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 Applicant's Amendment and Remarks filed on 2/11/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
(A) Applicant's arguments filed “Applicant has amended claims 1 - 10 without acquiescence to the Office Action's reasons for rejection, and without disclaimer of the ability to pursue the subject matter these claims prior to amendment. No new matter has been introduced, and support for the claim amendments is provided below. Claims 1 - 10 are presented for examination.” on 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (A), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the amendment in claim 9 and 10 including the limitation of “obtainer”, “deliverer”, “adder”, “filter”, and “transmitter” are not disclosed in the specification indicating introduction of new matter.
(B) Applicant's arguments filed “At Paragraphs 5 - 7, the Office Action indicates that the terms "obtaining module", "addition module", "filtering module", "transmission module" and "delivery module" in claims 9 and 10 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112, sixth paragraph to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Applicant has amended claims 9 and 10.” on 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (B), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the limitation recited in amended claim 9-10 including “obtainer”, “deliverer”, “adder”, “filter”, and “transmitter” does not indicate corresponding structure performing the claimed function. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose “obtainer”, “deliverer”, “adder”, “filter”, and “transmitter” and the examiner is unable to determine the corresponding structure.
(C) Applicant's arguments filed “At 101 Analysis - Step 2B on pages 10 and 11, the Office Action asserts that claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. However, Applicant respectfully submits that the claim elements (i) "at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment items", and (ii) "transmitting, to at least one other equipment item, only the at least first relevant datum to be used" do indeed amount to significantly more than a mental process. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention displays information to a user, which necessarily involves, given that the invention is implemented by an electronic device, a control signal being sent to an electronic display to control the latter for the purpose of communicating at least one piece of relevant data to a user of the display. Additionally, the claimed invention calculates a command for the aircraft. Such a command is necessarily an electrical signal that involves an action on the aircraft that may be transmitted to an electronic device, and a human being could not determine such a signal.” on 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (C), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the limitations of “obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment items, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment items” and “transmitting, to another equipment item, only the at least one second relevant datum for display to a respective user of the other equipment item” merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea. In particular, “obtaining a set of data” indicated data gathering while “transmitting, to another equipment item, only the at least one second relevant datum for display to a respective user of the other equipment item” indicated data outputting. Lastly, “computing, a command of the aircraft by the other equipment item” encompasses the user mentally determining a command and the claim does not recite generating an electrical signal.
(D) Applicant's arguments filed “Applicant notes that at pages 22 and 23, the Office Action cites paragraph [0039] of Whitlow as teaching the above features. However, Applicant respectfully submits that at paragraph [0039], Whitlow describes selection of a briefing report, which includes information about airports, runways, alternate fight paths and operational conditions. At page 20, the Office Action cites paragraph [0031] of Whitlow and maps the claimed set of data with the data emitted, measured and/or provided by Whitlow's flight status data sources. As such, the data in Whitlow's briefing report is fundamentally different than the claimed set of data. Furthermore, in claim 1 concatenation of the first relevant data forms the set of data obtained, which is different than the data from the flight status data sources of Whitlow, since the Office Action maps the second relevant data (now amended to first relevant data) to Whitlow's briefing report.” on 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (D), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes Para 39 of Whitlow disclosed “the briefing report types include information about airports, runways, alternate flight paths, and operational conditions”. The operational conditions corresponds to Para 31 of Whitlow “the sources of flight status data generate, measure, and/or provide different types of data related to the operational status of the host aircraft, the environment in which the host aircraft is operating, flight parameters, and the like”. Lastly, Para 39 of Whitlow disclosed “In response to receiving a pilot selection of a briefing report type, the EMMS 204 cooperates with the Human Factors Module (HFM 206) and the Combiner 210 to assemble all of the information that is current and relevant to the pilot selection of a briefing report type, and provides to the display device 104 an abbreviated report of the information and options available to the pilot” wherein the concatenation of the first relevant data is encompassed by an abbreviated report of the information.
(E) Applicant's arguments filed “For the same reasons set forth hereinabove regarding claim 1, the above feature is neither shown nor suggested by Whitlow. Because claim 10 depends from claim 9 and includes additional features, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 10 is not anticipated or rendered obvious by Whitlow.” on 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to point (E), the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner further notes the reasoning for claim 1 was not persuasive and claim 1 is still fully rejected under 35 USC §102, therefore claims 9 and 10 reciting similar limitations are fully rejected under 35 USC §102.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “obtainer”, “deliverer”, “adder” in claim 9-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Upon review, the specification does not provide the corresponding structure for the claim limitations (see 112(a)/(b)/ rejection below), however for the purpose of prosecution, “obtainer”, “deliverer”, “adder” are interpreted as software module executed on computers.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended claim recited the limitation of “obtainer”, “deliverer”, “adder”, “filter”, and “transmitter” which was not described in the specification. The amendment therefor is directed to new matters.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Independent claim 9 and Dependent claim 8 recited “obtainer”, “deliverer”, “adder” without providing the written description in the specification or drawing of their corresponding structure.
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.
Claim limitation “obtainer”, “deliverer”, “adder” in claims 9 and 10 have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the structure for these limitation are not written in the description. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to A method for sharing data between equipment items (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-7 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for reminder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for sharing data between equipment items, each equipment item comprising a display screen, at least one equipment item being comprised in an aircraft, the aircraft carrying out a flight mission, the method being implemented by an electronic data sharing system and comprising the following operations for one of the equipment items:
obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment items, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment items, comprising:
receiving data coming from the sensor and/or determined by the equipment item;
selecting, among the received data, first relevant data, the first relevant data being relevant for a user of the equipment item, for controlling the equipment item within the framework of the mission; and
concatenating the selected first relevant data to form the set of data coming from the equipment item;
adding the set of data to a common group, the common group including data common to all equipment items;
filtering the data of the common group via filtering rules specific to the mission, so as to determine at least one second relevant datum, the at least one second relevant datum being relevant for successfully completing the flight mission; and
transmitting, to another equipment item, only the at least one second relevant datum for display to a respective user of the other equipment item, or for computing, a command of the aircraft by the other equipment item.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a "mental process" and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation by a user or in the human mind. For example, “adding the set of data to a common group, the common group including data common to all equipment items” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping data. Similarly, the limitation of "filtering the data of the common group via filtering rules specific to the mission, so as to determine at least one second relevant datum, the at least one second relevant datum being relevant for successfully completing the flight mission" in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally filtering data. The limitation of “selecting, among the received data, first relevant data, the first relevant data being relevant for a user of the equipment item, for controlling the equipment item within the framework of the mission” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally selecting important data. Lastly, the limitation of “concatenating the selected first relevant data to form the set of data coming from the equipment item” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally memorizing important data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole, integrates the abstract into a partial application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for sharing data between equipment items, each equipment item comprising a display screen, at least one equipment item being comprised in an aircraft, the aircraft carrying out a flight mission, the method being implemented by an electronic data sharing system and comprising the following operations for one of the equipment items:
obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment items, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment items, comprising:
receiving data coming from the sensor and/or determined by the equipment item;
selecting, among the received data, first relevant data, the first relevant data being relevant for a user of the equipment item, for controlling the equipment item within the framework of the mission; and
concatenating the selected first relevant data to form the set of data coming from the equipment item;
adding the set of data to a common group, the common group including data common to all equipment items;
filtering the data of the common group via filtering rules specific to the mission, so as to determine at least one second relevant datum, the at least one second relevant datum being relevant for successfully completing the flight mission; and
transmitting, to another equipment item, only the at least one second relevant datum for display to a respective user of the other equipment item, or for computing, a command of the aircraft by the other equipment item.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment items, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment items” and “receiving data coming from the sensor and/or determined by the equipment item”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “obtaining a set of data” and “receiving data” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmitting, to another equipment item, only the at least one second relevant datum for display to a respective user of the other equipment item, or for computing, a command of the aircraft by the other equipment item”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “transmitting … only the at least one second relevant datum” indicate post-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of outputting data for use in a claimed process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add no thing that is nor already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2 106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment items, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment items” and “receiving data coming from the sensor and/or determined by the equipment item”, and “transmitting, to another equipment item, only the at least one second relevant datum for display to a respective user of the other equipment item, or for computing, a command of the aircraft by the other equipment item”, the examiner submits that the limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea as previously discussed.
Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “during the filtering step, a respective predefined filtering rule is used to obtain the data needed for the development of a corrective action to be implemented by the aircraft in order to manage the anomaly” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 3, the claim recites “the anomaly belongs to a predefined set of anomalies and, for each anomaly, a set of corrective action(s) and a set of filtering rules is predefined” which further narrowing the abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites further narrowing limitation on the “the set of data” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 5, the claim recites further narrowing limitation on the “the set of data” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites further narrowing limitation on the “the respective set of data coming from each equipment item is added to the same group of data group common to all equipment items” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim recites further narrowing limitation on the “an enrichment operation during which the at least one secondary relevant datum is added to the respective set of data of a further equipment item” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As per claim 8, it recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to implement a method according to claim 1” having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis-Step 1
Claims 9-10 are directed to An electronic data sharing system between equipment items (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 9-10 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for reminder of the 101 rejection. Claim 9 recites:
An electronic data sharing system between equipment items, at least one equipment item being comprised in an aircraft, each equipment item comprising a display screen, the aircraft carrying out a flight mission, the electronic sharing system comprising for one of the equipment items:
an obtainer obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment item, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment item;
a deliverer:
receiving data coming from sensor(s) associated with the equipment item and/or determined by the equipment item;
selecting from among the received data, first relevant data, the first relevant data being relevant for a user of the equipment item, in order to control said equipment item within the framework of the mission; and
concatenating the selected first relevant data to form the set of data coming from the equipment item;
an adder adding the set of data to a common group, the common group including data common to all equipment items;
a filter filtering the data of the common group via filtering rules specific to the mission, so as to determine at least one first relevant datum, the at least one first relevant datum being relevant for the successful completion of the flight mission; and
a transmitter transmitting to at least one other equipment item, only the at least second relevant datum to be used for display to a respective user of the other equipment item, or for computation, by another equipment, of a command of that aircraft.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a "mental process" and/or “certain methods of organizing human activity” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation by a user or in the human mind. For example, “adding the set of data to a common group, the common group including data common to all equipment items” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally grouping data. Similarly, the limitation of "filtering the data of the common group via filtering rules specific to the mission, so as to determine at least one first relevant datum, the at least one first relevant datum being relevant for the successful completion of the flight mission" in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally filtering data. The limitation of “selecting from among the received data, first relevant data, the first relevant data being relevant for a user of the equipment item, in order to control said equipment item within the framework of the mission” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally selecting important data. Lastly, the limitation of “concatenating the selected first relevant data to form the set of data coming from the equipment item” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally memorizing important data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim as a whole, integrates the abstract into a partial application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An electronic data sharing system between equipment items, at least one equipment item being comprised in an aircraft, each equipment item comprising a display screen, the aircraft carrying out a flight mission, the electronic sharing system comprising for one of the equipment items:
an obtainer obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment item, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment item;
a deliverer:
receiving data coming from sensor(s) associated with the equipment item and/or determined by the equipment item;
selecting from among the received data, first relevant data, the first relevant data being relevant for a user of the equipment item, in order to control said equipment item within the framework of the mission; and
concatenating the selected first relevant data to form the set of data coming from the equipment item;
an adder adding the set of data to a common group, the common group including data common to all equipment items;
a filter filtering the data of the common group via filtering rules specific to the mission, so as to determine at least one first relevant datum, the at least one first relevant datum being relevant for the successful completion of the flight mission; and
a transmitter transmitting to at least one other equipment item, only the at least second relevant datum to be used for display to a respective user of the other equipment item, or for computation, by another equipment, of a command of that aircraft.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “an obtainer”; “a deliverer”; “an adder”; “a filter”; and “a transmitter”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the modules recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as computer modules performing a generic computer function of gathering data and computing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the additional limitations of “obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment item, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment item” and “receiving data coming from sensor(s) associated with the equipment item and/or determined by the equipment item”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “obtain a set of data” and “receive data” indicate pre-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmitting to at least one other equipment item, only the at least second relevant datum to be used for display to a respective user of the other equipment item, or for computation, by another equipment, of a command of that aircraft”, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere data outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, “transmitting … only the at least second relevant datum” indicate post-solution activity such that it amounts no more than a step of outputting data for use in a claimed process.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add no thing that is nor already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2 106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis-Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an obtainer”; “a deliverer”; “an adder”; “a filter”; and “a transmitter” amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, regarding the additional limitation of “obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment item, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment item”, “receiving data coming from sensor(s) associated with the equipment item and/or determined by the equipment item”, and “transmitting to at least one other equipment item, only the at least second relevant datum to be used for display to a respective user of the other equipment item, or for computation, by another equipment, of a command of that aircraft”, the examiner submits that the limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the at least one abstract idea as previously discussed.
Hence the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim(s) 9 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim recites “the electronic sharing system is a decentralized system comprising a plurality of elementary electronic devices” which is mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitlow (US20170011635A1).
Regarding claim 1, Whitlow teaches A method for sharing data between equipment items, each equipment item comprising a display screen, at least one equipment item being comprised in an aircraft, the aircraft carrying out a flight mission, the method being implemented by an electronic data sharing system and comprising the following operations for one of the equipment items:
obtaining a set of data coming from the equipment items, at least one datum of the set of data coming from a sensor associated with the equipment items(Whitlow: Para 31 “the sources of flight status data generate, measure, and/or provide different types of data related to the operational status of the host aircraft, the environment in which the host aircraft is operating, flight parameters, and the like. In practice, the sources of flight status data may be realized using line replaceable units (LRUs), transducers, accelerometers, instruments, sensors, and other well-known devices. The data provided by the sources of flight status data may include, without limitation: airspeed data; groundspeed data; altitude data; attitude data, including pitch data and roll data; yaw data; geographic position data, such as GPS data; time/date information; heading information; weather information; flight path data; track data; radar altitude data; geometric altitude data; wind speed data; wind direction data; etc.”), comprising:
receiving data coming from the sensor and/or determined by the equipment item(Whitlow: Para 31 “the display device 104 is also configured to process the current flight status data for the host aircraft. In this regard, the sources of flight status data generate, measure, and/or provide different types of data related to the operational status of the host aircraft, the environment in which the host aircraft is operating, flight parameters, and the like. In practice, the sources of flight status data may be realized using line replaceable units (LRUs), transducers, accelerometers, instruments, sensors, and other well-known devices”);
selecting, among the received data, first relevant data, the first relevant data being relevant for a user of the equipment item, for controlling the equipment item within the framework of the mission(Whitlow: Para 39 “a pilot may select a briefing report type in the selection module 208. Briefing report types include, for example, pre-flight, takeoff, cruise, approach/go-around, Weather, and notice to airmen (NOTAMs). As such, the briefing report types include information about airports, runways, alternate flight paths, and operational conditions”); and
concatenating the selected first relevant data to form the set of data coming from the equipment item(Whitlow: Para 39 “In response to receiving a pilot selection of a briefing report type, the EMMS 204 cooperates with the Human Factors Module (HFM 206) and the Combiner 210 to assemble all of the information that is current and relevant to the pilot selection of a briefing report type, and provides to the display device 104 an abbreviated report of the information and options available to the pilot”);
adding the set of data to a common group, the common group including data common to all equipment items(Whitlow: Para 37 “Within the MIM 202, a mission information software model located in memory 103 is initially populated with the most up-to-date information regarding conditions outside and inside the aircraft that have some operational impact, be that tactical or strategic. To support reasoning regarding sub-optimal performance envelopes for icing, engine out, hydraulic failure, and change of flight plans, the mission information software model represents aircraft states as well. The MIM 202 determines which of the information received from the data sources 212 is current by comparing a previous message (information) from a data source 212 to a subsequent message (information) from the same data source 212 to determine if the subsequent message supplants or augments the previous message(s). It would then update the mission information software model accordingly, thereby maintaining a current information structure. Outdated information is logged as such”; i.e. current information structure encompasses the common group including data common to all equipment items);
filtering the data of the common group via filtering rules specific to the mission, so as to determine at least one second relevant datum, the at least one second relevant datum being relevant for successfully completing the flight mission(Whitlow: Para 38 “The EMMS 204 also filters the current, relevant, information with operational impact by which is relevant to each phase of flight within the mission. The EMMS 204 determines whether the current information in the information structure is of tactical or strategic importance. If it is tactically important, the system 100 brings it to the flight crew's attention, via rendering symbology on display device 104, to enhance operational flexibility in responding to the situation”); and
transmitting, to another equipment item(Whitlow: Para 38 “The EMMS 204 also filters the current, relevant, information with operational impact by which is relevant to each phase of flight within the mission. The EMMS 204 determines whether the current information in the information structure is of tactical or strategic importance. If it is tactically important, the system 100 brings it to the flight crew's attention, via rendering symbology on display device 104, to enhance operational flexibility in responding to the situation”), only the at least one second relevant datum for display to a respective user of the other equipment item(Whitlow: Para 38 “The EMMS 204 also filters the current, relevant, information with operational impact by which is relevant to each phase of flight within the mission. The EMMS 204 determines whether the current information in the information structure is of tactical or strategic importance. If it is tactically important, the system 100 brings it to the flight crew's attention, via rendering symbology on display device 104, to enhance operational flexibility in responding to the situation”), or for computing, a command of the aircraft by the other equipment item(Whitlow: Para 41 “The HFM 206 also selects any decision aiding for flight critical phases such as takeoff and landing, when flight crew are under the most time pressure and stress. Special purpose reasoners within the EMMS 204 consider the current aircraft performance characteristics along with conditions outside the aircraft such as weather and runway conditions, to identify opportunities to explore an alternate COA. For example, if a condition, such as hydraulic failure, limits the flap deployment is coupled with a recent weather change at the destination airport such as contaminated runway, then the system could intervene”).
Regarding claim 2, Whitlow teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the mission is management of an anomaly in an environment of the aircraft, and during said filtering a respective predefined filtering rule is used to obtain the data needed for the development of a corrective action to be implemented by the aircraft in order to manage the anomaly (Whitlow: Para 37 “Within the MIM 202, a mission information software model located in memory 103 is initially populated with the most up-to-date information regarding conditions outside and inside the aircraft that have some operational impact, be that tactical or strategic. To support reasoning regarding sub-optimal performance envelopes for icing, engine out, hydraulic failure, and change of flight plans, the mission information software model represents aircraft states as well”; Para 38 “The EMMS 204 also filters the current, relevant, information with operational impact by which is relevant to each phase of flight within the mission. The EMMS 204 determines whether the current information in the information structure is of tactical or strategic importance. If it is tactically important, the system 100 brings it to the flight crew's attention, via rendering symbology on display device 104, to enhance operational flexibility in responding to the situation”; Para 41 “The HFM 206 also selects any decision aiding for flight critical phases such as takeoff and landing, when flight crew are under the most time pressure and stress. Special purpose reasoners within the EMMS 204 consider the current aircraft performance characteristics along with conditions outside the aircraft such as weather and runway conditions, to identify opportunities to explore an alternate COA. For example, if a condition, such as hydraulic failure, limits the flap deployment is coupled with a recent weather change at the destination airport such as contaminated runway, then the system could intervene”).
Regarding claim 3, Whitlow teaches The method according to claim 2, wherein the anomaly belongs to a predefined set of anomalies and, for each anomaly, a set of corrective action(s) and a set of filtering rules is predefined(Whitlow: Para 37 “Within the MIM 202, a mission information software model located in memory 103 is initially populated with the most up-to-date information regarding conditions outside and inside the aircraft that have some operational impact, be that tactical or strategic. To support reasoning regarding sub-optimal performance envelopes for icing, engine out, hydraulic failure, and change of flight plans, the mission information software model represents aircraft states as well”; Para 38 “The EMMS 204 also filters the current, relevant, information with operational impact by which is relevant to each phase of flight within the mission. The EMMS 204 determines whether the current information in the information structure is of tactical or strategic importance. If it is tactically important, the system 100 brings it to the flight crew's attention, via rendering symbology on display device 104, to enhance operational flexibility in responding to the situation”; Para 41 “The HFM 206 also selects any decision aiding for flight critical phases such as takeoff and landing, when flight crew are under the most time pressure and stress. Special purpose reasoners within the EMMS 204 consider the current aircraft performance characteristics along with conditions outside the aircraft such as weather and runway conditions, to identify opportunities to explore an alternate COA. For example, if a condition, such as hydraulic failure, limits the flap deployment is coupled with a recent weather change at the destination airport such as contaminated runway, then the system could intervene”).
Regarding claim 6, Whitlow teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining and said adding are iterated for each equipment item, prior to said filtering, and during said adding, the respective set of data coming from each equipment item is added to the same group of data group common to all equipment items(Whitlow: Para 37 “Within the MIM 202, a mission information software model located in memory 103 is initially populated with the most up-to-date information regarding conditions outside and inside the aircraft that have some operational impact, be that tactical or strategic. To support reasoning regarding sub-optimal performance envelopes for icing, engine out, hydraulic failure, and change of flight plans, the mission information software model represents aircraft states as well. The MIM 202 determines which of the information received from the data sources 212 is current by comparing a previous message (information) from a data source 212 to a subsequent message (information) from the same data source 212 to determine if the subsequent message supplants or augments the previous message(s). It would then update the mission information software model accordingly, thereby maintaining a current information structure. Outdated information is logged as such”; i.e. current information structure encompasses the common group including data common to all equipment items).
Regarding claim 7, Whitlow teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein at least two amongst the equipment items are associated with the mission(Whitlow: Para 39 “a pilot may select a briefing report type in the selection module 208. Briefing report types include, for example, pre-flight, takeoff, cruise, approach/go-around, Weather, and notice to airmen (NOTAMs). As such, the briefing report types include information about airports, runways, alternate flight paths, and operational conditions”), the method further comprising, following said transmitting and for the at least two other equipment items associated with the mission(Whitlow: Para 38 “The EMMS 204 also filters the current, relevant, information with operational impact by which is relevant to each phase of flight within the mission. The EMMS 204 determines whether the current information in the information structure is of tactical or strategic importance. If it is tactically important, the system 100 brings it to the flight crew's attention, via rendering symbology on display device 104, to enhance operational flexibility in responding to the situation”; Para 41 “The HFM 206 also selects any decision aiding for flight critical phases such as takeoff and landing, when flight crew are under the most time pressure and stress. Special purpose reasoners within the EMMS 204 consider the current aircraft performance characteristics along with conditions outside the aircraft such as weather and runway conditions, to identify opportunities to explore an alternate COA. For example, if a condition, such as hydraulic failure, limits the flap deployment is coupled with a recent weather change at the destination airport such as contaminated runway, then the system could intervene”), an enrichment operation during which the at least one secondary relevant datum is added to the respective set of data of a further equipment item(Whitlow: Para 39 “In response to receiving a pilot selection of a briefing report type, the EMMS 204 cooperates with the Human Factors Module (HFM 206) and the Combiner 210 to assemble all of the information that is current and relevant to the pilot selection of a briefing report type, and provides to the display device 104 an abbreviated report of the information and options available to the pilot”).
As per claim 8, it recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to implement a method according to claim 1” having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Whitlow teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium (Whitlow: Para 28 “The memory 103 may be realized as RAM memory, flash memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, registers, a hard disk, a removable disk, a CD-ROM, or any other form of storage medium known in the art. In this regard, the memory 103 can be coupled to the processor 102 such that the processor 102 can be read information from, and write information to, the memory 103. In the alternative, the memory 103 may be integral to the processor 102. As an example, the processor 102 and the memory 103 may reside in an ASIC. In practice, a functional or logical module/component of the display device 104 might be realized using program code that is maintained in the memory 103. Moreover, the memory 103 can be used to store data utilized to support the operation of the display device 104”)
As per claim 9, it recites “An electronic data sharing system between equipment items” having limitations similar to those of claim 1 and therefore is rejected on the same basis. Whitlow teaches obtainer, deliverer, adder, filter and transmitter (Whitlow: Para 19 “The various illustrative logical blocks, modules, and circuits described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein.”)
Regarding claim 10, Whitlow teaches An electronic sharing system according to claim 9, wherein the electronic sharing system is a decentralized system comprising a plurality of elementary electronic devices, said obtainer, deliverer, adder, filter and transmitter being comprised in at least two distinct elementary electronic devices(Whitlow: Para 19 “The various illustrative logical blocks, modules, and circuits described in connection with the embodiments disclosed herein may be implemented or performed with a general purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine. A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, e.g., a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. In particular, the limitations of “the set of data from the equipment item comprised in the aircraft comprising: a speed of the aircraft, an altitude of the aircraft, a position of the aircraft, a flight time to an initial destination of the aircraft, a quantity of fuel in the aircraft, a pressure in each engine of the aircraft, a power of each engine of the aircraft, a ventilation status of a cabin of the aircraft, and an element relating to the passengers of the aircraft, the set of data coming from the equipment item comprised in the air control tower comprising: an indication of traffic in a zone around the aircraft, a delimitation of an area prohibited for overflying, a radio communication channel with a pilot of the aircraft, and a meteorological information associated with the environment of the aircraft, a predefined corrective action being the planning of a flight plan following the engine failure, a predefined filtering rule being intended to determine the data needed for the planning of the flight plan, and the at least one first relevant datum comprising: the speed of the aircraft, the altitude of the aircraft, the position of the aircraft, the flight time to an initial destination of the aircraft, the quantity of fuel in the aircraft, the pressure in each engine of the aircraft, the power of each engine of the aircraft, the indication of traffic in a zone around the aircraft, and the delimitation of a zone prohibited for overflying” in claim 4 and “the set of data from the equipment item comprised in the aircraft comprising: a speed of the aircraft, an altitude of the aircraft, a position of the aircraft, a bombing status of the water stored in a tank of the aircraft, a quantity of fuel in the aircraft, and a quantity of water in the tank of the aircraft, the set of data coming from the equipment item associated with the ground fire department comprising: a position of the fire, a wind direction at the site of the fire, at least one terrain feature at the site of the fire, and a position of the firefighters on the ground, a predefined corrective action being the determination of an axis of bombing of the water stored in the tank of the aircraft for extinguishing the fire, a predefined filtering rule being intended to determine the data needed for the determination of said axis of bombing, the at least one first relevant datum comprising: the position of the aircraft, the bombing status of the water stored in the aircraft tank, the position of the fire, the wind direction at the site of the fire, at least one terrain feature at the site of the fire, and the position of the firefighters on the ground” in claim 5 were not uncovered in the prior art teachings.
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 WENYUAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5455. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/W.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
3/17/26