CTFR 18/457,164 CTFR 88425 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Application Status Present office action is in response to amendment filed 02/10/2026. Claims 1-10, 16, and 18 are amended. Claims 11-15 are cancelled. Claims 21-25 are added. Claims 1-10 and 16-25 are currently pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-10 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1: Statutory Category? Independent claims 1, 11 and 16 respectively recite a computer-implemented method (i.e., a “process”), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a “manufacture”) and a system (i.e., a “machine”). Thus, each of the claims recites a recognized statutory category of § 101. (Step 1: YES). Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Independent claim 1, analyzed as representative of the claimed subject matter, is reproduced below. The limitations determined to be abstract ideas are shown in italics . The additional element(s) recited at a high level of generality are shown in bold . The limitation(s) determined to be extra-solution activity are underlined . A method, comprising: [L1] using one or more audio sensors to capture verbal communication from one or more users within a physical environment ; [L2] generating a textual representation of the verbal communication from the one or more users within the physical environment ; [L3] generating a communicated state of the physical environment based on the textual representation ; [L4] using one or more instruments to detect one or more measured characteristics of the physical environment ; [L5] determining an actual state of the physical environment based on the one or more measured characteristics of the physical environment as detected by the one or more instruments ; [L6] comparing the communicated state of the physical environment based on the textural representation with the actual state of the physical environment as detected by the one or more instruments ; and [L7] in response to the comparing, automatically providing an alert to at least one of the one or more users . The originally filed disclosure as reproduced in the published Specification discloses (¶¶ 2, 3) that “human instructors are typically responsible for the monitoring and assessment of students' communication skills during aviation training activities. The assessment of crew communication during training sessions conducted in flight training devices (e.g. flat panel trainers, full-flight simulators, or any other suitable flight training devices) is conducted by the human instructor who is facilitating the training session. This human-in-the-loop activity introduces subjectivity to the assessment process, potentially leading to misclassifications of communication performance and other errors. Further, access to expert human instructors is limited, which in turn limits the amount of training that can be conducted. Automated training systems are designed to provide greater opportunity for students to engage in training activities by reducing the reliance on expert human instructors”. It is apparent that, other than reciting the additional non-abstract limitations of the “ one or more audio sensors ” and “ one or more instruments ” noted above, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human, in the mind, and/or using pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation of the “ one or more audio sensors ” and “ one or more instruments ” does not take the claim out of the method of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). The lack of details about the “ one or more audio sensors ” and “ one or more instruments ” indicates that these additional elements are generic, or part of generic computer elements performing or being used in performing the generic functions to “capture”, “detect” and for “providing an alert”. Any improvements provided by the claim are in the abstract realm, and they are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC , 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.”). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc. , 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012) (holding that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless patent-ineligible). Also see also Synopsys , 839 F.3d at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (Emphasis omitted). The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claimed invention merely implements the abstract idea using instructions executed on generic computer components, as shown in bold type in Table One, and as supported in the above noted pertinent portions of the Specification. Thus, the instant claim merely uses a programmed computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Step [L1] “capture verbal communications” (i.e., data gathering), [L4] “detect one or more measured characteristics” (i.e., data gathering), and [L5] “detect one or more measured characteristics” (i.e., data presentation/transmission) as shown above, reflects the type of extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception) the courts have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also In re Bilski , 545 F.3d at 963 (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); Elec. Power Grp. , 830 F.3d at 1353 (holding that collecting information is an abstract idea). The instant claim as a whole merely uses computer instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Hence, the claim limitations amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment (a computer) in which to apply a judicial exception and, as such, cannot integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). Hence, as per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), the additional elements in representative claim 1, namely the “ one or more audio sensors ” and “ one or more instruments ” do not, either individually or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application, the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Because the Specification, as noted above (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 67, 70) describes the “ one or more audio sensors ” and “ one or more instruments ” in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the published Specification sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). See MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. Furthermore, the Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III (A)(1) explains that a specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co. , 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The claimed mobile interface is so lacking in implementation details that it amounts to merely a generic component (software, hardware, or firmware) that permits the performance of the abstract idea, i.e., to retrieve the user-specific resources.” The generic description of “ one or more audio sensors ” and “ one or more instruments ” indicates the steps are well-known enough that no further description is required for a skilled artisan to understand the process. That is, the recited data gathering (i.e., [L1] “capture verbal communications”, [L4] “detect one or more measured characteristics”) and data presentation/transmission (i.e., [L5] “detect one or more measured characteristics”), were nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because they are not distinguished from the generic receiving, and obtaining of information with a computer. See buySAFE , “[t]hat a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.” 765 F.3d at 1355. Hence, the additional elements are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. The use of the additional elements either alone or in combination amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent ineligible. (Step 2B: NO). In regard to independent Claim 11: Independent claim 11 recites “ a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing computer program code that, when executed by operation of one or more computer processors, performs operations comprising ” steps comparable to those of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 11 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1. In regard to independent Claim 16: Independent claim 16 recites “ a system, comprising: a computer processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon which, when executed on the computer processor, performs operations comprising ” steps comparable to those of representative claim 1. Accordingly, independent claim 16 is rejected for reasons similar to those previously explained when addressing representative claim 1. In regard to the dependent claims: Dependent claims 2-10 and 17-25 include all the limitations of corresponding independent claims 1, 11 and 16 from which they depend and, as such, recite the same abstract idea(s) noted above for corresponding independent claims 1, 11 and 16. Any additional claim element is recited as being used according to its conventional purpose in a conventional manner. The Examiner fails to see any claim activity used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. An invocation to use known technology in the manner it is intended to be used for its ordinary purpose is both generic and conventional. As per MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h), none of the limitations of claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-25 integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Additionally, while dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-25 may have a narrower scope than corresponding independent claims 1, 11 and 16, no claim contains an “inventive concept” that transforms the corresponding claim into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea(s). Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-25 are not drawn to patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Response to Arguments In regard to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant simply states that “claim 1 has been amended to recite, in part, "one or more audio sensors" and "one or more instruments," which are physical structures, and not abstract ideas. Claim 16 has been similarly amended. For at least these reasons, the Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.” The rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been updated as shown above and not repeated herein. The prior art rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and remarks. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 EDDY SAINT-VIL whose telephone number is (571)272-9845. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:30 AM -6:00 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PETER VASAT can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /EDDY SAINT-VIL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 2 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 3 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 4 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 5 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 6 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 7 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 8 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 9 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 10 Art Unit: 3715 Application/Control Number: 18/457,164 Page 11 Art Unit: 3715
Prosecution Insights