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 .
Claims 1-9 have been examined.
P = paragraph e.g. P[0001] = paragraph[0001]
Examiner’s Note:
The rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been withdrawn, as Claim 9 is directed to an aircraft, and when combined with the limitations of Claim 1, Claims 1 and 9 taken together are not directed to an abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 regarding the rejections to Claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Applicant does not provide any rebuttal regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claim 1 being directed to non-statutory subject matter, where the claim recites “A flight management system of an aircraft comprising: a first non-critical or open world module (MO) configured and/or operable to create the first module (MO) comprising at least one non-critical computer and/or”, where it is clear that the “system” of the preamble encompasses only software as in the “at least one non-critical piece of software” limitation, and the “at least one non-critical piece of software” of claim 1 is computer software per se and is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03. No arguments are provided that are directed to Claim 1 being rejected for encompassing only computer software per se and therefore being directed to non-statutory subject matter, and this rejection is maintained.
The Applicant argues
“As described in the following paragraphs of the printed publication of the specification as filed:
[0110] The present invention offers the following advantages:
Optimisation of the path: this invention maximises the optimisation
capability of the second module FMS, by best exploiting its qualities and avoiding its defects.
Functional augmentation: the first open world module MO can offer
functions that do not exist in the certified second module FMS, while making sure to be perfectly compatible with the interfaces of the second module FMS.
Reduction of the complexity of the certified software: the certified second module FMS can remain relatively simple, unlike the first open world module MO, which concentrates all the algorithmic complexity of optimisation. The reduced complexity of the certified algorithms reduces the number of demands, of lines of code and therefore of tests.
Reduction of the demands on the hardware: the reduction of the CPU imprint of the certified algorithms, and therefore of the real-time architecture of the software, reduces the power needed for the certified computers, and therefore reduces the costs through the use of old and/or more "lightweight" hardware. For the non-certified calculations, a COTS computer can be employed which allows for a better SWaP (Size, Weight and Power).
Adaptation to future needs: traditionally, the changes of the second module FMS relate mostly to an enhancement of the optimisation of the paths, and the taking into account of increasingly numerous constraints. Transferring these efforts into the open world allows for a much greater agility in the changes, and facilitates the adaptation to future needs.
Compatibility with new technologies: the first open world module MO offers the possibility of using techniques that are very difficult to certify such as the use of Artificial Intelligence. Indeed, the final calculation of the path is always performed by the certified FMS and can be verified by the pilot.
Stability of the certified FMS Core: the functional variability can be borne by the open world application. The certified algorithms of the second module FMS are not impacted by new needs.
Applicant asserts that this is a practical application”.
The arguments are not persuasive. Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, 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. With respect to Claim 1, these arguments do not point to specific claim limitations that are additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a “practical application”, therefore, the arguments are not persuasive. Furthermore, the courts have indicated that additional elements 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 Applicant’s arguments which quote the specification mention “the first open world module MO” and “the second module FMS”, however, with respect to Claim 1, the claimed “first module” amounts to merely and no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, and the “second critical or flight management avionics module (FMS)” amounts to merely software, and no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, which, as explained above, the courts have indicated does not amount to integrating the judicial exception into a “practical application.”
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues
“Applicant asserts that the flight management system taught by the disclosure and recited by the claims has improved the existing technological process of generating a secured path for aircraft guidance consistent with McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d. In this regard, the courts have found that improvements in technology beyond computer functionality may demonstrate patent eligibility”
and
“Likewise, Applicant asserts that the disclosure teaches and the claims recite a specific way utilizing particular rules to solve the problem of generating a secured path for aircraft guidance based on an enhanced enriched flight plan, rather than merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and thus likewise are not directed to an abstract idea”.
The arguments are not persuasive. The Applicant does not clearly point to a specific claim limitation in these arguments, however, the Examiner assumed the Applicant’s argument is directed to the Claim 1 limitation “the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module comprising at least one critical computer and/or at least one critical piece of software for calculating and delivering as output a secured path, based on the enhanced enriched flight plan provided by the first module (MO), and aircraft guidance being based on the secured path”. A user may mentally calculate a secured path, based on the enhanced enriched flight plan provided by the first module (MO), and aircraft guidance being based on the secured path, where the “aircraft guidance” encompasses simply a mental decision, as no control of an aircraft is required. Furthermore, the “delivering as output” limitation amounts to a generic computer function of outputting data. The Examiner notes that this “output” is not a display or control step, and the specification does not recite this output as anything than an output, which is equivalent to merely generating data or data gathering, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
The arguments directed to the rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are moot as these rejections have been withdrawn.
The claim amendments have necessitated new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Examiner notes that the claim amendments fail to use consistent language when referring to a “first” and “second” module, and uses two variations of a “first” module, and four entirely different variations of a “second” module, leading to a lack of antecedent basis for various claim limitations.
The Examiner suggests using consistent claim language for each claim limitation, for example, regarding the limitation “a first non-critical or open world module (MO)”, all subsequent mentions of this limitation should be written as “the first non-critical or open world module (MO)”, and/or the claim should be clear when a new “module” is being introduced. Similarly, regarding the limitation “a second critical flight management avionics module (FMS)”, all subsequent mentions of this limitation should be written as “the second critical flight management avionics module (FMS)”, and/or the claim should be clear when a new “module” is being introduced.
Claims 1-9 have been indicated as allowable over the prior art but are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
See the new grounds of rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Lax et al. (2019/0311634).
As seen in the previous Office Action and the 10/01/2025 Non-Final rejection, Lax et al. teaches the majority of Claim 1 such as the limitation “iterative enhancement of the choice of the pseudo-constraint or constraints” (“It is noted that method 600 may iterate until a viable solution to the weighted parameter loop is determined”, see P[0055] and “Thus, operating cost can be optimized by iterating through the problem to identify an estimated time of arrival at a particular waypoint that is equal or substantially close to the associated RTA constraint”, see P[0058]) and the limitation “at least one critical computer and/or at least one critical piece of software for calculating and delivering as output a secured path, based on the enhanced enriched flight plan provided by the first module (MO), and aircraft guidance being based on the secured path” (“The FMS 106 may include functions such as in-flight management of a flight plan 118 associated with the aerial vehicle 102”, see P[0027] and “The method 400 can also include transmitting the flight plan 118 to a flight management system (FMS) 106, at block 410”, see P[0044] and “…the FMS 106 may implement the flight plan 118 to minimize operating cost”, see P[0034] and “…the non-linear programming problem to reduce direct operating cost of the aerial vehicle based on the one or more RTA constraints; generating, by the one or more processors, a flight plan based on the solving the non-linear programming problem, the flight plan including a route traversing the waypoint; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the flight plan to the FMS”, see Claim 20).
Lax et al. does not expressly recite the claimed “the first module (MO) further configured and/or operable to deliver the enhanced enriched flight plan to a second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), for which the enriched flight plan is specifically optimised, the first module (MO) being configured to emulate the second critical module (FMS) to create the enhanced enriched flight plan iteratively” and “the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module comprising at least one critical computer and/or at least one critical piece of software for calculating and delivering as output a secured path, based on the enhanced enriched flight plan provided by the first module (MO), and aircraft guidance being based on the secured path”.
Lax et al. does teach expressly recite an “emulate” step or emulation of a “second critical flight management avionics module (FMS)” by a “first module (MO)”, where the “first module (MO)” provides an “enhanced enriched flight plan” generated by the claimed steps including the “iterative enhancement”. Furthermore, the Examiner could not find any clear motivation in the prior art to modify the prior art to teach these limitations. Therefore, the claims are allowable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first module (MO)" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner’s Note: the claim recites “a first non-critical or open world module (MO)”, not "a first module (MO)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second critical module (FMS)" in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner’s Note: the claim recites “a second critical flight management avionics module (FMS)”, not "a second critical module (FMS)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the preceding iterations" in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second module (FMS)" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner’s Note: the claim recites “a second critical flight management avionics module (FMS)”, not "a second module (FMS)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module" in lines 41-42. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Additionally, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See below.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “A flight management system of an aircraft comprising: a first non-critical or open world module (MO) configured and/or operable to create the first module (MO) comprising at least one non-critical computer and/or”, where it is clear that, as indicated by the “and/or” limitation, the “system” of the preamble encompasses only software as in the “at least one non-critical piece of software” limitation. None of the elements of the claimed system appear to be physical components.
Therefore the “at least one non-critical piece of software” of claim 1 is computer software per se and is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.03.
The Examiner notes for the record that the claim recites “the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module comprising at least one critical computer and/or at least one critical piece of software”, therefore, the “second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module” also encompasses merely software.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a software as seen in the limitation of lines 5-6 “at least one non-critical piece of software”. Therefore, claim 1 is not 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 the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A flight management system of an aircraft comprising:
a first non-critical or open world module (MO) configured and/or operable to create an enhanced enriched flight plan, the first module (MO) comprising at least one non-critical computer and/or at least one non-critical piece of software,
the first module (MO) configured and/or operable to calculate and deliver an enhanced enriched flight plan based on a reference flight plan comprising a first set of constraints, on a value of at least one parameter of a second set of parameters representative of an environment of a flight of the aircraft, and on at least one optimisation criterion of a third set of optimisation criteria,
the first module (MO) being further configured and/or operable to output the enhanced enriched flight plan comprising the first set of constraints and at least one pseudo-constraint of a fourth set of pseudo-constraints,
the first module (MO) further configured and/or operable to deliver the enhanced enriched flight plan to a second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), for which the enriched flight plan is specifically optimised,
the first module (MO) being configured to emulate the second critical module (FMS) to create the enhanced enriched flight plan iteratively with a configuration implementing the following steps:
initialisation of pseudo-constraints of the fourth set; and
iterative enhancement of a choice of the pseudo-constraints of the fourth set, until an objective of enhancement of a path calculated by the second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), or absence of enhancement with respect to the last best choice of pseudo-constraints, is reached, based on at least one optimization criterion of the third set and on at least one parameter of the second set, the first module (MO) being configured to implement the step of iterative enhancement of the choice of the pseudo-constraint or constraints of the fourth set by iteration with a configuration implementing the following steps:
calculation and storage of the path that the second module (FMS) calculates based on a flight plan comprising the constraints of the reference flight plan and the current pseudo-constraints, by emulation of the second critical module (FMS);
assessment as to whether the calculated current path is enhanced with respect to the paths calculated in the preceding iterations, as a function of the optimisation criterion or criteria of the third set, of the value of at least one environment parameter of a second set, and of the enhancement objective; and
if the objective is reached, exit from the iterative enhancement of the enriched flight plan with the current pseudo-constraints, and otherwise modification of the current pseudo-constraints for a next iteration;
the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module certified to calculate a path, the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module comprising at least one critical computer and/or at least one critical piece of software for calculating and delivering as output a secured path, based on the enhanced enriched flight plan provided by the first module (MO), and aircraft guidance being based on the secured path.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, regarding the “create an enhanced enriched flight plan” and “calculate…an enhanced enriched flight plan based on a reference flight plan comprising a first set of constraints, on a value of at least one parameter of a second set of parameters representative of an environment of a flight of the aircraft, and on at least one optimisation criterion of a third set of optimisation criteria” limitations, a user may mentally, create an enhanced enriched flight plan, and may mentally calculate an enhanced enriched flight plan based on a reference flight plan comprising a first set of constraints, on a value of at least one parameter of a second set of parameters representative of an environment of a flight of the aircraft, and on at least one optimisation criterion of a third set of optimisation criteria. Furthermore, regarding the “emulate the second critical module (FMS) to create the enhanced enriched flight plan iteratively…implementing the following steps”, “initialisation of pseudo-constraints of the fourth set” and “iterative enhancement of a choice of the pseudo-constraints of the fourth set, until an objective of enhancement of a path calculated by the second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), or absence of enhancement with respect to the last best choice of pseudo-constraints, is reached, based on at least one optimization criterion of the third set and on at least one parameter of the second set” limitations, a user may mentally emulate the second critical module (FMS) to create the enhanced enriched flight plan iteratively, and a user may mentally perform initialisation of pseudo-constraints of the fourth set and may mentally perform iterative enhancement of a choice of the pseudo-constraints of the fourth set, until an objective of enhancement of a path calculated by the second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), or absence of enhancement with respect to the last best choice of pseudo-constraints, is reached, based on at least one optimization criterion of the third set and on at least one parameter of the second set. Furthermore, regarding the “implement the step of iterative enhancement of the choice of the pseudo-constraint or constraints of the fourth set by iteration with a configuration implementing the following steps: calculation and storage of the path that the second module (FMS) calculates based on a flight plan comprising the constraints of the reference flight plan and the current pseudo-constraints, by emulation of the second critical module (FMS)” limitation, a user may mentally implement the step of iterative enhancement of the choice of the pseudo-constraint or constraints of the fourth set by iteration. Furthermore, regarding the “implementing the following steps: calculation and storage of the path that the second module (FMS) calculates based on a flight plan comprising the constraints of the reference flight plan and the current pseudo-constraints, by emulation of the second critical module (FMS)”, a user may mentally perform calculation and storage of the path that the second module (FMS) calculates based on a flight plan comprising the constraints of the reference flight plan and the current pseudo-constraints, by emulation of the second critical module (FMS). Furthermore, regarding the “assessment as to whether the calculated current path is enhanced with respect to the paths calculated in the preceding iterations, as a function of the optimisation criterion or criteria of the third set, of the value of at least one environment parameter of a second set, and of the enhancement objective” limitation, a user may mentally perform assessment as to whether the calculated current path is enhanced with respect to the paths calculated in the preceding iterations, as a function of the optimisation criterion or criteria of the third set, of the value of at least one environment parameter of a second set, and of the enhancement objective. Furthermore, regarding the “and if the objective is reached, exit from the iterative enhancement of the enriched flight plan with the current pseudo-constraints, and otherwise modification of the current pseudo-constraints for a next iteration” limitation, a user may mentally exit from the iterative enhancement of the enriched flight plan with the current pseudo-constraints if the objective is reached, and otherwise modification of the current pseudo-constraints for a next iteration. Furthermore, regarding the “calculate a path” and “calculating…a secured path, based on the enhanced enriched flight plan provided by the first module (MO), and aircraft guidance being based on the secured path” limitations, a user may mentally calculate a path and may mentally calculate a secured path, based on the enhanced enriched flight plan provided by the first module (MO), and aircraft guidance being based on the secured path, where “aircraft guidance” encompasses a mental decision of how to guide an aircraft.
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 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 have indicated that additional elements 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.”
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 flight management system of an aircraft comprising:
a first non-critical or open world module (MO) configured and/or operable to create an enhanced enriched flight plan, the first module (MO) comprising at least one non-critical computer and/or at least one non-critical piece of software,
the first module (MO) configured and/or operable to calculate and deliver an enhanced enriched flight plan based on a reference flight plan comprising a first set of constraints, on a value of at least one parameter of a second set of parameters representative of an environment of a flight of the aircraft, and on at least one optimisation criterion of a third set of optimisation criteria,
the first module (MO) being further configured and/or operable to output the enhanced enriched flight plan comprising the first set of constraints and at least one pseudo-constraint of a fourth set of pseudo-constraints,
the first module (MO) further configured and/or operable to deliver the enhanced enriched flight plan to a second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), for which the enriched flight plan is specifically optimised,
the first module (MO) being configured to emulate the second critical module (FMS) to create the enhanced enriched flight plan iteratively with a configuration implementing the following steps:
initialisation of pseudo-constraints of the fourth set; and
iterative enhancement of a choice of the pseudo-constraints of the fourth set, until an objective of enhancement of a path calculated by the second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), or absence of enhancement with respect to the last best choice of pseudo-constraints, is reached, based on at least one optimization criterion of the third set and on at least one parameter of the second set, the first module (MO) being configured to implement the step of iterative enhancement of the choice of the pseudo-constraint or constraints of the fourth set by iteration with a configuration implementing the following steps:
calculation and storage of the path that the second module (FMS) calculates based on a flight plan comprising the constraints of the reference flight plan and the current pseudo-constraints, by emulation of the second critical module (FMS);
assessment as to whether the calculated current path is enhanced with respect to the paths calculated in the preceding iterations, as a function of the optimisation criterion or criteria of the third set, of the value of at least one environment parameter of a second set, and of the enhancement objective; and
if the objective is reached, exit from the iterative enhancement of the enriched flight plan with the current pseudo-constraints, and otherwise modification of the current pseudo-constraints for a next iteration;
the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module certified to calculate a path, the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module comprising at least one critical computer and/or at least one critical piece of software for calculating and delivering as output a secured path, based on the enhanced enriched flight plan provided by the first module (MO), and aircraft guidance being based on the secured path.
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 “A flight management system of an aircraft comprising: a first non-critical or open world module (MO) configured and/or operable to” and “the first module (MO) comprising at least one non-critical computer and/or at least one non-critical piece of software”, the “at least one non-critical piece of software” amounts to merely software, therefore, the “system” of the preamble and the “first module (MO)” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitations “the first module (MO) configured and/or operable to” and “and deliver”, these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, where the limitation “deliver” encompasses merely a generic computer function of outputting data. Regarding the additional limitation “the first module (MO) being further configured and/or operable to output the enhanced enriched flight plan comprising the first set of constraints and at least one pseudo-constraint of a fourth set of pseudo-constraints”, the “output” step encompasses a generic computer function of outputting data, such as outputting a result of a calculation. Regarding the additional limitation “the first module (MO) further configured and/or operable to deliver the enhanced enriched flight plan to a second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), for which the enriched flight plan is specifically optimised”, these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, where the limitation “deliver” encompasses merely a generic computer function of outputting data. Regarding the additional limitations “the first module (MO) being configured to”, “with a configuration”, “the first module (MO) being configured to” and “with a configuration”, these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Regarding the additional limitations “the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module certified to”, “the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module comprising at least one critical computer and/or at least one critical piece of software for” and “and delivering as output”, these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, where the limitation “and delivering as output” encompasses a generic computer function of outputting data.
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, 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 § 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.
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 “at least one non-critical piece of software” amounts to merely software and the “first module (MO)” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, the additional limitations “the first module (MO) configured and/or operable to” and “and deliver” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, where the limitation “deliver” encompasses merely a generic computer function of outputting data, regarding the additional limitation “the first module (MO) being further configured and/or operable to output the enhanced enriched flight plan comprising the first set of constraints and at least one pseudo-constraint of a fourth set of pseudo-constraints” the “output” step encompasses a generic computer function of outputting data, the additional limitations “the first module (MO) further configured and/or operable to deliver the enhanced enriched flight plan to a second critical flight management avionics module (FMS), for which the enriched flight plan is specifically optimised” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception where the limitation “deliver” encompasses a generic computer function of outputting data, the additional limitations “the first module (MO) being configured to”, “with a configuration”, “the first module (MO) being configured to” and “with a configuration” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception, the additional limitations “the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module certified to”, “the second critical or avionics flight management system (FMS) module comprising at least one critical computer and/or at least one critical piece of software for” and “and delivering as output” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception where the limitation “and delivering as output” encompasses a generic computer function of outputting data. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims 2-8 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. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8 are similarly rejected as being directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
See below regarding the dependent claim.
As per Claim 2, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally perform initialisation of pseudo-constraints of the fourth set randomly, or according to a predefined process. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 3, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim is directed to describing constraints, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 4, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim is directed to describing parameters, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 5, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim is directed to describing criteria, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 6, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user, such as a pilot, may mentally select the “criterion or criteria”. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 7, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. The claim is directed to describing constraints, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per Claim 8, said claim is rejected as it fails to correct the deficiency of Claim 1. A user may mentally perform the iterative enhancement by a gradient descent, a genetic algorithm, or a simulated annealing. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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 ISAAC G SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-9593. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8AM-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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/ISAAC G SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights