner explained that given the analysis above, the claims do not recite any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
It is for the purposes of Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B that it is necessary to determining the meaning of “controlling” and since there was no meaning presented in the specification, then a broadest reasonable interpretation must be used. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the controlling limitation could be reasonably interpreted as displaying data to an ATC/Pilot and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the Office Action at page 13 alleged that "[c]laim 1 further recites 'controlling traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient.' Under broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as displaying schedules or the like." However, this is an improper application of broadest reasonable interpretation, and the Office Action is applying the broadest possible interpretation to find a way to maintain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. MPEP § 2111 states that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean the broadest possible interpretation. Rather, the meaning given to a claim term must be consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term." Controlling traffic on a runway is not the same as displaying schedules. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that simply displaying schedules merely informs other parties of the schedules and does not actually change (or control) anything about traffic on the runway. Thus, the interpretation made by the Office Action is the broadest possible interpretation, not the broadest reasonable interpretation. The rejection is improper and must be withdrawn.
The Examiner cordially disagrees. The interpretation was not the “broadest possible” interpretation. But as explained above, the broadest reasonable interpretation. Schedules dictate the order in which the aircraft can land on the runway. Therefore, adjusting the schedules controls which aircraft lands, where it lands, and when it lands. The purpose of scheduling is specifically to control the order in which events take place, here that includes traffic on a runway. Further, other broadest reasonable interpretations can be made which also amount to an insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., transferring the results of the calculations of the frictional coefficients (see instant specification ¶ [0099])
Therefore, the Examiner does not find the above argument persuasive.
Additionally, MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) states that "[l]imitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include... [a]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." Amended claim 1 is clearly not drafted to monopolize any alleged judicial exception. For example, amended claim 1 recites "configuring traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient," along with much more detail. Here, amended claim 1 is limited to using the particular predicted frictional coefficient in a particular way such as to configure traffic on a runway. See, e.g., paragraph [0099] of the originally filed application for examples of support. There are many ways to configure traffic in general that do not involve the predicted coefficient. There are also many other places, such as a sidewalk, a street, etc., to configure traffic than just a runway. Additionally, configuring traffic, as recited in claim 1, is not extra-solution activity at least since the reason for determining the coefficients is to improve how the runway traffic performs. That is, the configuration of the runway traffic has nexus with, and is core to the inventive concept of, the remaining features of claim 1 relating to the coefficients. Thus, since amended claim 1 is specific to what is used to configure traffic and where the traffic is configured, amended claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
Similarly to “controlling traffic on the runway”, “configuring traffic on the runway” also leads to broadest reasonable interpretations that are insignificant extra-solution activity. Because the specification is silent on what is meant by “configuring” and the broadest reasonable interpretation includes insignificant extra-solution activity, then the amended claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner notes that “configuring traffic on the runway” can also be reasonably interpreted to include modifying schedules, displaying information, sending messages to pilots or ATC, etc.
Therefore, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Accordingly, amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent claim 11 is amended to recite the same or similar features as amended claim 1 and is also directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least the same reasons as amended claim 1. The dependent claims depend from and further limits amended claim 1. As discussed above, amended claim 1 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, the dependent claims are also directed to patent-eligible subject matter and overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least by virtue of dependency from an allowable base claim and may be patentable for other reasons. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections and allowance of the claims.
For the reasons provided above, the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive and maintains the previous rejections under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: a module for predicting a braking coefficient from real data of the aircraft in claim 11.
Because this claim limitation(s) is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
It is unclear from the specification if the “module” is a hardware or software component. The specification only discloses that it is part of platform 4. The drawings do not provide any clarification on the structure of the “module”. Leaving the interpretation of the term to be hardware or software or any combination.
If applicant does not intend to have this 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the new matter “…controlling traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient.” However, the specification does not provide for any controlling of traffic, especially based on the predicted frictional coefficient. Claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 11 recites “…a module for predicting a braking coefficient…” however, the specification is silent on the structure and function of module and only ever states that it is part of platform 4. This description is not written in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim limitation “…a module for predicting…” invokes 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 and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only provides that the module is a part of platform 4. There is no description of hardware or software algorithms of any king. 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.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards a method for determining a frictional coefficient of an aircraft on a runway. Claim 11 is directed towards a system for determining a frictional coefficient of an aircraft on a runway.
Step 2A, Prong 1
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites:
“…producing a database of frictional coefficients…”;
“…predicting a frictional coefficient…”
Independent claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations.
These claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. Therefore, these limitations are abstract ideas and claims 1 and 11 are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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 judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it' ' (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 1 and 11 recite “a database” at a high level. The specification identifies the processor generically as having “a memory” – See specification at pg. 7, ln. 29-30. The database is merely a part of a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 11 further recites a “module for predicting...” This element also merely describe a generic computer or software that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These steps are not meaningful limitations on the judicial exception. The database and module are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory and a module) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Therefore, claims 1 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Claim 1 further recites “configuring traffic on the runway based on a condition of the runway determined from the predicted frictional coefficient.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation this limitation is an insignificant extra-solution activity, such as displaying schedules or the like. The specification does not provide any indication what the “configuring” function consists of, thus this limitation fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 11 recites a substantially similar limitation.
Step 2B
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “wherein, during the prediction step, an algorithm of random forest, decision trees or 8-layer neural network type is used.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 recites additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, i.e., “…wherein the real data are compared with the simulation data in the form of as a time series to reconstruct a frictional coefficient value as a function of time.” The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 recites additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, i.e., “…wherein a change in the predicted frictional coefficients is compared with the simulated frictional coefficients to define that a maximum allowable frictional coefficient has been reached.” The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites additional abstract ideas that may be performed mentally, i.e., “…wherein the frictional coefficients are standardized for pressure, braking energy, and speed.” The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites “…further comprising a step of storing data relating to predicted frictional coefficients modified by a weighting coefficient.” Which is a form of extra-solution activity, i.e., mere data gathering. The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/CHASE L COOLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights