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. DETAILED ACTION Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 20 December 2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word “comprises” should be changed to “includes”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. C laim s 1 (and depending claims 2-20) recite “ A signaling method for signaling, in an aircraft having at least one rotary wing, obstacles present in a surrounding space situated outside the aircraft, wherein the signaling method comprises an initialization comprising an in-flight determination of a mapping reference frame provided with a vertical axis in the terrestrial reference frame, and a series of operating cycles, each operating cycle comprising: acquiring, with at least one LiDAR obstacle sensor, positioning data in a reference frame of the obstacle sensor, each positioning data relating to a position of an obstacle point present on an obstacle in the surrounding space in relation to the obstacle sensor; constructing, during the flight, a three-dimensional map of the surrounding space, and positioning the aircraft in the map, by applying a simultaneous localization and mapping process based at least on the positioning data, the map being generated in the mapping reference frame; and displaying, during the flight, on a display of the aircraft, an aircraft symbol showing the aircraft and a two-dimensional representation, restricted to the display, of at least a part of the map containing the aircraft and unlimited in altitude, each point displayed in the representation being associated with a level of risk that varies as a function of a relative altitude between an obstacle of the surrounding space associated with this displayed point and the aircraft, each displayed point of the representation being displayed according to a graphic charter taking the associated level of risk into consideration. ” Claim s 1-20, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “ acquiring, with at least one LiDAR obstacle sensor, positioning data in a reference frame of the obstacle sensor, each positioning data relating to a position of an obstacle point present on an obstacle in the surrounding space in relation to the obstacle sensor; constructing, during the flight, a three-dimensional map of the surrounding space, and positioning the aircraft in the map, by applying a simultaneous localization and mapping process based at least on the positioning data, the map being generated in the mapping reference frame; and displaying, during the flight, on a display of the aircraft, an aircraft symbol showing the aircraft and a two-dimensional representation, restricted to the display, of at least a part of the map containing the aircraft and unlimited in altitude, each point displayed in the representation being associated with a level of risk that varies as a function of a relative altitude between an obstacle of the surrounding space associated with this displayed point and the aircraft, each displayed point of the representation being displayed according to a graphic charter taking the associated level of risk into consideration. ” As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “ acquiring, with at least one LiDAR obstacle sensor, positioning data in a reference frame of the obstacle sensor, each positioning data relating to a position of an obstacle point present on an obstacle in the surrounding space in relation to the obstacle sensor; constructing, during the flight, a three-dimensional map of the surrounding space, and positioning the aircraft in the map, by applying a simultaneous localization and mapping process based at least on the positioning data, the map being generated in the mapping reference frame; and displaying, during the flight, on a display of the aircraft, an aircraft symbol showing the aircraft and a two-dimensional representation, restricted to the display, of at least a part of the map containing the aircraft and unlimited in altitude, each point displayed in the representation being associated with a level of risk that varies as a function of a relative altitude between an obstacle of the surrounding space associated with this displayed point and the aircraft, each displayed point of the representation being displayed according to a graphic charter taking the associated level of risk into consideration. ” ; therefore, the claim s recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claim s recite a mental process, and thus, the claim s recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claim s recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of“[a] computer- implemented method” and “the method is carried out by one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions ” as recited in claim s 1 9 and 20 , individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. apply it), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field as evinced by Applicant’s Specification at [0 148 ] (describing that the disclosure is not limited to the disclosed implementations, but, on the contrary, is intended to cover modifications and equivalent arrangements that are within the spirit and scope of the appended claims) . Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2- 20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions that are used to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Damiani (US 11,862,030) discloses a method for detecting obstacles in the vicinity of an aircraft , that includes: examining a surrounding space by means of an obstacle sensor, the obstacle sensor generating positioning data relating to a plurality of obstacle points; determining, from among the obstacle points, each relevant point situated within a predetermined detection volume, the detection volume being different from the surrounding space; and displaying the relevant points on a display. Nikolajevic et al (US 10,062,293) disclose a safety system seeking to avoid an undesirable event while piloting a helicopter , that includes a computer making it possible at any instant t to generate a three-dimensional envelope of fallback paths for the helicopter, the envelope being obtained by calculating, at the instant t , a set of positions that can be reached by the helicopter during a predetermined flight duration, the computer having parameters previously set with data relating to the flight capabilities of the helicopter and including at least one of the following capabilities: maximum speeds and accelerations in all three spatial directions, minimum turning radii for yaw, nose-down, and/or nose-up movements, maximum weight of the transported load, and maximum stresses. Ott (US 9,583,011) discloses a system of an aircraft for signaling the presence of an obstacle during visual flight, that includes at least one onboard unit to be installed in an aircraft to be equipped, which onboard unit includes an onboard database that stores at least one obstacle to be avoided during flight. The onboard unit includes an interface to be installed in the aircraft and whose function is to authorize the addition and the deletion of obstacles in the onboard database, with the interface being in communication with the onboard database. Con tact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN H DO whose telephone number is (571)272-2143 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00am-4:00pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration t ool. To schedule an interview, a pplicant 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, Ricardo Magallanes can be reached on 571-272- 5960. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /AN H DO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853