DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 were originally filed. Claims 1, 7 and 13 have been amended. Claims 1-16 are pending and are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments filed September 26th, 2025 with respect to the Objection have been fully considered and are therefore withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 26th, 2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to independent claims 1, 7 and 13, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application of visual approach operations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims merely introduce either (1) generic computer components (e.g., a engine, monitor and database) recited at a high level of generality such that they cannot be considered more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components; or (2) insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., selecting an approach path and entering the path.) incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. (See § 101 rejection below for detailed discussion.)
Accordingly, the claim rejections under § 101 are maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 7 and 13 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A method for determining visual approach guidance for an aircraft, comprising:
approaching an airport in an aircraft for landing;
enabling a visual approach (VA) engine with an approach path monitor (APM) located onboard the aircraft;
accessing an approach path database that contains multiple visual circling approach paths with airport terrain and obstructions and accompanying data for each of the visual circling approach paths;
selecting a specific visual circling approach path from the approach path database, where the specific visual circling approach is selected based on the accompanying data for each of the visual circling approach paths; and
entering the selected specific visual circling approach path.
(claim 1 is representative of claims 7 and 13)
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – methods of organizing human activity
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “personal behavior where a pilot is following rules/instructions in order to land an aircraft”. Following rules/instructions fall is a concept that falls under methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of approaching an airport in an aircraft for landing;
accessing an approach path database that contains multiple visual circling approach paths with airport terrain and obstructions and accompanying data for each of the visual circling approach paths; selecting a specific visual circling approach path from the approach path database, where the specific visual circling approach is selected based on the accompanying data for each of the visual circling approach paths and entering the selected specific visual circling approach path.
Thus, the claim recites a method of organizing human activity.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of a control system, database, display unit, visual approach (VA) engine and an approach path monitor (APM). All the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering aircraft and flight condition data for use in the selecting step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “control system, database and display unit” merely “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose aircraft system, i.e. a computer. The VA engine and APM are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the turning on and viewing of an onboard system.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the generating step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the enabling a VA engine and APM will process data that is provided to the pilot. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of, aircraft control system, database and display unit, VA engine and APM amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-12 and 14-16 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For instance, storing, factoring and ranking data are deemed abstract. These limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation are “personal behavior of sorting and scoring data in order for a pilot to follow rules/instructions in order to land an aircraft”. Following rules/instructions fall is a concept that falls under methods of organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite methods of organizing human activity.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-12 and 14-16 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 7 and 13.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-16 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi Lin et al., CN103699132A [English Translation] in view of McCusker et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,156,461 B1, hereinafter referred to as Qi and McCusker, respectively.
As per Claims 1 and 7, Qi discloses a method and system comprising:
approaching an airport in an aircraft for landing (see at least 0057, “complete the landing”);
enabling a visual approach (VA) engine with an approach path monitor (APM) located onboard the aircraft (see at least 0013, 0047-0048);
accessing an approach path database that contains multiple visual circling approach paths and accompanying data for each of the visual circling approach paths (see at least 0048-0050, “pilot evaluates the calculated path”);
selecting a specific visual circling approach path from the approach path database, where the specific visual circling approach is selected based on the accompanying data for each of the visual circling approach paths (see at least 0048-0050, “the pilot selects the required landing runway according to the visual situation”); and
entering the selected specific visual circling approach path (see at least 0057, “the pilot descended to complete the landing”).
Qi fails to explicitly disclose a visual circling approach paths with airport terrain and obstructions. However, McCusker teaches approach paths with airport terrain and obstructions (see at least Col. 14, lines 19-37, Next, for each possible alternate airport, processing circuit 310 retrieves all published approaches to the alternate airport (e.g., from a published procedures database server); determines a most desirable approach procedure based on current ownship capabilities and the direction from which the ownship will arrive at the airport; calculates a general route from the current position of the ownship to an Initial Approach Fix (e.g., where the initial approach segment of an instrument approach begins, hereinafter “IAF”) of the selected approach procedure; retrieves terrain and obstacle information along the general route to the IAF; calculates a most efficient and hazard-free route (e.g., safest route) to the IAF from the current holding procedure; calculates fuel requirements to fly to the alternate airport, conduct the approach and rollout while maintaining sufficient reserves to hold at the alternate airport; and calculates how much fuel can be used to hold at the intended destination airport given the fuel requirements to fly to, hold at, and land at the alternate airport.”).
Thus, Qi discloses a system for safe navigation and guidance for pilots in the case of visual circling approach while McCusker teaches method and system for optimizing hold and divert operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include an approach database with terrain and obstruction information taught by Kaufman with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on safety information in order to have the safest landing.
Claims 2, 4-6, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi in view of McCusker, as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view Kaufman et al., Pub. No. US2023/0129613 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kaufman.
As per Claims 2 and 8, Qi fails to explicitly disclose where the multiple visual circling approach paths are ranked within the approach path database according to the accompanying data of each visual circling approach path. However, Kaufman teaches where the multiple visual circling approach paths are ranked within the approach path database according to the accompanying data of each visual circling approach path (see at least 0058, “In some examples processing circuitry 140 may generate a score, or set of scores for each of the observed flight path and the suggested flight path. The scoring may be similar to a grade, such as a grade or ranking for each flight path as a means for comparison. For example processing circuitry 140 may assign a grade of 1-100, “A, B, C” or some similar means of scoring each flight path based on balancing the various factors for each flight path.”).
Thus, Qi discloses a system for safe navigation and guidance for pilots in the case of visual circling approach while Kaufman teaches scoring particular paths for a pilot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include scoring flight paths as taught by Kaufman with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on numerous flight data values in order to have the safest landing.
As per Claims 4 and 10, Qi discloses where the accompanying data for each visual circling approach path comprises predefined tolerances of the aircraft (see at least 0013, 0058, “categories”).
As per Claims 5 and 11, Qi fails to disclose where the ranked visual circling approach paths are displayed in order of ranking to a pilot of the aircraft. However, Kaufman teaches where the ranked visual circling approach paths are displayed in order of ranking to a pilot of the aircraft (see at least 0058-0059, “The scoring may be similar to a grade, such as a grade or ranking for each flight path as a means for comparison. For example processing circuitry 140 may assign a grade of 1-100, “A, B, C” or some similar means of scoring each flight path based on balancing the various factors for each flight path.”).
Thus, Qi discloses a system for safe navigation and guidance for pilots in the case of visual circling approach while Kaufman teaches scoring particular paths for a pilot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include scoring flight paths as taught by Kaufman with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on numerous flight data values in order to have the safest landing.
As per Claims 6 and 12, Qi discloses where a recommended visual circling approach path is displayed to the pilot, where the recommended visual circling approach path is automatically selected (see at least 0048).
Qi fails to disclose based on ranking within the approach path database. However, Kaufman teaches selecting based on ranking with the approach path database (see at least 0027, 0058-0059, “The scoring may be similar to a grade, such as a grade or ranking for each flight path as a means for comparison. For example, processing circuitry 140 may assign a grade of 1-100, “A, B, C” or some similar means of scoring each flight path based on balancing the various factors for each flight path.”).
Thus, Qi discloses a system for safe navigation and guidance for pilots in the case of visual circling approach while Kaufman teaches scoring particular paths for a pilot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include scoring flight paths as taught by Kaufman with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on numerous flight data values in order to have the safest landing.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi in view of McCusker and Kaufman as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Hamblin et al., Pub. No. US2017/0357618 A1, hereinafter referred to as Hamblin.
As per Claims 3 and 9, Qi fails to discloses where the accompanying data of each visual circling approach path comprises the number of times a visual circular approach has been used with a successful landing. However, Hamblin teaches where the accompanying data of each visual circling approach path comprises the number of times a visual circular approach has been used with a successful landing (see at least 0031, “Examples of electronic logbook data and electronic logbook calculations that can be derived from data created by the avionics include, but are not limited to: total flight time; total flights; number of landings, detailed information about routes, legs, and landings (e.g., airway route, arrival, approach, departure, airport, runway), total instrument time including types of approaches (e.g., instrument approaches, precision, non-precision, CATI-III approaches); number of landings, type of landings (e.g., day landings, night landings); pilot duty period, daily limits; duty time remaining; Aircraft type (e.g., turbine, rotorcraft, multi-engine land, single-engine land); time in type.”).
Qi discloses a system which stores airport runway information, visual circling landing standards etc., while Hamblin teaches storing data regarding number of landings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include storing number of landings as taught by Hamblin with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on numerous flight data values in order to have the safest landing.
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qi in view of , McCusker, Kaufman and Hamblin.
As per Claim 13, Qi discloses
approaching an airport in an aircraft for landing (see at least 0057, “complete the landing”);
enabling a visual approach (VA) engine with an approach path monitor (APM) located onboard the aircraft (see at least 0013, 0047-0048);
storing the VA path and accompanying data in a database (see at least 0048-0050, “stored in the database”).
Qi fails to disclose capturing a VA path and accompanying data until the landing is successfully completed, where the VA path and accompanying data are captured with the VA engine; and factoring each stored VA path within the database based on the number of successful landings using a specific VA path.
However, Hamblin teaches capturing a VA path and accompanying data until the landing is successfully completed, where the VA path and accompanying data are captured with the VA engine (see at least 0030-0031, “number of landings“); and
factoring each stored VA path within the database based on the number of successful landings using a specific VA path (see at least 0058, “Examples of electronic logbook data and electronic logbook calculations that can be derived from data created by the avionics include, but are not limited to: total flight time; total flights; number of landings, detailed information about routes, legs, and landings (e.g., airway route, arrival, approach, departure, airport, runway), total instrument time including types of approaches (e.g., instrument approaches, precision, non-precision, CATI-III approaches); number of landings, type of landings (e.g., day landings, night landings); pilot duty period, daily limits; duty time remaining; Aircraft type (e.g., turbine, rotorcraft, multi-engine land, single-engine land); time in type.”).
Qi discloses a system which stores airport runway information, visual circling landing standards etc., while Hamblin teaches capturing and factoring in the number of landings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include storing number of landings as taught by Hamblin with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on numerous flight data values in order to have the safest landing.
Qi fails to explicitly disclose a VA path airport terrain and obstructions. However, McCusker teaches approach paths with airport terrain and obstructions (see at least Col. 14, lines 19-37, Next, for each possible alternate airport, processing circuit 310 retrieves all published approaches to the alternate airport (e.g., from a published procedures database server); determines a most desirable approach procedure based on current ownship capabilities and the direction from which the ownship will arrive at the airport; calculates a general route from the current position of the ownship to an Initial Approach Fix (e.g., where the initial approach segment of an instrument approach begins, hereinafter “IAF”) of the selected approach procedure; retrieves terrain and obstacle information along the general route to the IAF; calculates a most efficient and hazard-free route (e.g., safest route) to the IAF from the current holding procedure; calculates fuel requirements to fly to the alternate airport, conduct the approach and rollout while maintaining sufficient reserves to hold at the alternate airport; and calculates how much fuel can be used to hold at the intended destination airport given the fuel requirements to fly to, hold at, and land at the alternate airport.”).
Thus, Qi discloses a system for safe navigation and guidance for pilots in the case of visual circling approach while McCusker teaches method and system for optimizing hold and divert operations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include an approach database with terrain and obstruction information taught by Kaufman with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on safety information in order to have the safest landing.
Qi fails to disclose ranking each stored VA path within the database based the factoring of each stored VA path.
However, Kaufman teaches ranking each stored VA path within the database based the factoring of each stored VA path (see at least 0058-0059, “The scoring may be similar to a grade, such as a grade or ranking for each flight path as a means for comparison. For example, processing circuitry 140 may assign a grade of 1-100, “A, B, C” or some similar means of scoring each flight path based on balancing the various factors for each flight path.”).
Thus, Qi discloses a system for safe navigation and guidance for pilots in the case of visual circling approach while Kaufman teaches scoring particular paths for a pilot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include scoring flight paths as taught by Kaufman with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on numerous flight data values in order to have the safest landing.
As per Claim 14, Qi discloses where the accompanying data of each VA path comprises predefined tolerances of the aircraft (see at least 0013, 0058, “categories”).
As per Claim 15, Qi fails to disclose where the factoring of each stored VA path within the database is based on the predefined tolerances of the aircraft. However, Hamblin teaches where the factoring of each stored VA path within the database is based on the predefined tolerances of the aircraft (see at least 0030-0031).
Qi discloses a system which stores airport runway information, visual circling landing standards etc., while Hamblin teaches capturing and factoring aircraft data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include factoring in aircraft data as taught by Hamblin with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on numerous aircraft data in order for the system and pilot to make the safest landing path decision.
As per Claim 16, Qi fails to disclose merging multiple stored VA paths within the database if the VA paths are within a predefined tolerance of each other. However, Hamblin teaches merging multiple stored VA paths within the database if the VA paths are within a predefined tolerance of each other (see at least 0044, “Next, the process 500 identifies statistics associated with the aggregate avionics data (step 504), and then generates a performance summary, using the statistics (step 506). In some embodiments, the process 500 obtains aggregate avionics data for a specific period of time (step 502), and then identifies statistics associated with the aggregate avionics data that are applicable to the particular period of time. Here, the process 500 analyzes the aggregate avionics data to identify any patterns or trends in the historical data, or to make comparisons and perform analysis based on those comparisons.”).
Qi discloses a system which stores airport runway information, visual circling landing standards etc., while Hamblin teaches capturing and aggregating aircraft data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Qi and include aggregating aircraft data as taught by Hamblin with a reasonable expectation of success because it provides the pilot with the best path based on numerous aircraft data in order for the system and pilot to make the safest landing path decision.
Conclusion
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 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 Fadey S Jabr whose telephone number is (571)272-1516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am to 4:oopm.
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, Fadey S Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
FADEY S. JABR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Fadey S. Jabr/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3668