DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to Application 18/535,224 filed on 12/11/2023. Claims 1-13 are currently pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority for Application No. FR2213611, filed on 12/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2025, 08/06/2025, 05/24/2025 and 12/19/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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:
Surveillance unit, Data reception unit, Verification unit and Avoidance assistance unit in claims 1 and 12.
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.
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 §101
35 USC §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 12 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III).
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. A method for assisting in the avoidance of an incursion onto a runway of an airfield by an aircraft taxiing on the airfield, said method comprising:
a surveillance step (El), implemented by a surveillance unit [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], at least to survey the airfield so as to be able to detect, via an optical detection [pre-solution activity (data gathering)], one or more characteristic elements comprising a mandatory characteristic element corresponding to a stop marking on the ground, said characteristic element or elements relating to a taxi-holding position of a runway of the airfield [mental process/step],
to determine a current relative position of the aircraft with respect to a taxi-holding position for which at least the mandatory characteristic element has been detected [mental process/step], and
to detect, if appropriate, a future entry onto said runway of the airfield by the aircraft [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] based at least on the current relative position and on parameters of the aircraft,
the surveillance step (El) comprising a data processing step (ElB) implemented at least [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] to determine at least one current alert envelope corresponding to a so-called incursion time, and depending at least on said current relative position of the aircraft and said parameters of the aircraft, and
to detect a future entry onto a runway if the current alert envelope reaches a taxi-holding position for which at least the mandatory characteristic element has been detected [mental process/step];
a data reception step (E2), implemented by a data reception unit, at least to receive at least one clearance to enter onto a runway [pre-solution activity (data gathering)];
a verification step (E3), implemented by a verification unit, at least, in case of detection in the surveillance step (El) of a future entry onto the runway [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], to verify if the future entry is cleared or not cleared, by taking into account the entry clearance or clearances received, if appropriate, in the data reception step (E2) [pre-solution activity (data gathering)], and to deduce, if the future entry is not cleared, a future incursion; and
an avoidance assistance step (E4), implemented by at least one avoidance assistance unit, at least, in the case of a future incursion deduced in the verification step (E3), to implement at least one action intended to assist in avoiding said future incursion [insignificant post extra solution activity (display results)].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation/steps of at least to survey the airfield so as to be able to detect, one or more characteristic elements comprising a mandatory characteristic element corresponding to a stop marking on the ground, said characteristic element or elements relating to a taxi-holding position of a runway of the airfield, to determine a current relative position of the aircraft with respect to a taxi-holding position for which at least the mandatory characteristic element has been detected, and to detect, if appropriate, a future entry onto said runway of the airfield based at least on the current relative position and on parameters of the aircraft, to determine at least one current alert envelope corresponding to a so-called incursion time, and depending at least on said current relative position of the aircraft and said parameters of the aircraft, and to detect a future entry onto a runway if the current alert envelope reaches a taxi-holding position for which at least the mandatory characteristic element has been detected; to verify if the future entry is cleared or not cleared, by taking into account the entry clearance or clearances received, if appropriate, and to deduce, if the future entry is not cleared, a future incursion. This limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the “data processing” in base claim 1. That is, other than reciting “data processing” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for a data processing language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation by a computer does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of data processing. In particular, data processing limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to “apply” the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
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 a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data processing were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The Specification does not provide any indication that the “data processing” are anything other than a conventional computer system (See at least ¶77 of applicant’s specification).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “data processing” elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent system claim 12, respectively, recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 12.
Thus, claims 1-10 and 12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choski et al., US 20140278037 A1 discloses a flight control system, an electric taxi system having controls, a flight management system (FMS), at least one data input source coupled to the FMS, and a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS). The FMS is programmed with instructions to calculate guidance speed and heading commands, augment the guidance commands to avoid runway incursions, and transmit the guidance commands to the flight control system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD M KAZIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-3436. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-5pm.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 5712703713. 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.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
/MAHMOUD M KAZIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3665