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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
1. This office action is in response to the amendments/arguments submitted by the Applicant(s) on 11/24/2025.
Response to Arguments
I. Status of the Claims
2. Claims 1-20 are still pending.
3. The drawings filed on 07/11/2023 have been accepted.
II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 101
4. Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and found not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
5. Page 7, the Applicant(s) argues that “Explicitly, the device of claim 1 is an improvement to existing magvar databases. As the instant specification states: A technical advantage of the subject disclosure is the ability to update local magnetic variation data automatically and accurately for use in ILS approaches. The subject disclosure can also allow for accumulation and validation of a larger sample of local magnetic variation data, resulting in more accurate, up-to-date magnetic variation data than reliance on a single measurement. The accumulated data can then be communicated to aircraft for future use in ILS approaches. (Paragraph [0018].) This is a technical problem with a technical solution. On-aircraft data sources for magvar data can be out-of-date and inaccurate. (Id. at [0016].) Updating on aircraft data sources can require maintenance with specialized equipment. (Id.) "The systems and methods of the subject disclosure leverage existing onboard computing resources and operational parameters to generate accurate, up-to-date magnetic variation data for an aircraft's specific location ... to maintain a more accurate database of localized magnetic variation data. (Id. At [0017] (emphasis added).) This technical solution is precisely what is implemented by claim 1, which requires updating a magnetic variation database when a deviation between first and second magnetic variation data satisfies a deviation threshold. The first magnetic variation data is provided from the database itself and the second magnetic variation data is determined based on published approach data and trajectory measurements as the aircraft flies. The claim itself requires receiving certain data from a database, analyzing that data, and updating the data with improved data when appropriate”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible dues to lack of technical explanation as to how to implement the invention in the claim pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, and MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
5.1. Argument in support to response to number 5 above.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01.
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
II. IMPROVEMENTS TO ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OR TECHNICAL FIELD
The courts have also found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1103. The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer animation and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas. Id. The court relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process. 837 F.3d at 1314, 120 USPQ2d at 1102. The McRO court also noted that the claims at issue described a specific way (use of particular rules to set morph weights and transitions through phonemes) to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus were not directed to an abstract idea. 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1101. …
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception.
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include:
i. A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
ii. Using well-known standard laboratory techniques to detect enzyme levels in a bodily sample such as blood or plasma, Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1355, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1082-83, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017);
iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48;
iv. Delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone, when claimed at a high level of generality, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266, 1270, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
v. A general method of screening emails on a generic computer, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1315-16, 120 USPQ2d at 1358-59;
vi. An advance in the informational content of a download for streaming, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
vii. Selecting one type of content (e.g., FM radio content) from within a range of existing broadcast content types, or selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content) from within a range of well-known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware, Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016). …
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP, the analysis and test to determine that an invention is actually an improvement to an existing technology requires to meet two steps. The first-step is determining whether or not “a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification” (hereinafter mentioned as the “First-Step”) regardless the word “improvement” is explicitly set forth. The second-step is determining whether or not “the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology” (hereinafter mentioned as the “Second-Step”), which is done by evaluating the full scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) where the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
In the instant application, it is argued technological improvements including but not limited to “update local magnetic variation data automatically and accurately for use in ILS approaches. The subject disclosure can also allow for accumulation and validation of a larger sample of local magnetic variation data, resulting in more accurate, up-to-date magnetic variation data than reliance on a single measurement. The accumulated data can then be communicated to aircraft for future use in ILS approaches…” (hereinafter collectively mentioned as “Unclaimed-Improvements”).
Regarding to the First-Step, the specification by the Applicant(s) appears to contain a technical explanation describing with sufficient detail about how to implement the invention such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the improvements included but not limited to Figures 1 and 3, and paragraphs [0023]-[0053] of the specifications by the Applicant(s). Furthermore, it appears to set forth an indication of improvement that includes a discussion that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional, or identifies technical improvements over the prior art as established by the courts and set forth in the MPEP.
Regarding to the Second-Step, the full scope of the claim does not contain an improvement(s) to neither the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology or technical field with sufficient details that could be recognized by one ordinary skilled in the art.
Furthermore, the full scope of the claim does not reflect the disclosed improvement in technology because it’s missing components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. For instance, it is missing important components including but not limited to the related to “Flight crew approaching an airport using ILS can use magnetic variation information about the airport and published information about the orientation of the runway of the airport to align the aircraft with the ILS signal” (specifications [0015]) and “granularity of the magnetic variation database(s) 104 can be associated with an acceptable loss of information. Associating the deviation threshold 120 with the granularity of the magnetic variation database(s) 104 can allow the electronic device 102 to confirm that the difference 114 between the first magnetic variation data 124 and the second magnetic variation data 112 is significant enough to require an update to the magnetic variation database(s) 104” (specifications [0025]), and important steps including but not limited to those on paragraphs [0023]-[0053] of the specifications by the Applicant(s).
Furthermore, the claim neither express any unconventional technical solution, nor identifies any realized technical improvements over the prior art, which needs to be included from the discussion of the specification.
Furthermore, by evaluating the full scope of the claim under BRI as a whole, the Examiner concludes that the claim has not-enough particular details to be considered an improvement to a particular practical application. Additionally, it doesn’t even recite anything to reflect the component/steps related to the “Unclaimed-Improvements”, which are still insufficient to overcome the 101 rejection.
Furthermore, in order for an invention to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery, and the claim(s) at issue does not include anything more than just instructions to be performed by the general computer in which a computer software executes the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-idea indicated the rejection below of the instant application (see specification, paragraph [0089]).
Furthermore, the claims at issue as whole are directed to gathering and analyzing collected information about a signal with conventional techniques, which has similarities with the case of TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48 where the courts have indicated that “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result” are not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology.
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention does not improve technology.
6. Pages 8, the Applicant(s) argues that “The Office notes that "viewing the claim elements as an ordered combination, the steps recited ... improve the functioning of the claimed computer itself' (emphasis added). As those claims are directed to improved functioning of the computer itself, so are the claims of the instant application”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim(s) are not patent eligible due to the improvement of the functioning of the claimed computer itself pursuant to the MPEP 2106.05(a) I. IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER FUNCTIONALITY.
6.1. Argument in support to response to number 6 above.
2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69 … but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’) … 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 … Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: … • Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); … The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: • Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); • Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and • Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2A Prong Two is similar to Step 2B in that both analyses involve evaluating a set of judicial considerations to determine if the claim is eligible. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) through (h) for the list of considerations that are evaluated at Step 2B. Although most of these considerations overlap (i.e., they are evaluated in both Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B), Step 2A specifically excludes consideration of whether the additional elements represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, in Step 2A Prong Two, examiners should ensure that they give weight to all additional elements, whether or not they are conventional, when evaluating whether a judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. Additional elements that represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity may integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application. ...
In addition, a specific way of achieving a result is not a stand-alone consideration in Step 2A Prong Two However, the specificity of the claim limitations is relevant to the evaluation of several considerations including the use of a particular machine, particular transformation and whether the limitations are mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(c), and 2106.05(f). For example, I Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193 1978), the Supreme Court noted that the "patent application does not purport to explain how to select the appropriate margin of safety, the weighting factor, or any of the other variables" in the claimed mathematical formula, "[n]or does it purport to contain any disclosure relating to the chemical processes at work, the monitoring of process variables, or the means of setting off an alarm or adjusting an alarm system." 437 U.S. at 586, 198 USPQ at 195. The Court found this failure to explain any specifics of how to use the claimed formula informative when deciding that the additional elements in the claim were insignificant post-solution activity and thus not meaningful enough to render the claim eligible. 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197.
2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More, Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because this approach considers all claim elements, the Supreme Court has noted that "it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole.’" Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218 n.3, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188, 209 USPQ 1, 8-9 (1981)). Consideration of the elements in combination is particularly important, because even if an additional element does not amount to significantly more on its own, it can still amount to significantly more when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim. See, e.g., Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, 827 F.3d 1042, 1051, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (process reciting combination of individually well-known freezing and thawing steps was "far from routine and conventional" and thus eligible); BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional) …
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field, In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the
functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." … Thus, an examiner
should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the
claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis …
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a
judicial exception include: ...
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); ...
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, 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, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
I. IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER FUNCTIONALITY
In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691 ...
Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer functionality: ...
vii. Providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality, "BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018); ...
In a summary, according to the above sections of the MPEP and the courts, in addition to the analysis above mentioned relative to the First-Step (details in the specification) and Second-Step (details of the specification reflected in the claim), the claim is evaluated to determine whether the claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
Regarding to the claim-eligibility at Step 2A Prong Two (Whether a Claim is implemented into a practical application), the implementation of the determination steps relative to the claim language “determine second magnetic variation data based on published approach data associated with the airport and one or more trajectory measurements as an aircraft flies along a centerline of a localizer antenna signal of the airport; determine a difference between the first magnetic variation data and the second magnetic variation data” (hereinafter mentioned as the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea) is being used in conjunction with “one or more processors”, which are not a particular machine or manufacture, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b).
Furthermore, the claim(s) is merely including instructions to implement the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea on a computer/processor, or, merely using the computer/processor(s) as a tool to perform the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the additional elements of the claim including but limited to receiving magnetic variation database, updating the database based on a comparison to a deviation threshold, airport and aircraft flies are simply linking the use of the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea to a particular technological environment or field of use including but not limited to aircrafts data, airports, database, and magnetic data, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h)
Regarding to the claim-eligibility at Step 2B (Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More), in determining whether said additional elements amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea. Moreover, the inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional.
In the instant application, the claimed components airport, aircraft flies, device and processor(s), when evaluated individually, it is concluded that said components are well-known and conventional. Furthermore, when evaluated in combination, it is concluded the claim lacks any descriptions of non-conventional and non-generic arrangements of said components, as it is discussed in MPEP § 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B.
Furthermore, the additional elements of the claim including but limited to receiving magnetic variation database, updating the database based on a comparison to a deviation threshold, airport, aircraft flies, device and processor(s) are simply adding to the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea insignificant extra-solution activities and structure well-understood, routine, conventional to the field, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g). (see prior art made of record on the Non-Final rejection, which is also below).
Regarding to the claim limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include, there are sufficient similarities compared to the instant application to support the Examiner’s conclusion that the limitations of the instant application do not amount to significantly more than the Judicial-Exception/Abstract-Idea.
For instance, the instant application claims updating the database, which includes maintaining electronic records performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the instant application further claims receiving magnetic variation data associated with an airport, which includes data gathering as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and also includes providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database as discussed in "BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
In light of the foregoing, the claims are not patent eligible because the Examiner has concluded that the disclosed invention does not improve the functioning of the computer.
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.
7. Claim 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
8. Claim 1 is directed to “… determine second magnetic variation data based on published approach data associated with the airport and one or more trajectory measurements as an aircraft flies along a centerline of a localizer antenna signal of the airport; determine a difference between the first magnetic variation data and the second magnetic variation data …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A device comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive, from a magnetic variation database, first magnetic variation data associated with an airport; … if the difference satisfies a deviation threshold, update the magnetic variation database based at least on the second magnetic variation data” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
8.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a device, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
8.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “… determine second magnetic variation data based on published approach data associated with the airport and one or more trajectory measurements as an aircraft flies along a centerline of a localizer antenna signal of the airport; determine a difference between the first magnetic variation data and the second magnetic variation data …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
8.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Neither dependent claim 1 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to magnetic sensors, database, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
8.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A device comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive, from a magnetic variation database, first magnetic variation data associated with an airport; … if the difference satisfies a deviation threshold, update the magnetic variation database based at least on the second magnetic variation data”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), memories, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
9. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the deviation threshold is associated with a granularity of the magnetic variation database”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
10. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the granularity of the magnetic variation database is within an inclusive range of 0.5-1.0 degrees”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
11. Claim 4 depends on claim 3 that depends on claim 2 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the deviation threshold is within an inclusive range of 0.5-1.0 degrees”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
12. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to plot a second course for the aircraft based at least on the second magnetic variation data”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
13. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to communicate the second magnetic variation data to a magnetic variation data accumulator, and wherein the magnetic variation data accumulator is operable to accumulate the second magnetic variation data with additional magnetic variation data received from one or more additional aircraft”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
14. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive a third magnetic variation data from the magnetic variation data accumulator, and wherein the third magnetic variation data is based at least on a statistical analysis of the second magnetic variation data and the additional magnetic variation data”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
15. Claim 8 depends on claim 7 that depends on claim 6 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to update the magnetic variation database based at least on the third magnetic variation data”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
16. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the one or more processors are integrated within a line-replaceable unit of the aircraft”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
17. Claim 10 is directed to “… determining second magnetic variation data based on published approach data associated with the airport and one or more trajectory measurements as an aircraft flies along a centerline of a localizer antenna signal of the airport; determining a difference between the first magnetic variation data and the second magnetic variation data …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A method comprising: receiving, from a magnetic variation database, first magnetic variation data associated with an airport; … if the difference satisfies a deviation threshold, update the magnetic variation database based at least on the second magnetic variation data” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 10 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
17.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 10 is directed to a method, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine or process (Step 1: YES).
17.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 10 recites: “… determining second magnetic variation data based on published approach data associated with the airport and one or more trajectory measurements as an aircraft flies along a centerline of a localizer antenna signal of the airport; determining a difference between the first magnetic variation data and the second magnetic variation data …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
17.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 9 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to magnetic sensors, database, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
17.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 10 recites the additional element(s) “A method comprising: receiving, from a magnetic variation database, first magnetic variation data associated with an airport; … if the difference satisfies a deviation threshold, update the magnetic variation database based at least on the second magnetic variation data”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), memories, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
18. Claim 11 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the deviation threshold is associated with a granularity of the magnetic variation database”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
19. Claim 12 depends on claim 11 that depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the granularity of the magnetic variation database is within an inclusive range of 0.5-1.0 degrees”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
20. Claim 13 depends on claim 12 that depends on claim 11 that depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the deviation threshold is within an inclusive range of 0.5-1.0 degrees”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
21. Claim 14 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 is further recites the element(s) “using the second magnetic variation data to initiate an instrument landing system approach to the airport during a subsequent flight of the aircraft”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
22. Claim 15 depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 is further recites the element(s) “communicating the second magnetic variation data to a magnetic variation data accumulator, wherein the magnetic variation data accumulator is operable to accumulate the second magnetic variation data with additional magnetic variation data received from one or more additional aircraft”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
23. Claim 16 depends on claim 15 that depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 is further recites the element(s) “receiving a third magnetic variation data from the magnetic variation data accumulator, wherein the third magnetic variation data is based at least on a statistical analysis of the second magnetic variation data and the additional magnetic variation data”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
24. Claim 17 depends on claim 16 that depends on claim 15 that depends on claim 10, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 is further recites the element(s) “receiving a third magnetic variation data from the magnetic variation data accumulator, wherein the third magnetic variation data is based at least on a statistical analysis of the second magnetic variation data and the additional magnetic variation data”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
25. Claim 18 is directed to “… determine second magnetic variation data based on published approach data associated with the airport and one or more trajectory measurements as an aircraft flies along a centerline of a localizer antenna signal of the airport; determine a difference between the first magnetic variation data and the second magnetic variation data …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps that could also be performed by a processor. The additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, from a magnetic variation database, first magnetic variation data associated with an airport; … if the difference satisfies a deviation threshold, update the magnetic variation database based at least on the second magnetic variation data” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Dependent claim 18 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
25.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
25.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 18 recites: “… determine second magnetic variation data based on published approach data associated with the airport and one or more trajectory measurements as an aircraft flies along a centerline of a localizer antenna signal of the airport; determine a difference between the first magnetic variation data and the second magnetic variation data …”, which are mathematical-calculations/mental-steps. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
25.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Neither dependent claim 18 does not claim a particular machine, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, it does not provide any particular context, thus, do not belong to a particular technological environment, industry or field of use. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps in a variety of technologies including but not limited to magnetic sensors, database, etc. (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the abstract idea into a practical application).
25.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 18 recites the additional element(s) “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: receive, from a magnetic variation database, first magnetic variation data associated with an airport; … if the difference satisfies a deviation threshold, update the magnetic variation database based at least on the second magnetic variation data”, which are/is simply routine and conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), memories, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references made of record). Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
26. Claim 19 depends on claim 18, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 19 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to communicate the second magnetic variation data to a magnetic variation data accumulator, and wherein the magnetic variation data accumulator is operable to accumulate the second magnetic variation data with additional magnetic variation data received from one or more additional aircraft”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
27. Claim 20 depends on claim 18, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 20 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to use the second magnetic variation data to initiate an instrument landing system approach to the airport during a subsequent flight of the aircraft”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, claim 20 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
28. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Khosravy (Pub. No.: US 2010/0228612) teaches that “Also, instead of focusing on real distance, zooming in or out could also represent a change in terms of granularity, or size, or hierarchy of objects. For example, a first pointing gesture with the device may result in a shopping mall appearing, but with another gesture, a user could carry out a recognizable gesture to gain or lose a level of hierarchical granularity with the points of interest on display” (Paragraph [0109]).
b) Khosravy (Pub. No.: US 2009/0319178) teaches that “For instance, if a user's velocity is 2 miles an hour, the user may be walking and interested in updates at a city block by city block level, or at a lower level granularity if they are walking in the countryside. Similarly, if a user is moving on a highway at 60 miles per hour, the block-by-block updates of information are no longer desirable, but rather a granularity can be provided and predictively cached on the device 1800 that makes sense for the speed of the vehicle” (Paragraph [0083]).
c) Offer (Patent No.: US 9,257,048, which provided in the previous office action) teaches “A method and apparatus for managing a landing site for an aircraft is presented. The landing site is selected from a group of landing sites. A description is communicated to a platform about a state of the aircraft along a route of the aircraft over time to the landing site. The aircraft is flown to the landing site using the description of the state of the aircraft along the route of the aircraft over time” (Abstract).
d) Vilaplana (Pub. No.: US 2013/0338910, which was previously provided in the prior office action) teaches “A method of detecting conflicts between aircraft passing through managed airspace, and resolving the detected conflicts strategically. The method may include obtaining intended trajectories of aircraft through the airspace, detecting conflicts in the intended trajectories, forming a set of the conflicted aircraft, calculating one or more revised trajectories for the conflicted aircraft such that the conflicts are resolved, and advising the conflicted aircraft subject to revised trajectories of the revised trajectories” (Abstract).
e) Romatka (Pub. No.: US 2015/0066870, which was previously provided in the prior office action) teaches “A method of correlating data for multiple product configurations is provided comprising enhancing, by a processor, data set definition to accommodate data models of data sets describing multiple product configurations. The method also comprises comparing, by the processor, values of the data sets utilizing at least one matching algorithm and effectivity expressions identifying relevant rows for comparison in the data sets” (Abstract).
f) Boelter (Pub. No.: US 2020/0182619, which was previously provided in the prior office action) teaches “A method, apparatus, and system for adjusting inertial reference data. The inertial reference data is received from an inertial reference unit in an aircraft. Replacement magnetic navigation data is determined for the aircraft at a current position of the aircraft. Magnetic navigation data in the inertial reference data is replaced with the replacement magnetic navigation data for the aircraft to form adjusted inertial reference data. The adjusted inertial reference data is sent to a number of aircraft systems that use the adjusted inertial reference data during operation of the aircraft” (Abstract).
g) Virepinte (Pub. No.: US 2020/0285828, which was previously provided in the prior office action) teaches “A system for automatically updating an airport database relating to an airport includes an assembly of information sources installed on an aircraft for generating information and notably images of the airport when the aircraft is travelling over or above the airport, and units for processing this information and for correcting data from the airport database in the case where at least one difference is detected between the information generated and the data contained in the airport database, the system thus being capable of automatically updating the airport database each time that an aircraft able to generate and to collect information is taxiing over the airport and/or flying above the airport such that the data available in the airport database is recent and reliable” (Abstract).
Conclusion
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 ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon thru Fri from 8:00am to 5pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858