DETAILED ACTION This action is responsive to claims filed on 4 April 202 3 . Claims 1- 16 are pending for examination. 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. Examiner’s Comments The disclosure is objected to under 37 CFR 1.71, as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonable search of the prior art by the examiner. For example, the following items are not understood: Claims 1-16 , as outlined in the Objections and Rejections below Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may ascertain the full scope of the invention to determine patentability. Applicant is required to submit an amendment which clarifies the disclosure so that the examiner may make a proper comparison of the invention with the prior art. Applicant should be careful not to introduce any new matter into the disclosure (i.e., matter which is not supported by the disclosure as originally filed). A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire TWO (2) MONTHS from the mailing date of this letter. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “VR” should be “virtual reality”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “AI” should be “artificial intelligence”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “RGB” should be “ red, green, blue ”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “EVTOLs” should be “Electric Vertical Take-off and Landing Aircraft”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “air-taxi” should be “air taxi”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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. 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 s 1-16 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 contain 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 list and describe features, which are absent from the Specification. Examiner notes for example, Claim 1 of the instant application describe “ data segments”, “parameters”, “distribution” , “distribution model”, “parameter model”, and additional features, which are not thoroughly described in the Specification in any detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 2-15, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected. Claim 16 list and describe features, which are absent from the Specification. Examiner notes for example, Claim 16 of the instant application describe “segments”, “parameter model”, “distribution model” , “data profile”, and additional features, which are not thoroughly described in the Specification in any detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-16 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. The term s “multiple partners”, “etc.”, “other including, but not limited”, “other emerging”, “relevant”, “such”, “decided together with industry partners”, “regulatory bodies” in C laim 1 are term s which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “etc.”, “other including, but not limited”, “other emerging”, “such” renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The term “relevant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In such a product, any industry partner that generates synthetic data can be considered relevant. Additionally, “multiple partners”, “industry partners” and “regulatory bodies” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art which entities can be considered “multiple partners”, “industry partners” and “regulatory bodies”. Claims 2-15, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected. The term “the like” in Claim 6 renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 1 recites the limitation "the airtaxi". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the airtaxi" has been construed to be “an airtaxi”. Claims 2-15, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the training" in line 1 5 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the training" has been construed to be “ training a parameter model ”. Claims 2-15, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the training" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the training" has been construed to be “training a distribution model”. Claims 2-15, which are dependent on claim 1, are similarly rejected. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the gaming model". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the gaming model" has been construed to be “gaming model”. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the dataset". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the dataset" has been construed to be “dataset of synthetic data” of claim 1. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the user". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the user" has been construed to be “a user”. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the autonomous EVTOLs". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the autonomous EVTOLs" has been construed to be “autonomous EVTOLs”. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the user". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the user" has been construed to be “a user”. Claim 7 recites the limitation "the hurricane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the hurricane" has been construed to be “a hurricane”. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the generation of AI pilot data". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the generation of AI pilot data" has been construed to be “generating synthetic data for AI Pilots” of claim 1. Claim 12 recites the limitation "the dataset". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the dataset" has been construed to be “dataset of synthetic data” of claim 1. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the dataset". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the dataset" has been construed to be “dataset of synthetic data” of claim 1. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the dataset". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the dataset" has been construed to be “dataset of synthetic data” of claim 1 Claim 15 recites the limitation "the dataset". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "the dataset" has been construed to be “dataset of synthetic data” of claim 1 Claim 16 recites the limitation "the training" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "training" has been construed to be “training the parameter model”. Claim 16 recites the limitation "the training" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the term "training" has been construed to be “training the distribution model”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MAGGIE MAIDO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703) 756-1953 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th: 6am - 4pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Michael Huntley can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (303) 297-4307 . 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. /MM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2129 /MICHAEL J HUNTLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2129