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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 05/26/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-29 are currently pending of which:
Claims 1, 16 and 17 have been amended by Applicant
Claims 8 and 23 have been previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-7, 9-22 and 24-29 are currently under examination and rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments / arguments
Applicant’s 05/26/2026 amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection in this action.
Response to Applicant’s rebuttal of 112(b) rejection
112(b) rejection in prior act is withdrawn in view of Applicant amendment suggested by Examiner
Response to Applicant’s rebuttal of 101 rejection
Remarks 05/26/2026 p8 ¶5-p9 ¶1 argues that the following cannot be performed in the mind
i. “executing a domain-specific simulation at faster-than-real-time performance”; Claims 1,16)
ii. “training an outcome assessment model based on state data”; (Claims 1,16)
iii. “executing the outcome assessment model”; (Claims 1,16)
iv. dynamically updating task assignments based on execution statuses tracked in real-time, which appears to refer to the claimed “adjusting the plan by reassigning at least one of the set of tasks to a different accessible asset based on the execution status” (Claims 1,16)
Remarks 05/26/2026 p.9 ¶1, 3rd sentence then asserts that, taken as a whole, amended Claim 1 describes a system of tracking tasks by processing task execution outputs from asset software, ensuring the plan remains synchronized with real-world execution and can adapt if needed, which integrates the concept into a practical application of active mission management. Remarks 05/26/2026 p.9 ¶2 then concludes claim 1 recites functions rooted in computer technology and the problems of dynamic resource assignment, implementing an improvement in planning systems through simulation and outcome modeling and thus integrating the claimed invention into a practical application and providing significantly more than any abstract processes.
Examiner fully considered the rebuttal arguments on the 101 rejection but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive, by submitting that the active mission management, as raised by Applicant at Remarks 05/26/2026 p.9 ¶1, 3rd sentence, be it as a command-based or order-based evaluation and judgment, within broader evaluation or judgment of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2, or as a fundamental practice of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A, still recites, describes or sets forth the abstract exemption be it1 command-based or order-based cognitive (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III) and/or command-based or order-based organizing of human activities (MPEP 210604(a)(2) II). Thus, the active mission management is axiomatically abstract and not an integration of the abstract exception into a practical application. This is consistent with MPEP 2106.05(a) II ¶2 to again stress that improvement in the abstract exception itself is not improvement in technology
This finding is especially important since MPEP 2106.04 I ¶3 cited Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 states that narrow laws that have limited applications were still held ineligible. Specifically in Myriad, 569 US at 591,106 USPQ2d at 1979, the Court found situations where even a groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry". This finding was corroborated by Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 again undelaying the difference between improvement to an entrepreneurial goal or objective versus improvement to actual technology, and by SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic, LLC, No 2017-2081, 2018 BL 275354 (Fed. Cir.Aug.02, 2018) which disclosed a comparable solution that “utilizes resampled statistical methods for the analysis of financial data, which do not assume a normal probability distribution”, further narrowed to a cross validation at the dependent claims. Yet, the Court ruled that: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter”. “An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. Here, not matter of if the alleged improvement in mission management is groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, its advance is still lies in the abstract exception which is ineligible for patenting. This complements MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2 which analogously found that the fundamental is not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known.
Here, within the argued concept of active mission management, the Applicant allegedly that the four limitations (i)-(iv) listed above are incapable to be performed in the human mind.
Examiner responds that while (i) “executing a domain-specific simulation at faster-than-real-time performance”; (ii) “training an outcome assessment model based on state data”; (iii) “executing the outcome assessment model”, and (iv) “automatically adjusting the plan” at Claims 1,16 cannot be performed purely, solely or exclusively by the mind, the Examiner asserts that an argument can still be made that a computer environment or computer tool can be used as an aid in the aforementioned mission management of Remarks 05/26/2026 p.9 ¶1, 3rd sentence.
Specifically, the Examiner points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C which states that:
#1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer.
#2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment and
# 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process,
-> represent examples where the claim is still considered to recite mental processes such as the abstract observations, evaluations and judgements enumerated by MPEP 21065.04(a)(2) III ¶2.
Based on this finding, the Examiner will address each argued limitation as follows:
i. “executing a domain-specific simulation at faster-than-real-time performance”, at independent Claims 1,16, is found as not meaningfully different than the translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit which was ruled as abstract in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and cited by tested on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶3, with the difference being that Synopsys’ domain dealt with logic circuits and hardware components, while the specific domain of the current Claims 1,16, when read in light of the current Original Specification, appears intended for military (Spec. ¶ [0054]), manufacturing (Spec. ¶ [0056]), or rescue mission (Spec. ¶ [0058]). No matter of its intended domain, its underlining simulation is not meaningfully different than the abstract approaches of emulation, imitation, mimicry, through equally abstract heuristics, iterative refinement or approximation, which set forth the computer aided2 evaluation and judgment functions of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2 implemented through what appear to be equally abstract mathematical calculations of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (I) C and/or the abstract mathematical relationships expressed in words of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) (A). These findings of the abstract computer aided operations are corroborated by Brandan Artley, Training a Neural Network by Hand, towardsdatascience webpages, Jun 23, 2022, incorporated herein, disclosing that the training of a neural network by hand to solve a regression problem where the model continually improves its predictions to arrive at a highly accurate model.
As per the fact that the “simulation” is execut[ed] “at faster-than-real-time performance”, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05(d) I.2.C and points to the following publication to demonstrate conventional nature of “faster-than-real-time performance”: US 20060079942 A1 ¶ [0060] last sentence: “software models 300, 400 may be used on conventional computing hardware in the absence of interface 104 to provide a real-time (or faster than real-time) software simulation”.
In a similar vein, MPEP 2106.05(a) I, cites Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to sate that automation of manual processes or speeding up such processes is insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. This is further corroborated by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii. and MPEP 2106.05(a) I, each citing the same FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to stress that a process for analyzing audit log data executed on a computer where the increased in speed or acceleration in the process comes from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application because it represents a mere invocation of computer components or machinery to apply the abstract exception, which is insufficient to show improvement in computer-functionality, and thus not integrating the abstract exception into a practical application or providing significantly more. In fact, in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit went so far to state that even the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. Specifically in FairWarning supra, the Court found that accessing, compiling and combining data from disparate information sources that made it possible to generate a full picture of a user's activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a computer environment, represented a concept of merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and announcement which did not differentiate from mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas. Examiner does not necessarily concede that a human would not be able to execut[e] a domain-specific simulation, especially given the evidence above of the simulation being aided by the capabilities which are integral to the computer environment or tool, [MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2, #3]. Also, a further investigation for the “faster-than-real-time performance”, as identified above and tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii, finds it to represents mere invocation of machinery to speed up to accelerate the abstract exception, and thus not integrating it into a practical application or providing significantly more.
ii. “training an outcome assessment model based on state data”;
Examiner again points to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2, #3 which states that use of a computer environment or tool to aid in performance of a mental processes, such as the ones at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶1 of observation, judgment and evaluation (here “assessment”) does not preclude the claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception. In fact, Brandan Artley, Training a Neural Network by Hand, towardsdatascience webpages, Jun 23, 2022, incorporated herein, corroborates that training of a neural network by hand to solve a regression problem where the model continually improves its predictions to arrive at a highly accurate model.
Even when more granular testing the “training”, at Step 2A prong two and Step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner finds said “training” is an example of a mathematical algorithm applied on a computer, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (i) represents a mere invocation of computer or machinery as a toll to apply the abstract idea or an existing process, and thus incapable to integrate the abstract exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B) than what was already identified as being abstract. This finding is corroborated by the Federal Circuit ruling in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2025), and cited by PTAB Appeal 2025-003304: “The requirements that the machine learning model be ‘iteratively trained’ or dynamically adjusted based on real time changes do not represent a technological improvement” at least because they are “incident to the very nature of machine learning”.
iii. “executing the outcome assessment model” is tested per the broadest reasonable interpretation of MPEP 2111, and read in light of the Original Specification ¶ [0022] 1st sentence: “The term “execution,” refers to the implementation of a plan”, which is reflected at independent Claims 1,16 as “to generate one or more likely outcomes of the plan and one or more insights explaining a rationale behind the plan”. In the absence of any other technological details, the Examiner interprets such “executing” as implementing, “to generate one or more likely outcomes of the plan and one or more insights explaining a rationale behind the plan”, and thus integral to the abstract exception itself, namely the abstract judgments [akin here to “insights”] and opinions of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶1, generated based on the equally abstract evaluation [akin here to “assessment” and generat[ed] outcomes]. Thus, the “executing” limitation can be still argued as integral to the abstract exception right from the onset. (Step 2A prong one). Alternatively, even if more granularly tested as an additional element, at the subsequent steps, given it high level of generality, said “executing”, would still represent a general application of the abstract exception, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B).
iv. “adjust the plan by reassigning at least one of the set of tasks to a different accessible asset based on the execution status” (Claims 1,16), represents an abstract judgment based on previous observation and evaluation, as enumerated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2 within the broad abstract grouping of Mental Processes. Such asset reassigning can be also interpreted as a fundamental or best practice of asset mitigation (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A) within the broad grouping of Organizing Human Activities. It is also clear that its automation, as in “automatically adjust”, is an equivalent of a computer environment or tool to aid in the execution of the abstract idea, which according to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2, #3 does not preclude its claims from reciting the abstract idea. At most, if testing such automat[ion], as an additional element, it would represent no more than a mere invocation of a computer component or machinery to apply the abstract exception, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). For example, MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) iii. and MPEP 2106.05(a) I, each cite the same FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to stress that a process for analyzing audit log data executed on a computer where the increased in speed or acceleration in the process comes solely from [the automation or] capabilities of the general-purpose computer, does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application because it represents a mere invocation of computer components or machinery to apply the abstract exception insufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality, and thus not integrating the abstract exception into a practical application or providing significantly more.
Based on the preponderance of legal and/or factual evidence above, Examiner concludes that the claims are not rooted in computer technology, as asserted by Applicant at Remarks 05/26/2026 p.9 ¶2, but are rather still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong one) with no additional elements, be it technological or computer-based, capable to integrate said abstract exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (Step 2B). Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the claims are ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Applicant’s rebuttal of 102 rejection
Remarks 05/26/2026 p.12 last ¶ - p. 13 ¶5 argues the prior art does not teach:
- “automatically adjust the plan by reassigning at least one of the set of tasks to a different accessible asset based on the execution status”
The 102 rebuttal argument is considered but moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Alexander Stoyen US 20020073101 A1 is now relied upon to teach or suggest:
- “automatically adjust the plan by reassigning at least one of the set of tasks to a different accessible asset based on the execution status” (Stoyen provides many examples as follows
(Stoyen ¶ [0086] defines an agent as a program which automates one or more user actions or provides real-time advice to one or more users. ¶ [0006] 3rd-4th,6th sentences: The agent is tactical because it considers longer-term possibilities (e.g. if the bulk of our fighters are committed early, they may not be available should an enemy strike force appear in the future). The agent is intelligent because it exhibits autonomous behavior and engages in human-like decision process. The agent is also capable of…independent decisions in the area of air combat,
Stoyen ¶ [0239] 3rd sentence: noting an example where the agent [or program] will consider the pilot fatigue level when deciding which plane(s) to assign to specific tasks, e.g., when selecting a fighter [as an example of an asset] to target an enemy plane, the agent may choose a resource [as an example of an asset] that is slightly farther away from the enemy plane, but the pilot of which is less fatigued than the pilot of the closest of our fighters. This is because at ¶ [0013] 2nd-3rd sentences: the agent conclusion may lead the agent to believe that a WD is overly stressed out and tired. The agent may then recommend to the SD's advising agent to recommend that SD consider rotating this WD out. Perhaps as a compromise, the two agents then decide that the best course of action is for the WD to continue for a while but that no fighters be borrowed for other tasks from this WD, and that after the next air combat engagement, the WD be rotated out anyway. ¶ [0007] 3rd-4th sentences: another example where the agents assisting individual WDs exchange threat info and then coordinate their recommendations, such as what fighters to commit to what enemy assets, without resource collisions. That is, an agent A will not recommend to its WD A to borrow a fighter pair P from another WD (WD B) while WD B's agent (agent B) recommends to WD B to use the same fighter pair P to target another threat.
Stoyen ¶ [0086] defines an agent as a program which automates one or more user actions or provides real-time advice to one or more users. Similarly, ¶ [0179] 1st senetnce: the Recommendation class embodies the recommendations passed by the agent to the weapons directors it automates. ¶ [0049] Fig.26 shows a representation of the Director class objects.
¶ [0179] 1st sentence: recommendation class embodies recommendations passed by the agent to weapons directors it automates. Then, ¶ [0180] 6th sentence provides following detail: each recommendation has following logical indicator: ¶ [0182] transfer. For example, at ¶ [0175] 1st sentences: transfer of resources from one weapons director (i.e. director class per ¶ [0163] 1st-2nd sentences) to another. ¶ [0175] 2nd-4th sentences Fig.29 describes the process performed by the senior director to determine whether the resource transfer should be approved and to accomplish an approved resource transfer. The senior director confirms the eligibility of the specified resource for transfer by performing a series of checks. The senior director first verifies that the resource for which the transfer is requested does not already belong to the weapons director requesting the resource transfer 2901. Then at, ¶ [0177] 2nd-3rd sentences: the senior director enacts the resource transfer. The resource for which the transfer is being requested is removed from its weapons directory 2906 and added to the weapons director of the weapons director requesting the resource transfer 2907, then the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer has been approved and performed). Similarly mid-¶ [0204] If this is a team commitment 3801, the agent determines the weapons director owning our resource, for which commitment is being attempted 3802, and the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource, for which commitment is being attempted 3803. The agent then indicates that a transfer of our resource from its owner to the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource needs to be approved by the senior director in order to perform this commitment 3804, sets our resource's “pending” indicator 3805 to indicate that a commitment is pending for this resource, builds a TARGET order for our resource to target the enemy resource for which the commitment is pending 3806, and generates the recommendation to the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource, attaching the previously built TARGET order 3807 (e.g., recommends that a TARGET order be issued for our resource, assigning it to target the enemy resource. ¶ [0244] 2nd sentence: To motivate the team spirit between weapons directors, additional bonus points may be awarded whenever a resource transfer between weapons directors has been successfully accomplished and has helped to attain the tactical goals. ¶ [0223] 3rd-6th sentences: An attempt to issue an order to a resource managed by another weapons director will be interpreted as a request for the permission by the senior director to transfer this resource to the weapons director attempting to issue the order and cause the senior director button to blink. If the weapons director attempting to issue an order is indeed intending to request the senior director to permit transfer of this resource, the weapons director can depress the blinking senior director button and the resource transfer request will be presented to the senior director. If, upon consideration of this request, the senior director decides to approve the resource transfer, the senior director button will stop blinking and assume the green color. If, on the other hand, the senior director decides to reject the resource transfer request, the senior director button will stop blinking and assume the red color. ¶ [0245] 2nd-3rd sentences: noting a different example where an agent observe that a weapons director it advises tends to always accept recommendations to target advancing enemy with CAP'ed fighters but never with fighters on their way to tank (even though the agent may consider these fighters adequately fueled and otherwise ready for another dog-fight). The agent may over time learn not to generate the recommendations that are consistently ignored. In the previous example, the agent may learn not to recommend the weapons director to assign fighters on their way to tank to other tasks).
Thus, Stoyen provides a preponderance of factual evidence to teach or suggest the contested “automatically adjust the plan by reassigning at least one of the set of tasks to a different accessible asset based on the execution status” as recited at Claims 1,16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-22, 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is dependent and recites “at least one user interface communicatively coupled to the one or more processors”. Yet, parent independent Claim 1 has now been amended to recite “at least one user interface communicatively coupled to the server”, the latter further recited as “comprising” … “one or more processors”. Thus, by transitivity, at parent Claim 1, “at least one user interface communicatively” [is] “coupled” to “one or more processors”.
Claim 12 is thus now rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if:
- “at least one user interface” of dependent Claim 12, antecedently relates back to
- “at least one user interface” of parent independent Claim 1. [bolded emphasis added].
Claim 12 is recommended to be amended to recite, among others, and as an example only:
the “at least one user interface communicatively coupled to the one or more processors”.
Claims 13-15 are further rejected for depending upon rejected parent dependent Claim 12.
* Additionally *
Claim 16 is independent and, has been amended to recite, among others:
- “executing the outcome assessment model using the plan and the state data to generate one or more likely outcomes of the plan and one or more insights explaining a rationale behind the plan”; [bolded emphasis added]
- […]
- “providing one or more insights to a user” [bolded emphasis added]
Claim 16 is rendered vague and indefinite because it is unclear if “one or more insights” as subsequently recited at claim 16 relates back to “one or more insights” as antecedently recited at same Claim 16.
Claims 16 is recommended to be amended to recite, among others, and as example only:
- providing the one or more insights to a user
Claims 17-22, 24-29 are dependent and rejected based on rejected parent Claim 16.
Clarifications and/or corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7,9-22 and 24-29 are 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, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) set forth or describe the abstract grouping of computer-aided mental processes of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1-#3, including observation, evaluation and judgment of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2.
- Here, such computer-aided collection is set forth by recitations that “receive an objective associated with a mission, wherein the objective implies a set of tasks” (independent Claims 1,16),
“allow the user to input…states or outputs associated with the mission” (dependent Claims 14,28).
- Here, such computer-aided evaluation or analysis is set forth by recitations that “identify one or more accessible assets associated with the mission”; …”using the state data to determine a plan comprising assignments of the one or more accessible assets to the set of tasks”; …“using the plan and the state data to generate one or more likely outcomes of the plan and one or more insights explaining a rationale behind the plan”; …”track an execution status of the set of tasks and”….“adjust the plan by reassigning at least one of the set of tasks to a different accessible asset based on the execution status; (independent Claims 1,16), “determine two or more assets of the one or more accessible assets assigned to a same task” (dependent Claims 5,20), “track a task status and task dependency by processing task state outputs received from the task execution software associated with one of the one or more accessible assets” (dependent Claims 6,21), “track a secondary plan, wherein the secondary plan comprises a secondary objective” (dependent Claims 9,24); “operational data is used for subsequent analysis” (dependent Claim 10 and similarly at dependent Claim 25).
- Here such computer-aided judgment and associated display about certain results of the collection and analysis3 is set forth by: “generate one or more likely outcomes of the plan and one or more insights explaining a rationale behind the plan”; “provide” “insights to a user”, (independent Claims 1,16), “interpret an assigned task” (dependent Claims 4,19), “the one or more likely outcomes associated with the plan include a probability estimation corresponding to each of the one or more likely outcomes” (dependent Claims 11,26), “display at least one of the one or more insights or the outcome assessment to the user” (dependent Claims 13,27), “display at least one of the objective, the set of tasks, and the plan to the user” (dependent Claims 15, 29).
Such computer-aided mental processes are also4 used in performing operations that fall within the broad Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities grouping such as “tasks” assign[ment] “to the user” (dependent Claims 2, 17), corresponding to what appears to be abstract order-based or command-based mission management.
Thus, there is a preponderance of legal evidence that the claims’ character as a whole is abstract.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, the individual or combination of the claimed computer elements appear to represent mere physical aids to implement the aforementioned abstract exception, as tested at the prior step. Such computerization, even when construed, as additional computer-based elements, still merely applies the aforementioned abstract exception. For example, the “server comprising a memory and one or more processors” and “at least one user interface communicatively coupled to the server” as recited at preamble of independent Claim 1 and similarly at dependent Claims 2,6,7,9,10, apply the already identified abstract processes above. Additional examples of applying the abstract idea are: use of a computer or other machinery to receive, store, or transmit data, as listed by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, monitoring audit log data executed on a computer, as listed by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii), as well as requiring use of software to tailor information and provide it to user on a generic computer, as listed by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v).
Here, use of a computer or other machinery in ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data, as listed by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) ¶1, is reflected in the recitation of: “a server comprising a memory and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive an objective associated with a mission” (independent Claim 1) “maintain, in the memory, state data representing at least one of an environment context of the mission, the objective, the set of tasks, and the one or more accessible assets”, “output, as one or more task commands, the plan to a task execution software” (independent Claims 1,16), “wherein the memory is configured to store operational data associated with an execution of one or more tasks by the one or more processors” (dependent Claim 10 and similarly at dependent Claim 25), “task execution software” (dependent Claims 3,4,18,19), “task interpreter” (dependent Claims 4,5,19,20
Also here, application of the mathematical algorithm on a computer, as listed by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i), is reflected by expression “execute a domain-specific simulation at a faster-than-real-time performance using the state data to determine a plan comprising assignments of the one or more accessible assets to the set of tasks” and “train the outcome assessment model based on state data” at independent Claims 1,16.
Also here, the monitoring of audit log data executed on computer, as listed by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(iii), is reflected by “processors are further configured to track a secondary plan, wherein the secondary plan comprises a secondary objective” (dependent Claims 9,24).
Also here, the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, as listed by MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v) is reflected by the “task interpreter communicatively coupled to the task execution software of the one or more accessible assets, wherein the task interpreter is configured to interpret an assigned task” (dependent Claims 4,19), “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to modify the set of tasks using domain specific logical rules based on at least one of an environment, the objective, the one or more accessible assets, and an operator input” (dependent Claims 7,22), “at least one user interface communicatively coupled to the one or more processors” (dependent Claim 12), “wherein the at least one user interface is configured to display at least one of the one or more insights or the outcome assessment to the user” (dependent Claims 13, 27), “wherein the at least one user interface is configured to allow the user to input and modify states or outputs associated with the mission” (dependent Claims 14, 28), “wherein the at least one user interface is configured to display at least one of the objective, the set of tasks, and the plan to the user” (dependent Claims 15, 29).
Also here, the generally recited execution such as: “execute a domain-specific simulation at a faster-than-real-time performance using the state data to determine a plan comprising assignments of the one or more accessible assets to the set of tasks” and “execute the outcome assessment model using the plan and the state data to generate one or more likely outcomes of the plan and one or more insights explaining a rationale behind the plan” (independent Claims 1,16), can be argued as generality of the application of the judicial exception, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(3) also do not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Similarly, MPEP 2106.05(h)5 states that narrowing a combination of collecting information, analyzing, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to a particular field of use or technological environment does not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
It then follows that here, narrowing the collecting, analyzing, and displaying of certain results of the collection and analysis, as mapped at the prior step above, to a field of use or a particular technological environment characterized by the level of computerization identified above, would similarly not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as shown above, the additional computer-based elements merely apply the already recited abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05 (d) II and carries over the findings at MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (h) as a sufficient option for evidence that the additional computer-based elements also do not provide significantly more, without relying on conventionality test of MPEP 2106.05(d). Even assuming arguendo, that further evidence would still be required to demonstrate conventionality of the additional elements, the Examiner would further rely on MPEP 2106.05(d) I.2.(a), and point as evidence for the conventionality of the additional elements, as interpreted when read in light of:
* Original Specification ¶ [0022] The term “execution,” refers to the implementation of a plan. For example, the planning sub-system of the ORF does not assume responsibility for the intricate details of execution. Rather, it may facilitate operator engagement through in/on/outside the loop functions, leveraging domain-specific user interfaces (e.g., HMI elements), ensuring that the ORF plays a supportive role in the execution phase without dictating specific execution details.
* Original Specification ¶ [0023] 2nd-3rd sentences reciting at high level of generality: The system 100 may include a server having one or more processors and a memory (e.g., or other appropriate data storage). For example, the system 100 may include one or more modules configured for execution on a single processor or multi-core processing environment.
* Original Specification ¶ [0040]: “planner 104 is configured to communicate the derived plan to the operations manager 102, leveraging insights gained from AI training processes”.
* Original Specification ¶ [0063] One skilled in the art will recognize that the herein described components (e.g., operations), devices, objects, and the discussion accompanying them are used as examples for the sake of conceptual clarity and that various configuration modifications are contemplated. Consequently, as used herein, the specific exemplars set forth and the accompanying discussion are intended to be representative of their more general classes. In general, use of any specific exemplar is intended to be representative of its class, and the non-inclusion of specific components (eg operations),devices, and objects should not be taken limiting.
In conclusion, Claims 1-7,9-22 and 24-29 although directed to statutory categories (“system” or machine at Claims 1-7,9-15 and “method” or process at Claims 16-22,24-29), they still recite, describe or set forth the abstract exception (Step 2A prong one), with no additional, computer-based elements, capable to integrate, either alone or in combination the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than what was found as the abstract idea itself (Step 2B). Therefore, Claims 1-7,9-22 and 24-29 are ineligible.
Rejections under 35 § U.S.C. 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 9-22 and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kim et al, US 20190027047 A1 hereinafter Kim, in view of
Alexander Stoyen US 20020073101 A1 hereinafter Stoyen. As per,
Claims 1, 16 Kim teaches “A system comprising: a server comprising a memory and one or more processors, the memory comprising an outcome assessment model and at least one user interface communicatively coupled to the server, wherein the one or more processors” (Kim ¶ [0009] Fig.1 depicts mission command system MCS 100 include mission commander application (MCA) unit 110 in direct communication with data store 130 and display unit 120. MCA unit 110 communicate with the data store across electronic communication network 160. Embodying mission command systems receive flight member data records 132 from flight member aircraft 102A,B...N across electronic communication channel 160. The flight member data records include data on AMC's aircraft. ¶ [0014] An embodying mission commander application can be enabled by an Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) real-time computer network airborne systems, an Open Display System Architecture (ODSA), and supporting tools. This ecosystem provides ability to add and modify capabilities of the mission system by the system integrator. ¶ [0032] a computer program application stored in non-volatile memory or computer-readable medium (e.g., register memory, processor cache, RAM, ROM, hard drive, flash memory, CD ROM, magnetic media, etc.) include code or executable instructions that when executed may instruct and/or cause a controller or processor to perform the functions and process of MCA unit 110 and MCD 122, as disclosed above) “are configured to”: / “A method comprising”:
- “receive an objective associated with a mission, wherein the objective implies a set of tasks”
(Kim ¶ [0005] 2nd-3rd sentences: much of information important to the AMC is pre-briefed rather than real-time. The AMC conducts photograph reconnaissance of the primary and alternate landing zones prior to departure, but these areas change by the time the flight actually reaches its destination. ¶ [0004] 2nd sentence: For example, the AMC could get updated intelligence information that there are hostile forces located in the primary ingress route, requiring him/her to decide whether they have fuel required to avoid the hostile by taking an alternate route. To this end, at ¶ [0013] 2nd, 6th sentence: the mission commander system provides the AMC with information for strategic management of the flight, mission assets, and mission goal. The systems and methods support mission commander (e.g. AMC) in the goal of achieving a mission objective for a team of vehicle assets acting in concert as mission members. For example, per ¶ [0020] 4th sentence: TCDU [text communication display unit] present text-based communication and intelligence information. ¶ [0011] 2nd sentence: it provides multiple options of alternate mission scenarios that can be provided according to the revised mission parameters. ¶ [0021] 5th sentence
Deviation of the actual position from the zone can provide to the AMC an immediate indication as to whether the AMC must speed up or slow down the flight to reach the objective area on time.
¶ [0027] 1st sentence: time-on-target tab display also depict for the AMC the planned time of arrival for each waypoint, as well as the estimated time of arrival and deviation for the flight's objective)
- “identify one or more accessible assets associated with the mission”;
(Kim teaches many examples: ¶ [0008] 2nd sentence: the systems support AMC by 1) providing… team asset status…; and 2) providing key performance indicators (KPIs) of each team member aircraft (fuel remaining against mission completion fuel [or asset] requirements, weapons [or asset] status, flight range, time on target, expected arrival at target, time to interim waypoints, and other KPIs. [0004] 2nd-3rd sentences: For example, AMC gets updated intelligence there are hostile forces located in primary ingress route, requiring him/her to decide whether they have fuel [as asset] required to avoid the hostile by taking alternate route. Similarly, the ground commander of the unit [asset] being picked up in air assault mission request change in landing zone.
Kim ¶ [0013] 1st -2nd, 4th-6th sentences: mission commander system 100 is framework that support tasks associated with commanding air squadron while executing a mission. The mission commander system provides the AMC with information for strategic management of the flight, mission assets, and mission goal. For purposes of discussion, US Army Blackhawk and Apache helicopter [or asset] missions are presented. Yet, the systems and methods are not can be implemented in other vehicles (e.g. military or non-military, fixed wing, ground-based, navel). Embodying systems and methods support a mission commander (e.g. AMC) in the goal of achieving a mission objective for a team of vehicle assets acting in concert as mission members
Kim ¶ [0025] 2nd-3rd sentences: Selecting fuel/stores tab on MCD 122 depict a list of each vehicle in the flight. For each vehicle, the AMC has info about current and reserve fuel [or asset], burn rate, range, and the number of rounds of any weapon [or asset] system or countermeasure [or asset] the flight member vehicle has on board. ¶ [0030] 4th sentence: When this analysis is complete, the location of any identified entities can be presented on MCD, and a new icon generated indicating entities’ position on the map. ¶ [0029] 1st sentence noting the entities [oe assets] can be team vehicles, or landing zones).
- “maintain, in the memory, state data representing at least one of an environment context of the mission” (Kim ¶ [0020] 3rd sentence: detailed information about vehicles in the flight are stored in flight member data record(s) 132. ¶ [0025] If the AMC wants more detailed information about the lower-level variables that make up the higher-level fuel, stores, and time-on-target information they can expand the appropriate tab. Selecting a fuel/stores tab on MCD 122 can depict a list of each vehicle in the flight. For each vehicle, the AMC has information about current and reserve fuel, burn rate, range, and the number of rounds of any weapon system or countermeasure the flight member vehicle has on board), “the objective, the set of tasks” (Kim
¶ [0013] 2nd sentence: The mission commander system provides the AMC with information in an efficient manner for strategic management of the flight, mission assets, and mission goal. For example at ¶ [0027] 1st sentence: The time-on-target tab display depict for the AMC the planned time of arrival for each waypoint, as well as the estimated time of arrival and deviation for the flight's objective) “and the one or more accessible assets” (Kim ¶ [0009] 3rd - 4th sentences: receive flight member data records 132 from flight member aircraft 102A, 102B…102N across electronic communication channel 160. The flight member data records include data on the AMC's aircraft)
- “”
- “”;
- “”;
- “”; .
- “”
- “provide the one or more insights to a user”;
(Kim ¶ [0004], ¶ [0011] Presenting updated mission parameters to the AMC allows that information to be used by the AMC in determining whether the remaining mission team can still be collectively viable to complete the mission. In accordance with embodiments, it provides multiple options of alternate mission scenarios that can be provided according to the revised mission parameters. ¶ [0012] Dynamic changes to the flight plan are cognitively taxing on the AMC because the changes necessitate recalculation of fuel burn estimates, and also require the AMC to determine their impact on the flight time to destination. Changing waypoints or landing zones can demand either a change in airspeed(s) for the remaining leg(s) of the flight, or a change in the time-on-target. Embodying systems can display this information in an ergonomic form to provide the AMC these factors when making decisions that will change the flight plan. ¶ [0024] 2nd-4th sentences: High-level status information as to whether the AMC is capable of completing the current mission as planned can be presented at the top of this pane. If the mission cannot be completed (either due to insufficient fuel or stores, or because the objective cannot be reached on time) a display status of the current mission can go from capable to incapable. This allows the AMC to monitor the overall status of a mission at a glance) “and”
- “provide an outcome assessment to the user, wherein the outcome assessment includes one or more likely outcomes associated with the plan”
(Kim ¶ [0011] 1st sentence: Presenting updated mission parameters to AMC allows that info to be used by AMC in determining whether the remaining mission team can still be collectively viable to complete the mission. ¶ [0019] 3rd sentence: route management service 143 include algorithms to provide… ETA [estimated time of arrival] predictions. For example, at ¶ [0021] 4th-5th sentences: The display of flight path include projection of a zone (outlined area) representing the flight’s projected optimal position that needs to be maintained to reach the mission landing zone on time. Deviation of the actual position from the zone can provide to the AMC an immediate indication whether the AMC must speed up or slow down the flight to reach the objective area on time. Similarly, ¶ [0027] The time-on-target tab display depict for the AMC the planned time of arrival for each waypoint, and the estimated time of arrival and deviation for the flight's objective. The display include a projected deviation (plus or minus) so that the AMC attempt to reduce the deviation by instructing adjustments to the flight's airspeed. ¶ [0028] 3rd- 4th sentences: VSD also display predictive component, which projects altitude over which vehicles must fly to avoid upcoming terrain. This functionality reduce the number of controlled flights into terrain that are leading cause of military helicopter crashes. ¶ [0024] 2nd-4th sentences: High-level status info as to whether the AMC is capable of completing the current mission as planned can be presented at the top of this pane. If the mission cannot be completed (either due to insufficient fuel or stores, or because the objective cannot be reached on time) a display status of current mission can go from capable to incapable. This allows AMC to monitor the overall status of a mission at a glance)
* While *
Kim ¶ [0014] 2nd sentence still recites its ecosystem to provide the ability to add and modify capabilities of the mission system by the system integrator
* Nevertheless *
Kim does not exactly recite to anticipate:
- “execute a domain-specific simulation at a faster-than-real-time performance using the state data to determine a plan comprising assignments of the one or more accessible assets to the set of tasks”
- “output, as one or more task commands, the plan to a task execution software associated with each of the one or more accessible assets to cause execution of the set of tasks by the one or more accessible assets”;
- “train the outcome assessment model based on state data”;
- “execute the outcome assessment model using the plan and the state data to generate one or more likely outcomes of the plan and one or more insights explaining a rationale behind the plan”; .
- “process task state outputs from the task execution software to track an execution status of the set of tasks and automatically adjust the plan by reassigning at least one of the set of tasks to a different accessible asset based on the execution status” as explicitly claimed.
* However *
Stoyen in analogous art of operational reasoning or decision making teaches or suggests:
- “execute a domain-specific simulation at a faster-than-real-time performance using the state data” (Stoyen ¶ [0214] allow users to control the speed of the simulation. For example, at
¶ [0220] 3rd sentence: The simulation control section of the control panel includes the simulation … fast-forward button 4302 ….) “to determine a plan comprising assignments of the one or more accessible assets to the set of tasks” (Stoyen ¶ [0135] 1st-2nd, 6th-10th sentences: Fig.12 describes the process of execution of order CAP (Combat Air Patrol) by a moving resource. The list of enemy planes or groups of planes is obtained from the simulator 1201…. if the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes is visible to this moving resource 1206, the following processing is performed by the moving resource. A report is presented to the weapons director responsible for managing this moving resource conveying the intent of this moving resource to attack the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes 1208. A TARGET order is built, specifying the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes as the target 1209. This moving resource is committed to the CLOSEST enemy plane or group of planes 1210. The order reference of this moving resource is set to the previously built TARGET order 1211. Similarly, ¶ [0132] 3rd-4th sentences: If this moving resource's Allegiance value is enemy 1002, a list of potential targets of opportunity is allocated 1003, and the list of our weapons directories is obtained from the simulator 1004. While there are unprocessed weapons directories in the list of our weapons directories obtained from the simulator 1005, our weapons directories' contents are added to the list of potential targets of opportunity 1006. Similarly, ¶ [0136] 4th-5th sentences: The moving resource will move for a duration of a tick of the simulation towards the prescribed tanker on the interception course 1304. If this moving resource has reached the prescribed tanker 1303, the tanker is informed that fueling of this moving resource is commencing 1305. Similarly, ¶ [0196] If the enemy resource is a bomber 3603, the agent determines whether this enemy bomber can reach any of our bases or other stationary ground protected objects for attack during the time period equivalent to the duration of the tick of the simulation 3605. If the enemy bomber can attack our base by the next tick of the simulation, the agent considers this bomber, for example, a critical resource. Otherwise, even if this enemy bomber cannot perform its attack of our resources at the next tick of the simulation, but delaying its handling will place this enemy bomber in the position where none of our fighters can handle this bomber (e.g., the bomber will be too far or travelling too fast to intercept in time before it can attack our protected ground resources), this enemy bomber is still considered critical by the agent. Critical in this context means must be handled immediately);
- “output, as one or more task commands, the plan to a task execution software associated with each of the one or more accessible assets to cause execution of the set of tasks by the one or more accessible assets”; (Stoyen Fig.11 and ¶ [0134] 3rd-9th sentences: The moving resource's previous coordinates XYP are set to the values of its current coordinates XYZ 1102. If the order reference points at a GO order 1103, order GO is executed by this moving resource 1104. If the order reference points at a TARGET order 1105, order TARGET is executed by this moving resource 1106. If the order reference points at a SPLIT order 1107, order SPLIT is executed by this moving resource 1108. If the order reference points at JOIN order 1109, order JOIN is executed by this moving resource 1110. If the order reference points at a RTB order 1111, order RTB is executed by this moving resource 1112. If the order reference points at a TANK order 1113, order TANK is executed by this moving resource 1114. If the order reference points at a CAP order 1115, order CAP is executed by this moving resource 1116. For specific examples see Fig. 15 & ¶ [0138] noting execution of order GO by a moving resource, Fig.16 & ¶ [0136] noting
execution of order TARGET by a moving resource, and Fig.17 & ¶ [0142] noting execution of order JOIN by a moving resource. Additional details at ¶ [0183]-¶ [0184]).
- “train the outcome assessment model based on state data”;
(Stoyen ¶ [0086] an agent is defined as a program which automates one or more user actions or provides real-time advice to one or more users. ¶ [0006] 3rd-4th,6th sentences: The agent is tactical because it considers not only immediate certainties and near certainties (e.g., if a hostile fighter is not shot at it will shoot at us) but also longer-term possibilities (e.g. if the bulk of our fighters are committed early, they may not be available should an enemy strike force appear in the future). The agent is intelligent because it exhibits autonomous behavior and engages in human-like decision process. The agent is also capable of…independent decisions in the area of air combat, replacing a human WD. ¶ [0010] 3rd-5th sentences: As changes occur (e.g. new planes appear), agents …agents, naturally adjust… For instance, as a pair of fighters becomes available, an agent may recommend to the human WD how to assign this pair. WD's reaction results in the agent learning [training] what happened and…how to (better) advise the WD in the future.
Stoyen ¶ [0151] Fig.21 describes the process of an attack being performed by a fighter. First, the counter attacks performed by this fighter is incremented 2101. Then, a check of fighter's weapons is performed 2102. If this fighter has no weapons, attack is impossible and processing is terminated. If this fighter has weapons, processing continues. If the target of this fighter's attack is a group of resources, rather than single resource 2103, a specific single resource is selected from the list of resources of the group being attacked 2104. Then the specified weapon is launched at selected target resource 2105, and the selected target resource is destroyed 2106.
Stoyen [0156] If interception point coordinates have not been successfully determined 2208, meaning that the interception is impossible, e.g., because the enemy resource or a group of enemy resources is travelling too fast, processing is terminated with the indication that this group is deemed incapable of successfully attacking the specified enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. If the interception point coordinates have been successfully determined, the amount of fuel this group, based on a single fighter within this group, would require to reach the previously determined interception point at the group's maximum velocity and then safely reach a base or a tanker for refueling is determined 2209. If the previously determined amount of required fuel is greater than the actual amount of fuel possessed by any fighter in this group 2210, processing is terminated with the indication that this group is deemed incapable of successfully attacking the specified enemy resource or a group of enemy resources. Otherwise, if this group possesses sufficient amount of fuel for interception at maxim velocity and subsequent travel to base or a tanker for refueling, processing is terminated with the indication that this group is deemed capable of successfully attacking the specified enemy resource or a group of enemy resources
Stoyen ¶ [0012] 2nd-3rd sentences noting yet another example where An agent may observe that a WD it advises tends to always accept recommendations to target advancing enemy with CAP'ed (engaged in Combat Air Patrol assignment) fighters but never with fighters on their way to tank (even though the agent may consider these fighters adequately fueled and otherwise ready for another dog-fight). The agent may then over time learn not to recommend the WD assign fighters on their way to tank to other tasks. ¶ [0014] 5th sentence noting use of neural networks.
Stoyen ¶ [0245] 2nd-3rd sentences noting another example where an agent may observe that a weapons director it advises tends to always accept recommendations to target advancing enemy with CAP'ed fighters but never with fighters on their way to tank (even though the agent may consider these fighters adequately fueled and otherwise ready for another dog-fight). The agent may over time learn not to generate the recommendations that are consistently ignored. In the previous example, the agent may learn not to recommend the weapons director to assign fighters on their way to tank to other tasks).
- “execute the outcome assessment model using the plan and the state data to generate one or more likely outcomes of the plan” (Stoyen ¶ [0152] 1st-2nd sentences: attack outcome derivation schemes are possible, e.g., a probabilistic one, where a success probability is assigned to all or particular types of attacks, and attacks are only successful with that probability. A more elaborate scheme is possible, where the attack outcome is also dependent on geometry and relative positions and speeds of the resources that are engaged) “and one or more insights explaining a rationale behind the plan”; (Stoyen ¶ [0014] 1st-3rd sentences Since multiple intelligent agents … may be involved in the ATS decision making process, it is not surprising that they may differ in opinion as to what constitutes the best course of action. The reasons for the differences include the following: non-uniform availability of information (e.g., a particular agent may be privy to detailed information on the planes that belong to its WD only), strategy preferences (e.g., a particular WD may be very risk-averse compared to others), and one group's considerations vs. another group's considerations (e.g., a WD (and its agent) may not wish to loose a pair of fighters; on the other hand, from the point of view of the entire WD team, it may be acceptable to send that same pair of fighters to divert enemy air defenses (at a great risk to themselves)away from a strike package. Given the differences in opinion, the ATS agents exchange opinions and debate options, among themselves and with humans. ¶ [0169] last sentence noting another example where the Rationale list contains textual explanations of the recommendations by the agent to this weapons director. ¶ [0226] 2nd-3rd sentences: Fig.48 shows example of an agent recommendation presented to weapons director 1 (WD1) 4801 and a corresponding detailed description of the agent recommendation 4802, including the recommendation identifier 123456, the source of the recommendation A1, the intended recipient of the recommendation WD1, the description of the recommendation 2F16A->MIG23, meaning have 2F16A target MIG23, and the rationale for this recommendation. In this case, the rationale is that “2F16A is the closest and weakest of WD1 fighters that can successfully attack MIG23. ¶ [0191] 1st,3rd sentence: noting another example where Fig. 34 describes the process of recalling committed resources from targets that no longer need to be attacked. If the enemy resource represented by this table entry is marked “recalled” 3403 (e.g., for some reason, it was previously determined that this enemy resource no longer poses a threat, and it was decided to free up any of our resources that were committed to handling this enemy resource), the uncommit process is performed for this enemy resource 3404. ¶ [0245] 2nd-3rd sentences noting another example where an agent may observe that a weapons director it advises tends to always accept recommendations to target advancing enemy with CAP'ed fighters but never with fighters on their way to tank (even though the agent may consider these fighters adequately fueled and otherwise ready for another dog-fight). The agent may over time learn not to generate the recommendations that are consistently ignored. In the previous example, the agent may learn not to recommend the weapons director to assign fighters on their way to tank to other tasks. ¶ [0012] 2nd-3rd sentences noting yet another example where An agent may observe that a WD it advises tends to always accept recommendations to target advancing enemy with CAP'ed (engaged in Combat Air Patrol assignment) fighters but never with fighters on their way to tank (even though the agent may consider these fighters adequately fueled and otherwise ready for another dog-fight). The agent may then over time learn not to recommend the WD assign fighters on their way to tank to other tasks).
- “process task state outputs from the task execution software to track an execution status of the set of tasks” (Stoyen ¶ [0095] 1st sentence: intelligent agent 0104 is monitoring the events as they occur. ¶ [0187] Fig. 31 describes processing performed by the agent at each tick of the simulation. The clients are informed that the tick occurred 3101. The events and rationale vectors, containing textual descriptions of events at every tick of the simulation that are of interest to the weapons directors, and the textual rationale for agent recommendations, respectively, are allocated 3102, 3103, and the agent view of the world table is built 3104. Fig.32 and ¶ [0188] 4th sentence: If the enemy resource is new 3205 (i.e., it just appeared and did not exist in the agent's view of the world during the previous tick of the simulation), an event is entered into the events vector 3206, indicating appearance of a new enemy resource to the weapons director(s). Also
Fig. 54 and ¶ [0242] 9th-11th sentences noting a different example where event occurs 5401, and is evaluated as follows. If an enemy resource has been added to the weapons director list of resources this weapons director is responsible for handling 5402, this weapons director's maxScore field is incremented by the value field of this enemy resource 5403. If an enemy resource has been removed from a weapons director list of resources this weapons director is responsible for handling 5404, and this weapons director's maxScore field is decremented by the value field of this enemy resource 5405. If an enemy resource in the list of enemy resources this weapons director is responsible for handling has been destroyed 5406, this weapons director's score field is incremented by the value field of the destroyed enemy resource 5407) “and”
- “automatically adjust the plan by reassigning at least one of the set of tasks to a different accessible asset based on the execution status” (Stoyen provides many examples as follows
Stoyen ¶ [0086] defines an agent as a program which automates one or more user actions or provides real-time advice to one or more users. ¶ [0006] 3rd-4th,6th sentences: The agent is tactical because it considers longer-term possibilities (e.g. if the bulk of our fighters are committed early, they may not be available should an enemy strike force appear in the future). The agent is intelligent because it exhibits autonomous behavior and engages in human-like decision process. The agent is also capable of…independent decisions in the area of air combat,
Stoyen ¶ [0239] 3rd sentence: noting an example where the agent [or program] will consider the pilot fatigue level when deciding which plane(s) to assign to specific tasks, e.g., when selecting a fighter [as an example of an asset] to target an enemy plane, the agent may choose a resource [as an example of an asset] that is slightly farther away from the enemy plane, but the pilot of which is less fatigued than the pilot of the closest of our fighters. This is because at ¶ [0013] 2nd-3rd sentences: the agent conclusion may lead the agent to believe that a WD is overly stressed out and tired. The agent may then recommend to the SD's advising agent to recommend that SD consider rotating this WD out. Perhaps as a compromise, the two agents then decide that the best course of action is for the WD to continue for a while but that no fighters be borrowed for other tasks from this WD, and that after the next air combat engagement, the WD be rotated out anyway. ¶ [0007] 3rd-4th sentences: another example where the agents assisting individual WDs exchange threat info and then coordinate their recommendations, such as what fighters to commit to what enemy assets, without resource collisions. That is, an agent A will not recommend to its WD A to borrow a fighter pair P from another WD (WD B) while WD B's agent (agent B) recommends to WD B to use the same fighter pair P to target another threat.
Stoyen ¶ [0086] defines an agent as a program which automates one or more user actions or provides real-time advice to one or more users. Similarly, ¶ [0179] 1st senetnce: the Recommendation class embodies the recommendations passed by the agent to the weapons directors it automates. ¶ [0049] Fig.26 shows a representation of the Director class objects.
¶ [0179] 1st sentence: recommendation class embodies recommendations passed by the agent to weapons directors it automates. Then, ¶ [0180] 6th sentence provides following detail: each recommendation has following logical indicator: ¶ [0182] transfer. For example, at ¶ [0175] 1st sentences: transfer of resources from one weapons director (i.e. director class per ¶ [0163] 1st-2nd sentences) to another. ¶ [0175] 2nd-4th sentences Fig.29 describes the process performed by the senior director to determine whether the resource transfer should be approved and to accomplish an approved resource transfer. The senior director confirms the eligibility of the specified resource for transfer by performing a series of checks. The senior director first verifies that the resource for which the transfer is requested does not already belong to the weapons director requesting the resource transfer 2901. Then at, ¶ [0177] 2nd-3rd sentences: the senior director enacts the resource transfer. The resource for which the transfer is being requested is removed from its weapons directory 2906 and added to the weapons director of the weapons director requesting the resource transfer 2907, then the senior director terminates processing with the indication that the resource transfer has been approved and performed). Similarly mid-¶ [0204] If this is a team commitment 3801, the agent determines the weapons director owning our resource, for which commitment is being attempted 3802, and the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource, for which commitment is being attempted 3803. The agent then indicates that a transfer of our resource from its owner to the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource needs to be approved by the senior director in order to perform this commitment 3804, sets our resource's “pending” indicator 3805 to indicate that a commitment is pending for this resource, builds a TARGET order for our resource to target the enemy resource for which the commitment is pending 3806, and generates the recommendation to the weapons director responsible for handling the enemy resource, attaching the previously built TARGET order 3807 (e.g., recommends that a TARGET order be issued for our resource, assigning it to target the enemy resource. ¶ [0244] 2nd sentence: To motivate the team spirit between weapons directors, additional bonus points may be awarded whenever a resource transfer between weapons directors has been successfully accomplished and has helped to attain the tactical goals. ¶ [0223] 3rd-6th sentences: An attempt to issue an order to a resource managed by another weapons director will be interpreted as a request for the permission by the senior director to transfer this resource to the weapons director attempting to issue the order and cause the senior director button to blink. If the weapons director attempting to issue an order is indeed intending to request the senior director to permit transfer of this resource, the weapons director can depress the blinking senior director button and the resource transfer request will be presented to the senior director. If, upon consideration of this request, the senior director decides to approve the resource transfer, the senior director button will stop blinking and assume the green color. If, on the other hand, the senior director decides to reject the resource transfer request, the senior director button will stop blinking and assume the red color. ¶ [0245] 2nd-3rd sentences: noting a different example where an agent observe that a weapons director it advises tends to always accept recommendations to target advancing enemy with CAP'ed fighters but never with fighters on their way to tank (even though the agent may consider these fighters adequately fueled and otherwise ready for another dog-fight). The agent may over time learn not to generate the recommendations that are consistently ignored. In the previous example, the agent may learn not to recommend the weapons director to assign fighters on their way to tank to other tasks).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Kim’s ”system”/”method” to have included Stoyen’s teachings or suggestions in order to have allowed the one of ordinary skills in the art to have more effectively conveyed the substance of their work to others skilled in the art (Stoyen ¶ [0080] in view of MPEP 2143 G) including advantageously provided additional information to the agent so that the agent would have incorporated this additional information in its decision making (Stoyen ¶ [0232] 2nd sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G). As an additional benefit, to have motivated the team spirit between weapons directors, additional bonus points would have been awarded whenever a resource transfer between weapons directors has been successfully accomplished and has helped to attain the tactical goals art (Stoyen ¶ [0244] 2nd sentence in view of MPEP 2143 G). The predictability of such modification would have been corroborated by the broad level of skills of one of ordinary skills in the art and the justification of the aforementioned advantages, as further articulated by Stoyen at ¶ [0358].
Further, the claimed invention could have also been viewed as a mere combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor, dealing with operational reasoning or decision making or planning. In such combination each element would have merely performed same organizational, managerial, analytical or decision making or reasoning function as it did separately. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Kim in view of Stoyen, the to be combined elements would have fitted together, like pieces of a puzzle in a logical, complementary, technologically feasible and/or economically desirable manner. Thus, it would have been reasoned that the results of the combination would have been predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 2,17 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,16 above.
Kim further teaches:
- “assign one or more tasks from the set of tasks to the user”.
(Kim ¶¶ [0004], [0012], [0013] 1st sentence: mission commander system 100 is a framework that support tasks associated with commanding an air squadron while executing a mission. Specifically, per ¶ [0011] 2nd sentence: it provides multiple options of alternate mission scenarios according to the revised mission parameters. ¶ [0010] If an unexpected situation develops limiting the mission capability for the flight members, alternate scenario evaluation unit 112 can analyze flight member data received from the incapacitated members to recalculate mission parameters records 133 (e.g, fuel, stores, cargo capacity, etc.). Flight member data can be applied by MCA unit 110 to obtain mission team member status updates. These status updates can be rendered on mission control dashboard (MCD) 122 in about real-time by dynamic video interface unit 114. These recalculated mission parameters can be available to the AMC on MCD 122. ¶ [0019] 3rd sentence: Route management service 143 include algorithms to provide route management, fuel consumption/monitoring, ETA predictions, trajectory generation, track fusion, guidance, etc. To this end at ¶ [0021] 3rd-5th sentences: the position of waypoints, flight paths etc. can be updated continuously, periodically. The display of flight path include projection of a zone (e.g. outlined area) representing the flight’s projected optimal position that needs to be maintained to reach the mission landing zone on time. Deviation of the actual position from the zone can provide to AMC immediate indication as to whether the AMC must speed up or slow down the flight to reach the objective area on time. ¶ [0026] 3rd-4th sentences: the display also provide information regarding upcoming changes to these parameters to reach the next, and other, subsequent waypoints. This ability to depict flight parameters provides the AMC with continual situation awareness of the flight parameters that the pilot flying should be aiming for. ¶ [0027] 2nd sentence: The display include a projected deviation (plus or minus) so that the AMC can attempt to reduce the deviation by instructing adjustments to the flight's airspeed. ¶ [0028] 3rd- 4th sentences: The VSD also display the altitude over which vehicles must fly to avoid upcoming terrain. This functionality can reduce the number of controlled flights into terrain that are a leading cause of military helicopter crashes).
Claims 3,18 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,16 above. Further,
Kim teaches “the one or more accessible assets include a task execution software”
(Kim Fig.1 and Abstract: the control processor accesses executable instructions that cause the control processor to direct operations of components of the MCA unit. Specifically, per ¶ [0013] 1st sentence the mission commander system is a framework supporting tasks associated with commanding an air squadron while executing a mission, with ¶ [0009] 4th-5th sentences stating that: the system receive, across electronic communication channel 160, flight member data records 132 from flight member aircraft [or assets] 102A, B,…N, that include AMC’s aircraft data, which at its turn, reconfigure [or execute] the position and/or content of each of the display panes, as per ¶ [0015] 4th sentence, and customize [or execute] the display of information and specify a HMI using both the templates 135 and autonomy algorithm toolbox 136, as per ¶ [0016] 4th sentence, and also reduce the deviation by instructing [or executing] adjustments to the flight's airspeed, as per ¶ [0027] 2nd sentence, and finally controls [or executes], the camera manager for pan and zoom, along with select previously-captured photographs represented as thumbnails
as per ¶ [0030] 2nd sentence. For additional details see, ¶ [0020] 2nd sentence noting: detailed information about any of vehicles in the flight [is] obtained from the flight members and/or stored in flight member data record(s) 132. ¶ [0025] 3rd sentence: For each vehicle, the AMC has info about current and reserve fuel, burn rate, range, and the number of rounds of any weapon system or countermeasure the flight member vehicle has on board. ¶ [0010] 2nd sentence: Flight member data can be applied by MCA unit 110 to obtain mission team member status updates).
Claim 4,19 Kim / Stoyen teaches all limitations in claims 3,18 above.
Kim further teaches: “a task interpreter communicatively coupled to the task execution software of the one or more accessible assets” (Kim Fig.1, ¶ [0009] 4th-5th sentences stating that: the system receive, across electronic communication channel 160, flight member data records 132 from flight member aircraft [or assets] 102A, B,…N, that include the AMC’s aircraft data, which at its turn include at ¶ [0011], alternate mission scenarios. Then at ¶ [0010] If an unexpected situation develops limiting the mission capability for the flight members, alternate scenario evaluation unit 112 analyze flight member data received from the incapacitated member(s) to recalculate mission parameters records 133 (e.g. fuel, stores, cargo capacity, etc.). Flight member data can be applied by MCA unit 110 to obtain mission team member status updates. These status updates can be rendered on mission control dashboard (MCD) 122 in about real-time by dynamic video interface unit 114. These recalculated mission parameters can be available to the AMC on MCD 122. Additional details at ¶ [0013]-¶ [0014], ¶ [0020]: display a map and information related to vehicle and mission management), “wherein the task interpreter is configured to interpret an assigned task” (Kim ¶ [0005] 4th-5th sentences: The AMC is pre-briefed with latest intelligence prior to mission departure, but this info can quickly become outdated on a dynamic battlefield. Even if the AMC is given real-time intelligence information (e.g., base command calls on the radio to warn about a potential hostile unit), it can be difficult for AMC to assimilate this info into their mental understanding of the situation, as it requires them to mark the location on paper map and mentally integrate the flight's own position into this situation picture. ¶ [0010] 1st,4th sentences: If an unexpected situation develops limiting the mission capability for the flight members, alternate scenario evaluation unit 112 analyze flight member data received from incapacitated members to recalculate mission parameters records 133 (e.g. fuel, stores, cargo capacity etc. These recalculated mission parameters can be available to AMC on MCD 122. ¶ [0030] 3rd-4th sentences: Once photographs are captured, they can be sent to image analysis application unit 118 for analysis. When this analysis is complete, the location of any identified entities can be presented on the MCD, and a new icon generated indicating the entities' position on the map. ¶ [0031] 1st sentence: The TCDU can present to the AMC text-based intelligence information and communications).
Claims 5,20 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claims 4,19 above. Further,
Kim further teaches: “wherein the task interpreter is further configured to determine two or more assets of the one or more accessible assets assigned to a same task, and wherein the two or more assets are configured to work together in a distributed way”.
(Kim ¶ [0013] 3rd-5th sentences: mission commander system provides the [air mission commander] AMC with information for strategic management of the flight, mission assets, and mission goal. In accordance with embodiments, mission command system 100 can decrease the human data processing demands placed on the AMC by providing analysis, data, and scenarios in MCD [mission control dashboard] 122 to support increased automation and autonomy. For purposes of discussion, U.S. Army Blackhawk and Apache helicopter missions are presented. However, embodying systems and methods are not so limited and can be implemented in other vehicles (e.g., military or non-military, fixed wing, ground-based, navel, etc.). Embodying systems and methods support a mission commander (e.g., AMC) in the goal of achieving a mission [or task] objective for a team of vehicle assets acting in concert [or together] as mission members).
Claims 6,21 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claims 3,18 above. Further,
Kim teaches “track a task status and task dependency by processing task state outputs received from the task execution software associated with one of the one or more accessible assets” (Kim ¶ [0012] Dynamic changes to the flight plan are cognitively taxing on the AMC because the changes necessitate recalculation of fuel burn estimates, and also require the AMC to determine their impact on the flight time to destination. Changing waypoints or landing zones can demand either a change in airspeed(s) for the remaining leg(s) of the flight, or a change in the time-on-target. Embodying systems can display this information in an ergonomic form to provide the AMC these factors when making decisions that will change the flight plan.
Kim ¶ [0019] 3rd sentence: Route management service 143 include algorithms to provide route management, fuel consumption/monitoring, ETA predictions, trajectory generation, track fusion, guidance, etc. ¶ [0021] 3rd-5th sentences: The position of waypoints, flight paths, enemy and friendly units, restricted operating zones, and named areas of interest can be available and updated [or tracked] (continuously, periodically, or at predetermined intervals). The display of the flight path include a projection of a zone (e.g., an outlined area) representing the flight's projected optimal position that needs to be maintained to reach the mission landing zone on time. Deviation of the actual position from the zone can provide to the AMC an immediate indication as to whether the AMC must speed up or slow down the flight to reach the objective area on time.
Kim ¶ [0026] 2nd-3rd sentences: the AMC view distance to the next [or dependent] waypoint, and be provided with information regarding speed, direction, altitude, and other flight parameters to arrive at the waypoint on time. In some implementations, the display can also provide information regarding upcoming changes to these parameters to reach the next [or dependent], and other, subsequent [or dependent] waypoints. This ability to depict flight parameters provides the AMC with continual situation awareness of the flight parameters that the pilot flying should be aiming for. ¶ [0027] The time-on-target tab display can also depict for the AMC the planned time of arrival for each waypoint, as well as the estimated time of arrival and deviation for the flight's objective. The display can include a projected deviation (plus or minus) so that the AMC can attempt to reduce the deviation by instructing adjustments to the flight's airspeed. ¶ [0028] A vertical situation display (VSD) is positioned underneath the compass rose of the map to provide the AMC with additional situation awareness about the position of vehicles in the surrounding airspace. From the VSD, the AMC can discern the altitudes of other vehicles, and be provided with information about upcoming terrain that may pose a threat to the flight. The VSD also can display a predictive component, which projects the altitude over which vehicles must fly to avoid upcoming terrain. This functionality can reduce the number of controlled flights into terrain that are a leading cause of military helicopter crashes. Also, the VSD information can reduce the requirement for the AMC and other crewmembers to devote substantial visual attention to the surrounding airspace to monitor the positions of other vehicles).
Claims 7,22 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,16 above.
Kim further teaches “modify the set of tasks using domain specific logical rules based on at least one of an environment, the objective, the one or more accessible assets, and an operator input”. (Kim ¶ [0004] AMC might need to make changes to the flight plan, which forces real-time recalculations of fuel burn projections for vehicles in the flight. For example, AMC get updated intelligence there are hostile forces located in primary ingress route, requiring him/her to decide whether they have fuel required to avoid the hostile by taking alternate route. Similarly, the ground commander of the unit being picked up in air assault mission could request change in landing zone. These types of rapidly changing situations require AMC to make additional decisions about mission-capability under significant time pressure, with potentially serious consequences while piloting the aircraft. ¶ [0005] 3rd sentence: AMC conducts photograph reconnaissance of the primary and alternate landing zones prior to departure, but these areas change by the time the flight actually reaches its destination. ¶ [0012] Dynamic changes to the flight plan are cognitively taxing on AMC because the changes necessitate recalculation of fuel burn estimates, and also require AMC to determine their impact on the flight time to destination. Changing waypoints or landing zones demand either a change in airspeed(s) for the remaining leg(s) of the flight, or change in time-on-target. Embodying systems display this info in ergonomic form to provide AMC these factors when making decisions that will change the flight plan.
Kim ¶ [0014] embodying mission commander application enabled by Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) real-time computer network airborne systems, an Open Display System Architecture (ODSA), and supporting tools. This ecosystem provides the ability to add and modify the capabilities of the mission system by the system integrator. ¶ [0016] 4th sentence: The MCA [mission commander application] unit provide the AMC [air mission commander] with ability to customize [or modify] the display of information and specify a human machine interface (HMI) (read as example of domain specific user interface in light of the current Specification ¶ [0017] 1st sentence) using both templates 135 and autonomy algorithm [or rules] toolbox 136. Specifically, per ¶ [0019] autonomy algorithm toolbox 136 can include a collection of software services that implement commonly needed functions in a mission management IMA environment. The toolbox include geospatial data service 142 that can obtain information via the IMA by preparing terrain queries (e.g., line-of-sight, height above terrain, sensor visibility, target recognition, etc.). Route [or environment] management service 143 include algorithms to provide route management, fuel consumption/monitoring, ETA predictions, trajectory generation, track fusion, guidance, etc. these software services can be customized by defining them through open system configuration tools and capabilities to be added to the IMA and displayed on MCD 122 via MCA unit 110. Information can be obtained from mission [or objective] subsystems 150. The information can include radar, forward looking infrared 152, ordnance and fire control status 154, and platform operation monitor status 156 (e.g., fuel consumption, altitude, location, engine operation, pressure, etc.
Kim ¶ [0026] A time-on-target tab can be selected by the AMC to access critical navigation information, along with information about whether the flight is ahead of or behind schedule. For example, the AMC can view the distance to the next waypoint, and be provided with information regarding speed, direction, altitude, and other flight parameters to arrive at the waypoint on time. In some implementations, the display can also provide information regarding upcoming changes to these parameters to reach the next, and other, subsequent waypoints. This ability to depict flight parameters provides the AMC with continual situation awareness of the flight parameters that the pilot flying should be aiming for.).
Claims 9,24 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,16 above.
Kim further teaches: “track a secondary plan, wherein the secondary plan comprises a secondary objective” (Kim ¶ [0013] 6th sentence: embodying systems and methods support the AMC in the goal of achieving a mission objective for a team of vehicle assets acting in concert as mission members. Specifically, ¶ [0019] 3rd sentence: Route management service 143 include algorithms to provide route management, fuel consumption/monitoring, ETA predictions, trajectory generation, track fusion, guidance, etc. For example, at ¶ [0011] presenting updated mission parameters to AMC allows that information to be used by the AMC in determining whether the remaining mission team can still be collectively viable to complete the mission. In accordance with embodiments, it provides multiple options of alternate [or second] mission scenarios that can be provided according to the revised mission parameters. For example, at ¶ [0004] 2nd sentence: the AMC could get updated intelligence information that there are hostile forces located in the primary [interpreted as first] ingress route, requiring him/her to decide whether they have fuel required to avoid the hostile [as second objective] by taking an alternate [or second] route [or plan]. Additional details at [0012],[0021] 3rd-5th sentences, [0026] 2nd-3rd sentences,[0027], [0028])
Claims 10,25 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,16 above.
Kim further teaches “store operational data associated with an execution of one or more tasks by the one or more processors” (Kim Fig.1 and Abstract: the MCA unit in communication with a data store, the control processor accessing executable instructions that cause the control processor to direct operations of components of the MCA unit, an alternate scenario evaluation unit accessing mission parameter records and flight member data records in the data store to recalculate mission parameters, a dynamic video interface unit to render the recalculated mission parameters on a mission control dashboard (MCD). ¶ [0020] 2nd sentence: detailed information about any of the vehicles in the flight [is] obtained from the flight member data record(s) 132. ¶ [0009] 3rd-4th sentences: the mission command systems receive flight member data records 132 from flight member aircraft 102A,B…N across electronic communication channel 160. The flight member data records include data on AMC’s aircraft), “wherein the stored operational data is used for subsequent analysis” (Kim ¶ [0010] If an unexpected situation develops limiting the mission capability for the flight members, alternate scenario evaluation unit 112 analyze flight member data received from the incapacitated members to recalculate mission parameters records 133 (e.g. fuel, stores, cargo capacity, etc.). Flight member data can be applied by MCA unit 110 to obtain mission team member status updates. These status updates can be rendered on mission control dashboard (MCD) 122 in about real-time by dynamic video interface unit 114. These recalculated mission parameters can be available to the AMC on MCD 122. ¶ [0012] 2nd sentence: Changing waypoints or landing zones can demand either a change in airspeed(s) for the remaining leg(s) of the flight, or a change in the time-on-target. ¶ [0026] 2nd-3rd sentences: For example, the AMC can view the distance to the next waypoint, and be provided with information regarding speed, direction, altitude, and other flight parameters to arrive at the waypoint on time. In some implementations, the display can also provide information regarding upcoming changes to these parameters to reach the next, and other, subsequent waypoints).
Claims 11,26 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claims 1,16 above.
Kim further teaches “wherein the one or more likely outcomes associated with the plan include a probability estimation corresponding to each of the one or more likely outcomes”.
(Kim ¶ [0019] 3rd sentence: route management service 143 include algorithms to provide… ETA [estimated time of arrival] predictions [or probabilities]. For example, at ¶ [0021] 4th-5th sentences: The display of the flight path include projection or estimation] of a zone (e.g. outlined area) representing the flight's projected optimal position that needs to be maintained to reach the mission landing zone on time. Deviation of the actual position from the zone provide to the AMC an immediate indication as to whether the AMC must speed up or slow down the flight to reach the objective area on time. Similarly, ¶ [0027] The time-on-target tab display depict for the AMC the planned time of arrival for each waypoint, as well as the estimated time of arrival and deviation for the flight's objective. The display include a projected [or estimated] deviation (plus or minus) so that the AMC can attempt to reduce the deviation by instructing adjustments to the flight's airspeed. ¶ [0028] 3rd- 4th sentences: The VSD also can display a predictive component, which projects [or estimates] the altitude over which vehicles must fly to avoid upcoming terrain. This functionality can reduce the number of controlled flights into terrain that are a leading cause of military helicopter crashes. ¶ [0024] 2nd-4th sentences: High-level status information as to whether the AMC is capable of completing the current mission as planned can be presented at the top of this pane. If the mission cannot be completed (either due to insufficient fuel or stores, or because the objective cannot be reached on time) a display status of the current mission can go from capable to incapable. This allows the AMC to monitor the overall status of a mission at a glance)
Claim 12 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claim 1 above.
Kim further teaches “at least one user interface communicatively coupled to the one or more processors” (Kim ¶ [0032] processor perform the functions and process of MCA unit 110 and MCD 122, disclosed above. ¶ [0009] 1st sentence: Fig.1 depicts mission command system MCS 100 include mission commander application (MCA) unit 110 which is direct communication with data store 130 and display unit 120. Indeed per ¶ [0008] 1st sentence: Embodying systems and methods provide a mission command graphical interface system that is simplified, adaptable, and extensible human-machine interface (HMI) and application framework to increase the operational effectiveness of the AMC in an ever-changing environment. ¶ [0010] 3rd sentence: These status updates can be rendered on mission control dashboard (MCD) 122 in about real-time by dynamic video interface unit 114. Also, ¶ [0016] 4th sentence: MCA unit provide the AMC with the ability to customize the display of information and specify a human machine interface (HMI) using both the templates 135 and autonomy algorithm toolbox 136. ¶ [0017] 3rd sentence: The MCD can layer imagery, terrain, and features using algorithm toolbox 136 to render custom interactive layers on the base map as part of the HMI through an interface provided by MCA unit 110. ¶ [0018] 1st sentence: HMI library 141 include a set of HMI components that MCA unit 110 can use to present dynamic data and accept user inputs. ¶ [0019] 4th sentence: these software services can be customized by defining them through open system configuration tools and capabilities to be added to the IMA and displayed on MCD 122 via the MCA unit 110)
Claims 13,27 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claim 12,16 above. Further,
Kim teaches “wherein the at least one user interface is configured to display at least one of the one or more insights” (Kim ¶ [0004], ¶[0010] If an unexpected situation develops limiting the mission capability for the flight members, alternate scenario evaluation unit 112 can analyze flight member data received from the incapacitated member(s) to recalculate mission parameters records 133 (e.g., fuel, stores, cargo capacity, etc.). Flight member data can be applied by MCA unit 110 to obtain mission team member status updates. These status updates can be rendered on mission control dashboard (MCD) 122 in about real-time by dynamic video interface unit 114. These recalculated mission parameters can be available to the AMC on MCD 122. ¶ [0011] Presenting updated mission parameters to the AMC allows that information to be used by AMC in determining whether the remaining mission team can still be collectively viable to complete the mission… it provides multiple options of alternate mission scenarios provided according to the revised mission parameters. ¶ [0012] Dynamic changes to the flight plan are cognitively taxing on AMC because the changes necessitate recalculation of fuel burn estimates, and also require the AMC to determine their impact on the flight time to destination. Changing waypoints or landing zones can demand either a change in airspeed(s) for the remaining leg(s) of the flight, or a change in the time-on-target. Embodying systems can display this information in an ergonomic form to provide the AMC these factors when making decisions that will change the flight plan. ¶ [0024] 2nd-4th sentences: High-level status information as to whether the AMC is capable of completing the current mission as planned can be presented at the top of this pane. If the mission cannot be completed (either due to insufficient fuel or stores, or because the objective cannot be reached on time) a display status of the current mission can go from capable to incapable. This allows the AMC to monitor the overall status of a mission at a glance) “or the outcome assessment to the user” (Kim ¶ [0011] 1st sentence: Presenting updated mission parameters to the AMC allows that information to be used by the AMC in determining whether the remaining mission team can still be collectively viable to complete the mission. ¶ [0019] 3rd sentence: route management service 143 include algorithms to provide… ETA [estimated time of arrival] predictions. For example, at
¶ [0021] 4th-5th sentences: The display of the flight path include projection of a zone (e.g. outlined area) representing the flight's projected optimal position that needs to be maintained to reach the mission landing zone on time. Deviation of the actual position from the zone can provide to the AMC an immediate indication as to whether the AMC must speed up or slow down the flight to reach the objective area on time. Similarly, ¶ [0027] The time-on-target tab display depict for the AMC the planned time of arrival for each waypoint, as well as the estimated time of arrival and deviation for the flight's objective. The display include a projected deviation (plus or minus) so that the AMC can attempt to reduce the deviation by instructing adjustments to the flight's airspeed.
¶ [0028] 3rd- 4th sentences: The VSD also can display a predictive component, which projects the altitude over which vehicles must fly to avoid upcoming terrain. This functionality can reduce the number of controlled flights into terrain that are a leading cause of military helicopter crashes.
¶ [0024] 2nd-4th sentences: High-level status information as to whether the AMC is capable of completing the current mission as planned can be presented at the top of this pane. If the mission cannot be completed (either due to insufficient fuel or stores, or because the objective cannot be reached on time) a display status of the current mission can go from capable to incapable. This allows the AMC to monitor the overall status of a mission at a glance)
Claims 14,28 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claim 12,16 above. Further,
Kim teaches “the at least one user interface is configured to allow the user to input and modify states or outputs associated with the mission”
(Kim ¶ [0018] HMI library 141 include HMI components that MCA unit 110 use to present dynamic data and accept user inputs. HMI library offer base capabilities (text, symbol-rendering etc.), along with widgets to manage user interaction, the display of common constructs (e.g. tabular lists, menus, tabular organization, etc.), and tools to configure HMIs and also to create IMA compatible display applications. ¶ [0004] On occasion AMC might need to make changes to the flight plan, which forces real-time recalculations of fuel burn projections for the vehicles in the flight. For example, the AMC could get updated intelligence information there are hostile forces located in the primary ingress route, requiring him/her to decide whether they have fuel required to avoid the hostile by taking an alternate route. Also ground commander of the unit being picked up in an air assault mission could request a change in landing zone. These types of rapidly changing situations require the AMC to make additional decisions about mission-capability under significant time pressure, with potentially serious consequences while piloting the aircraft.
Kim ¶ [0005] 3rd sentence: The AMC conducts photograph reconnaissance of the primary and alternate landing zones prior to departure, but these areas change by the time the flight actually reaches its destination. ¶ [0012] Dynamic changes to the flight plan are cognitively taxing on the AMC because the changes necessitate recalculation of fuel burn estimates, and also require AMC to determine their impact on the flight time to destination. Changing waypoints or landing zones can demand either a change in airspeed(s) for the remaining leg(s) of the flight, or a change in the time-on-target. Embodying systems display this information in an ergonomic form to provide the AMC these factors when making decisions that will change the flight plan.
Kim ¶ [0014] An embodying mission commander application can be enabled by Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) real-time computer network airborne systems, an Open Display System Architecture (ODSA), and supporting tools. This ecosystem provides the ability to add and modify the capabilities of the mission system by the system integrator. ¶ [0016] 4th sentence: The MCA [mission commander application] unit provide the AMC [air mission commander] with ability to customize [or modify] the display of information and specify a human machine interface (HMI) using both templates 135 and autonomy algorithm [or rules] toolbox 136)
Kim ¶ [0031] 2nd-4th sentences: The AMC can be notified of a new message or intelligence report via a notification section in the LAD. When the AMC selects a message in the TCDU, there can be an option to acknowledge (which sends a notification to the message sender), or send a response. Acknowledging or responding to a message removes the notification for that message; thus, the AMC always has quick status information as to the number of messages that have not been addressed).
Claims 15,29 Kim / Stoyen teaches all the limitations in claim 12,16 above. Further,
Kim teaches: “wherein the at least one user interface is configured to display at least one of the objective” (Kim ¶ [0013] 2nd, 5th sentences: mission commander system provides the AMC with information in an efficient manner for strategic management of the flight, mission assets, and mission goal. Embodying systems and methods support a mission commander (e.g., AMC) in the goal of achieving a mission objective for a team of vehicle assets acting in concert as mission members), “the set of tasks” (Kim ¶ [0013] 1st sentence: mission commander system 100 is a framework that can support tasks associated with commanding an air squadron while executing a mission. To this end at ¶ [0020] 3rd sentence: The middle display configured by AMC to show images from camera manager application 116 or detailed information about any of the vehicles in the flight obtained from the flight members and/or stored in flight member data record(s) 132. ¶ [0028] 2nd-5th sentences: The VSD also display a predictive component, which projects the altitude over which vehicles must fly to avoid upcoming terrain. This functionality can reduce the number of controlled flights into terrain that are a leading cause of military helicopter crashes. Also, the VSD information can reduce the requirement for the AMC and other crewmembers to devote substantial visual attention to the surrounding airspace to monitor the positions of other vehicles) “and the plan to the user” (Kim ¶ [0021] 5th sentence: Deviation of the actual position from the zone can provide to the AMC an immediate indication as to whether the AMC must speed up or slow down the flight to reach the objective area on time. ¶ [0027] 1st sentence: The time-on-target tab display can also depict for the AMC the planned time of arrival for each waypoint, as well as the estimated time of arrival and deviation for the flight's objective).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Heinze et al, Plan recognition in military simulation: Incorporating machine learning with intelligent agents, InProceedings of IJCAI-99 Workshop on Team Behaviour and Plan Recognition, pp. 53-64, Mar 1999
EP 3432106 A1 teaching Dynamic human machine interface system for supporting air mission commander of flight of rotary wing aircraft, has mission control dashboard that includes display pane area configurable by user interaction to change content of display panel
US 20100094547 A1 Navigation device interface reciting at ¶ [0022] 4th sentence: The reproduction of the track can also be controlled using the more conventional play, rewind, and fast forward controls 16.
US 20120154407 A1 ¶ [0055] An encoded simulation result has the same format as a general moving picture file (e.g., *.avi, *.asf, or *.wmv), and thus enables play, stop, pause, fast-forward, and drag & play that can be used for general moving picture files. Thus, when a client plays a simulation result, it is convenient to control the simulation result.
US 20150382031 A1 ¶ [0003] 1st sentence: …”common feature of digital video systems that simulate the visual feedback of traditional fast-forward”…
US 5646676 A column 14 lines 22-27: Examples of inter-transmission commands simulate well-known VCR functions, e.g. Fast Forward, Rewind, Pause, etc.
US 20230409993 A1 Identification of simulation-driven optimized indication and warning cutoffs for situation-specific courses of action
US 20200167607 A1 Determining One or More Actions to Carry Out in an Environment
US 20080177688 A1 managing a chaotic event by providing optimal and adaptive sequencing of decision sets with supporting data
US 20210343177 A1 multi-user simulator implemented via a scenario exercise platform
emphasis on ¶ [0061] 2nd sentence: In some embodiments, the scenarios may be stored in a library on a database. ¶ [0060] 6th sentence: The military scenarios that are created, using the enhanced UI, may be uploaded to an application store to enable other authorized users (military personnel) to download the military scenarios. ¶ [0070] 5th-6th sentences: Completed military scenarios including actions taken and responses to the actions for each turn in the completed military scenarios may be saved for subsequent playback. For example, a trainer may show the saved completed military scenario to users to explain what the right and wrong actions were during the completed military scenario. ¶ [0070] 3rd sentence: databases 129 and/or 130 may store data pertaining to military scenarios, users, roles, results of the military scenarios, and the like. The results may be stored for each user and may be tracked over time to determine whether a user is improving or worsening at their role. ¶ [0071] 4th-5th sentences: The expert system may be configured to advise, provide demonstrations and instructions, derive solutions, diagnose, interpret inputs and provide relevant outputs, predict results, justify and conclude, and/or suggest alternative solutions to a problem. The expert system may use a knowledge base stored in the database 129.
US 20220207220 A1 battleflow analysis and decision support
US 20080065576 A1 System and method for optimally customizable and adaptive personalized information display for information associated with managing a chaotic event
US 7330844 B2 intelligent agent decision making for tactical aerial warfare
US 11842313 B1 conducting on-demand human performance assessments using unstructured data from multiple sources
US 10249197 B2 mission planning via formal verification and supervisory controller synthesis
US 20230214007 A1 Virtual reality de-escalation tool for delivering electronic impulses to targets with emphasis on ¶ [0036] last two sentences: Further, the first modification results in a first new simulation scenario and the second modification results in a second new simulation scenario. The first new simulation scenario is more favorable as compared to the second new simulation scenario. Additionally, the method may also include delivering electronic impulses to the user based on the user’s actions.
US 20170309198 A1 Determining mission readiness
US 7451023 B2 Collaborative system for a team of unmanned vehicles
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 OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
June 13th, 2026
1 MPEP 2106.04(a): instructing that “…examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible…”.
2 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2, #3
3 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III citing Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
4 Per MPEP 2106.04(a): “…examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible…”.
5 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Prosecution Insights