DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 4-5, 15, and 19 have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(a): The amendments to claims 1, 15, and 19 does not overcome the rejections of record. The rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the method of example 40 of USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility examples “limit[s] collection of additional data to when the initial data identified an anomalous condition” and that “the current claims are analogous as the claims perform additional determinations responsive to a determination that flight plan crosses a regulated geographic region.” Applicant further argues that “this provides an improvement over existing system of flight management by reducing (or eliminating) delays.” However, examiner maintains the application claims are not analogous to example 40 claim 1 because the application claims perform, after a mental comparison process, additional determinations, which are considered by examiner to be steps in the abstract idea, while example 40 claim 1 performs, after a mental comparison process, a modified data gathering step. Claim 40 provides an improvement to the additional element of data gathering / collection, and the application claims do not. The application claim does include another additional element, the sending of the selected flight plan, at the end of the claim, but this step, together with the receiving of the area regulation information, does not represent an improvement to the technology of receiving or sending information. An analogous version of the application Claim 1 could include a second receiving step where new regulation information is received in response to the overlap comparison.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), 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:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 15 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a Process which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Example: iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
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
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
See claim 15 language below:
A method comprising:
receiving, at a first device, an indication that a geographical area is expected to be regulated during a particular time window, the indication including an expected departure delay;
performing, at the first device, a comparison of the geographical area to route segments of a filed flight plan of a flight of an aircraft, the filed flight plan including a scheduled departure time and a scheduled arrival time;
based on determining that a route segment of the filed flight plan traverses at least a portion of the geographical area during the particular time window:
determine an expected departure time based on the scheduled departure time and the expected departure delay;
determine an expected arrival time based on the expected departure time;
determine one or more candidate geographical regions based on a departure difference between the expected departure time and the scheduled departure time, wherein a corresponding size of each candidate geographical region of the one or more candidate geographical regions is determined based on the departure difference; and
determine alternate flight plans that do not traverse the geographical area during the particular time window based on the one or more candidate geographical regions, the scheduled departure time, the expected departure time, the scheduled arrival time, and the expected arrival time;
determining, at the first device, a selected flight plan from the alternate flight plans that satisfies a selection criterion; and
sending the selected flight plan from the first device to a plurality of second devices including the aircraft, herein sending the selected flight plan to the plurality of second devices causes the selected flight plan to be filed with an aviation authority under a flight identifier associated with the filed flight plan.
The Process in claim 15, specifically the limitations bolded above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind with the aid of a pencil and paper and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of comparing an area to route segments (1-2), determining an expected departure time (3), determine an expected arrival time (4), determining a candidate geographical region (5), determining alternate flight plans (6), and selecting a flight plan (7). This is equivalent to (1) looking at a map showing a restricted area and a current flight plan, (2) visually identifying that a segment of the route overlap the restricted area, (3) adding the expected departure delay to the scheduled departure time to determine an expected departure time, (4) adding the difference between the scheduled departure time and the scheduled arrival time to the expected departure delay to determine the expected arrival time, (5) drawing a circle representing a candidate geographical region that does not overlap with the restricted area, wherein the size of the circle is a function of length of the delay, (6) drawing new routes that do not overlap the restricted area and do overlap with the candidate geographical region and have departure times between the scheduled and expected departure / arrival times, and (7) choosing the shortest route.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements (underlined above) that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element 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;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 15 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. The step of “receiving, at a first device, and indication…” is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra solution activity. Further, the limitation “sending the selected flight plan from the first device to a plurality of second devices…” is also recited at a high level of generality and is merely transmitting data, which is a form of post solutions actions (extra solution activity). The claim does not positively recite an aircraft control action using the received alternate flight plan to navigate.
The “at the first device” limitations merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general-purpose computing environment. The “first device” is recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the performing and selecting steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 15 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field.
Mere data communication steps that can be performed entirely on any one or more generic computer/-s have also been previously identified by the courts as an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception): (A) Receiving and/or transmitting data is considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i) "Receiving or transmitting data over a network", and (iv) "Storing and retrieving information in memory" and (B) Comparing the received data to other data is considered to be well-understood, routine or conventional at least as evidenced by MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)(ii) "Performing repetitive calculations".
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 15 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 15 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, Claims 1-14 and 16-20:
fall within one of the statutory categories (Claims 1-14 and 19-20: Machine, Claims 16-18: Process)
directed toward an abstract idea (Mental Process),
do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and
do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, it is clear that Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Previously presented prior art:
McNally (US 9171473 B1) teaches a system that identifies alternate aircraft routes to avoid weather hazard areas (see FIG. 4).
Flynn et al. (US 20060259234 A1) teaches a system that recommends flight plans based on current weather patterns and historical database of flight plans and weather systems (see FIG. 9).
Ballin et al. (US 20130080043 A1) teaches a system that adjusts aircraft routes based on other aircraft traffic and presence of overlap of current route with dynamic weather systems (see FIG. 13).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE ALCORN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30 am – 6:30 pm est.
Examiner Interview 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, Jelani Smith can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/GEORGE A ALCORN III/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights