Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks filed 1/13/2026. Claims 6-7, 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8-15, 17-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Specification objections of the most recent Office action are removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
No claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a-b) of the most recent Office action are removed due to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/13/2026, pg(s). 15-17, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101 of the most recent Office action have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts, pg. 15, that under Prong 1 of the of the Office’s eligibility analysis, “that operations must be performed by a processor or processing system formed by a circuit, and therefore, for this reason alone, at least independent claims 1, 12, and 20 do not cover "performance of the limitations in the human mind."… many of the claimed data gathering features and the display are provided for and on the aircraft. The claimed operations cannot be performed divorced from components of the aircraft”.
The examiner disagrees with this assertion. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. MPEP 2106. Claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea, where the “determine…” limitation in the contexts of the claim encompass evaluating gate, aircraft, and position error data and forming a judgement on aircraft position and deviations based on the data, which can practically (and typically are) performed by crews of an aircraft.
The additional element of “a circuit on the aircraft and forming a processing system” is analyzed in Prong II of Step 2A of the of the Office’s eligibility analysis. This limitation recites a computer being used as a tool to perform the mental process and thus, does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of “on an aircraft” recited in the claim are analyzed in Prong II of Step 2A of the of the Office’s eligibility analysis. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, additional elements directed to components provided for and on an aircraft cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant further asserts, pgs. 15-16, that under Prong 1 of the of the Office’s eligibility analysis, that the claims, as a whole, are directed to an improvement in aircraft technology by automating the determination of aircraft position, aircraft position deviation, and aircraft heading deviation with regards to an airport gate such that a pilot can safely park at the airport gate in certain low visibility conditions.
The examiner disagrees with this assertion. In computer-related technologies, examiners should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1, as a whole, is directed to a guidance system for aircraft which provides a guidance image and guidance messages for a pilot of the aircraft navigating to an airport gate based on analyzed aircraft position, aircraft position deviation, and aircraft heading deviation. Thus, the claimed system is attempting to improve the process of determining the guidance information, i.e., the claim purports to improve the mental process itself, not the functioning of the aircraft computer.
Applicant further asserts, pg. 16, that under Prong 2 of the of the Office’s eligibility analysis, that the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are specific to an aircraft environment and improve an aircraft’s processing system, and thus are improvement to a technical field and solve a technical problem.
The examiner disagrees with this assertion. As stated previously, additional elements directed to components provided for and on an aircraft cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Further, as stated previously, the claimed system is directed to improving the process of determining guidance information for docking operations and thus, is not directed to improving the functioning of the aircraft’s systems or computer. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
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 1-5, 8-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5, 8-11, 19, the claims recite “An airport docking guidance system for an aircraft” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
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 following 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).
An airport docking guidance system for an aircraft, the system comprising:
an airport gate database on the aircraft and having airport gate data stored therein for a plurality of airport gates, the airport gate data including, for each airport gate of the plurality of airport gates, parking data indicative of a gate position point and a gate aircraft parking heading;
an aircraft data source on the aircraft and configured to supply aircraft data, the aircraft data including data indicative of aircraft dimensions, sensed aircraft position, and sensed aircraft heading;
a position error receiving system on the aircraft and configured to supply position error data, the position error data indicative of a position error between the sensed aircraft position and actual aircraft position;
a display device on the aircraft and responsive to display commands to render one or more images; and
a circuit on the aircraft and forming a processing system with a processor, the processing system in operable communication with the display device, the airport gate database, the aircraft data source, and the position error receiving system, the processing system configured to:
retrieve airport gate data for one airport gate of the plurality of airport gates,
receive the aircraft data supplied from the aircraft data source,
receive the position error data from the position error receiving system,
process the aircraft data and the position error data to determine, for the one airport gate, an aircraft position point, an aircraft position deviation, and an aircraft heading deviation, the aircraft position point being a position offset from the gate position point and based on the aircraft dimensions, the aircraft position deviation being a deviation of the actual aircraft position from the gate position point, the aircraft heading deviation being an angular deviation between sensed aircraft heading and the gate aircraft parking heading, and
supply display commands to the display device that cause the display device to (i) render an image representative of at least the determined aircraft position deviation and the determined aircraft heading deviation and (ii) render guidance messages that inform a pilot of the aircraft to navigate left, right, or straight depending on the aircraft position and heading deviations.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, the “determine...” in the contexts of this claim encompass evaluating gate, aircraft, and position error data and forming a judgement on aircraft position and deviations based on the data. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea(s).
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis of the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea(s) are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
An airport docking guidance system for an aircraft, the system comprising:
an airport gate database on the aircraft and having airport gate data stored therein for a plurality of airport gates, the airport gate data including, for each airport gate of the plurality of airport gates, parking data indicative of a gate position point and a gate aircraft parking heading;
an aircraft data source on the aircraft and configured to supply aircraft data, the aircraft data including data indicative of aircraft dimensions, sensed aircraft position, and sensed aircraft heading;
a position error receiving system on the aircraft and configured to supply position error data, the position error data indicative of a position error between the sensed aircraft position and actual aircraft position;
a display device on the aircraft and responsive to display commands to render one or more images; and
a circuit on the aircraft and forming a processing system with a processor, the processing system in operable communication with the display device, the airport gate database, the aircraft data source, and the position error receiving system, the processing system configured to:
retrieve airport gate data for one airport gate of the plurality of airport gates,
receive the aircraft data supplied from the aircraft data source,
receive the position error data from the position error receiving system,
process the aircraft data and the position error data to determine, for the one airport gate, an aircraft position point, an aircraft position deviation, and an aircraft heading deviation, the aircraft position point being a position offset from the gate position point and based on the aircraft dimensions, the aircraft position deviation being a deviation of the actual aircraft position from the gate position point, the aircraft heading deviation being an angular deviation between sensed aircraft heading and the gate aircraft parking heading, and
supply display commands to the display device that cause the display device to (i) render an image representative of at least the determined aircraft position deviation and the determined aircraft heading deviation and (ii) render guidance messages that inform a pilot of the aircraft to navigate left, right, or straight depending on the aircraft position and heading deviations.
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 limitation(s) of “a circuit on the aircraft and forming a processing system with a processor, the processing system in operable communication with the display device, the airport gate database, the aircraft data source, and the position error receiving system, the processing system configured to”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) are merely tool(s) being used to perform the abstract idea (or instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer). Further, the “circuit…forming a processing system” is/are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgement in a generic or general-purpose vehicle control environment. The component(s) merely automate(s) the “determine…” step(s) and thus do/does not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “retrieve airport gate data for one airport gate of the plurality of airport gates, receive the aircraft data supplied from the aircraft data source, receive the position error data from the position error receiving system” and “an airport gate database having airport gate data stored therein for a plurality of airport gates, the airport gate data including, for each airport gate of the plurality of airport gates, parking data indicative of a gate position point and a gate aircraft parking heading; an aircraft data source configured to supply aircraft data, the aircraft data including data indicative of aircraft dimensions, sensed aircraft position, and sensed aircraft heading; a position error receiving system configured to supply position error data, the position error data indicative of a position error between the sensed aircraft position and actual aircraft position” and “supply display commands to the display device that cause the display device to (i) render an image representative of at least the determined aircraft position deviation and the determined aircraft heading deviation and (ii) render guidance messages that inform a pilot of the aircraft to navigate left, right, or straight depending on the aircraft position and heading deviations”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are insignificant extra-solution activity[ies]. In particular, the “airport gate database”, “aircraft data source”, and “position error receiving system” are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information for use in the “determine...” step(s)). Thus, the limitations “retrieve airport gate data…”, “receive the aircraft data…”, and “receive the position error data…” amount to mere pre-solution data gathering for use in the claimed process, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the “display device” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying information processed in the “determine...” step(s)). Thus, the limitation “supply display commands…” amounts to mere post-solution data outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Additional elements that are considered extra-solution activities do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional limitation(s) of “a display device on the aircraft and responsive to display commands to render one or more images”, the examiner submits the limitation(s) is/are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the limitation merely indicates a field of use and do/does not use the judicial exception 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 exception. Additional elements that merely link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not “meaningfully limit” the claim and thus do not integrate the claim into a “practical application”.
Moreover, limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., to control an aircraft engine), or as stated the preamble (“for an aircraft”) is not enough to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (Flook) e.g., because the preemptive effect of the claims on the idea within the field of use would be broad. See e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (“Flook established that limiting an abstract idea to one field of use . . . did not make the concept patentable.”).
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 nothing that is not 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, 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 § 2106.05). 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.
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, 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 limitation(s) of the “a circuit on the aircraft…configured to” is/are merely means to apply the exception and does not amount to “significantly more”, as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation(s) of “for an aircraft” and “a display device…” is/are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to “significantly more”, as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (“simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use”), as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981), are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation(s) of “retrieve airport gate data for one airport gate of the plurality of airport gates” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that “airport gate database” is anything other than a well-understood component preforming a routine activity [0019].
The additional limitation(s) of “receive the aircraft data supplied from the aircraft data source, receive the position error data from the position error receiving system” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that “aircraft data source” is anything other than a well-understood component preforming a routine activity [0022].
The additional limitation(s) of “receive the position error data from the position error receiving system” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that “position error receiving system” is anything other than a well-understood component preforming a routine activity [0025].
The additional limitation(s) of “supply display commands…” is/are a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the “display device” is anything other than a well-understood component [0033] displaying information in a well-known manner [0034-0035].
See also MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including
Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, indicate that storing and retrieving of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 12-15, 17-18, the claim(s) recite(s) “A method for providing airport docking guidance for an aircraft” and thus, are a process. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 12 rises and falls with independent with claim 1. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim(s) 20, the claim(s) recite(s) “An airport docking guidance system” and thus, are a machine. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are within at least one of the four statutory categories. Independent claim 20 recites the similar limitations as indicated above with respect to claim 1. Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Additional elements present in independent claim 20 are discussed below. All other limitations not discussed are the same as those discussed above with respect to claim 1. Discussion is omitted for brevity.
Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of the “the system comprising: a ground-based subsystem and an aircraft-based subsystem, wherein the ground-based subsystem comprises: a ground-based airport gate database…and a ground-based position error transmission system in operable communication with the ground-based airport gate database, the ground-based position error transmission system configured to at least selectively (i) determine, from the airport gate data and a ground-based position measurement system, position error data and (ii) transmit the position error data;”. When evaluated in Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, these additional elements amount to mere data gathering for use in the claimed process, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “ground-based position error transmission system” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering information for use in the “determine...” step(s)). Further, when evaluated in Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional limitation(s) are considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field because the specification does not provide any indication that “ground-based position error transmission system” is anything other than a well-understood component preforming a routine activity [0020].
Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5, 8-11, 13-15, 17-19 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.
Hence, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 AMELIA VORCE whose telephone number is (313) 446-4917. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9AM-6PM, Central Time.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMELIA VORCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666