DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to claims in application 18/522,499 filed on 10/20/2025.
The instant application claims no benefit to any provisional application.
The Pre-Grant publication # 20250174145 is published on 5/29/2025.
Claims 1-16, 18-21 are pending.
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 1-16,18-21 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) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, 11, 16 recites an abstract idea of receiving a request to determine a training program for a member of an entity from a requestor, determining training skill scores, operation skill scores, determining, first anomalous state probability profile and additional anomalous state probability profiles for the member based on the member having additional training from sets of one or more training courses to generating a training program specifying progress in training progress. The steps of analyzing data by mathematical algorithm (determining steps for first anomalous state probability profile and additional anomalous state probability profiles) and issuing instructions (generating a training program) have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea. See e.g. Alice Cor, 573 U.S. at 225 (using a computer-implemented system “to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions” based on priority order of training courses does not result in the claim being non-abstract. This falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas subject to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Specifically, the claims recite the steps shown below, annotated to recite the corresponding abstract mental process and/or instance of managing interactions between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, and/or a certain method of managing interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, respectively. The analysis of skills and operation by trainees using verified algorithm is use of existing mathematical relationships, formulas. Hence are mathematical concepts. Accordingly, the claims recite one or more groupings of abstract idea(s). (Step 2A” Prong One, Yes).
The above Judicial Exceptions as indicated above are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of using computer, internet-connected platform, and database to perform the claimed method steps for “training skill scores” based on training history, and “operations skill score” based on operation history. The internet-connected platform, computer, and data base all recited at a high-level of generality (e.g., a generic computer system for capturing, storing and analyzing data over a network) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component under MPEP §2106.05(f)&(h). Moreover, these generic, additional elements thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea under MPEP §2106.05(b)(c)&(e). They appears to fail to provide an improvement to the technical field of providing training assessments under MPEP §2106.05(a) and merely recite the use of a computer as a tool to automate existing mental and human operated practices. Any improved technical features implemented in the provision of the system is devoid from the claim language. The additional limitation in the present claims are seen more as a drafting effort toward eligibility than any meaningful employed elements that confine the claims. For example, claim 1 merely recites "a computer" and an “internet-connected platform” which are recited as pertaining to a generic purpose computer acting over a network as per MPEP§2106.05(d)(II)(i-iv), particularly TLI Communications and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc.. Powers teaches the claimed "image database" for storing images and generic storage and retrieval of stored data is conventional based upon the specification which relies upon the well-known nature of such databases for sufficient written description support and as per Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under (Step 2A: Prong two, No).
As analyzed, the claims as drafted do not make improvements to another technology or technical field, improve the function of a computer itself, utilize a particular machine, transform a particular article to a different state, have specific limitations or unconventional steps that limit the scope of the claim to a particular useful application beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a computerized environment, or recite an inventive concept of any form therein. Accordingly, the claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) to which they are directed under Step 2B. As an example in case of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, the activities of storing and retrieving of information in a memory of consumer electronic for a field of use purposes are recognized to be computer functions well-understood, routine, and conventional, when they are claimed in a merely generic manner. Further, there found to be no additional elements here in the claim recitation that improves the functioning of a computer itself to overcome the abstract idea rejection (Step 2B: No).
All dependent claims have been analyzed and do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims. For further exemplification of the dependent claims, claims 2-9 simply further exemplify aspects of aircraft pilot applications, training knowledge base storage, updating data lake, determining degree of deviation, training course information and documentation method are generic computer use for mental processes, certain organization of human activities and analysis. Claims 10, 12-15 highlights some outputs, device application admitted as conventional as per the specification which relies upon the well-known nature of applications for sufficient written description support and is officially noted as conventional herein. Claims 17-20 focused on aircraft applications, some monitored conditions, update on data lake relevant to training program are conventional as per the specification which relies upon the well-known nature of captured stored information. These further limitations do not direct the claims to a practical application or amount to significantly more than the monopolization of the aforementioned judicial exception and are thus rejected.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant's arguments/amendments filed on October 20, 2025 have been considered.
35USC101
Applicant on pages 7-12 in remarks filed 10/20/2025 refers to the specificity of
Avionic training tied to determining training skill scores as well as operation skill
scores. Paragraphs 0004-0006, 0070 of the specification could be referred. Please refer para 0079 for preflight icing procedures and route dependencies example.
However the amendment only specifies generation of training program simply based on priority order of one or more training courses. Though anomalous state profile are factor in general, amendments of Claims 1 and 16 appear to be not amounting towards
integrating data.
The steps of analyzing data by mathematical algorithm (determining steps for anomalous and non-anomalous state probability profile) to provide instructions (generating a training program) have been determined to be directed to an abstract idea. See e.g. Alice Cor, 573 U.S. at 225 (using a computer-implemented system “to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions” did not result in the claim being non-abstract).
Referring to non-binding Example 47, claim 3 of pages 10-13 and example 49 claim 2
of pages 29,30 , an abstract idea may include multiple steps or functions (i.e., collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory). Thus, an abstract idea is not limited to a single step or function. Recitation of additional elements further limiting the claimed invention to a particular technological environment (i.e., servers, databases, computer-readable non-transitory storage medium) may limit an abstract idea to a particular technological environment but does not mean the claim is directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
35USC101 rejection maintained.
35USC103
Applicant on pages 12-16 in remarks filed 10/20/2025, the prior art on record describes a system that determines "likelihood of presence of anomaly in a target system based on the accuracy of the predictions". The art describes a way of analyzing system behavior to determine whether the system is in an anomalous state or a non-anomalous state.
The art on record not teaching or suggesting the features of independent claim determining training skill scores and operation skill scores for a member to determine a first anomalous state probability profile for a member and determining of additional anomalous state probability profiles for a member.
The instant case generating training program for the member based on the first anomalous state probability profile and the additional anomalous state probability profiles, wherein the training program also specifies a priority order of one or more training courses for the member. 35USC103 rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADARUZ ZAMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3137. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm CST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.Z/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
February 6, 2026
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715