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 office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on July 28, 2026 for the patent application 18/715,418 originally filed on May 31, 2024. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14 are amended. Claims 3 and 13 are canceled. Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14 remain pending. The first office action of April 28, 2026 is fully incorporated by reference into this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on May 13, 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
In Applicant’s remarks filed July 28, 2026, Applicant called attention to MPEP609.04(a)(III), which shows that in the IDS of 5/31/2024, Non-Patent Literature (NPL) Documents cite no 2 should have been considered. Therefore, the Examiner has considered NPL cite no 2 in the IDS of 5/31/2024, and an initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have been noted by the Examiner.
The Applicant has amended the claims to obviate minor informalities. Therefore, the outstanding objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Means-plus-function language were removed from the claims. Therefore, none of the claim elements will be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Drawings
The replacement drawings filed July 28, 2026 are acknowledged and accepted by the Examiner. Accordingly, all outstanding objections to the drawings are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
In claim 1, there are two commas at the end of the preamble, (“a flight simulation system of said aircraft, ,”). The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error and should be corrected by removing one of the commas. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2, 4-11, and 14 are also objected to based on their dependencies to claims 1.
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, 2, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to “a control unit” (i.e. a machine), claim 12 is directed to “a method” (i.e. a process), and claim 14 is directed to “an indicator” (i.e. a machine), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “determining and indicating the forward velocity to never exceed of an aircraft capable of hovering,” in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Claims that require a computer may also recite a mental process, as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Of claim 1:
“receive… respective one or more real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft;
process… an actual or simulated weight of said aircraft;
associate a plurality of tables to respective intervals of values… each said table associating a plurality of values of… a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft with a respective one of said [real or simulated flight parameters];
process said [forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft], based on said table associated with the relative interval of said [actual or simulated weight of said aircraft] and the respective [real or simulated flight parameters];
…
receive… at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft;
store a plurality of velocity profiles for respective velocities to never exceed associated with said respective intervals…
associate each said velocity profile with a respective set of said tables, each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said [at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft]; and
…displaying an indication of the forward velocity to never exceed at the aircraft capable of hovering or the flight simulation system of said aircraft.”
Of claim 12:
“i) receiving… respective one or more real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft;
ii) processing… an actual or simulated weight of said aircraft;
iii) associating a plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of said [actual or simulated weight of said aircraft], each said table associating a plurality of values of… a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft with respective one of said [real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft];
iv) processing said [actual or simulated forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft], based on one of said plurality of tables associated with a relative interval of said… the actual or simulated weight of said aircraft and the respective at least one [real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft];
v) receiving… at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft;
vi) storing a plurality of velocity profiles for respective velocities to never exceed associated with said respective intervals of values of [actual or simulated weight of said aircraft]; and
vii) associating each velocity profile with a respective set of said tables, each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said [at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft]; and
viii) …displaying an indication of the forward velocity to never exceed at the aircraft capable of hovering or the flight simulation system of said aircraft.”
Of claim 14:
“a first indication associated with an actual or simulated position of a horizon; and
a second indication associated with an actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon;
a third indication associated with an actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft;
said third indication comprising a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication…
a fourth indication of an actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale; and
a fifth indication of a value of maximum actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft and placed along said graduated scale; and
said fourth indication and fifth indication being formed by respective labels "VNE threshold" and "Vmax threshold".”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Furthermore, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to claim a practical application because to the extent that, e.g., “control unit,” “a first signal,” “a second signal,” “a third signal,” “a fourth signal,” and “an indicator,” are claimed, as these are merely claimed to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., data gathering) and/or do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. In other words, the claimed “determining and indicating the forward velocity to never exceed of an aircraft capable of hovering,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. e.g., “control unit,” “a first signal,” “a second signal,” “a third signal,” “a fourth signal,” and “an indicator,” are claimed these are all generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and conventional computing elements, Applicant’s specification discloses them in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a), which satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “control unit” is not explicitly defined in the specification, but is depicted in the drawings and described in the specification in such a way that it can be interpreted as being a general purpose computer. Applicant’s claimed “a first signal,” “a second signal,” “a third signal,” and “a fourth signal” are inputs or outputs from the control unit, and hence part of the general purpose computer.
Applicant’s claimed “an indicator” is referenced by the instant specification publication [0150] as, “The processing system 46 is programmed to display on an indicator 65 of the display device 51,” and shown in instant Fig. 5 as a graphical element displayed on a computer screen.
These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer or components of a generic computer, which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the claimed limitation of “device,” is reasonably understood as not providing anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claim 2 does not provide a practical application and is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claim 2 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on its dependency to independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 4-10 are eligible under 35 USC 101 because they positively recite that the invention is embodied as an actual aircraft, which is not a general purpose computer.
Dependent claim 11 is eligible under 35 USC 101 because it recites the additional elements of a “flight simulation system,” “a station,” “a display device,” and “one or more flight simulation devices.” These elements are shown in instant application Fig. 8, depicting the flight simulation system 100’ and one or more flight simulation devices 113’, where “a station” is represented as the station 110’ including pilot’s seat and display device 116’. These additional elements are not considered to be a general purpose computer.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuichard (US 4,870,412) in view of Cotton (US 4,115,755), and in further view of Bruno et al. (hereinafter “Bruno,” BR 102015014165 A2).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 12, Vuichard discloses a control unit for an aircraft capable of hovering or for a flight simulation system of said aircraft (Vuichard col. 1 lines 59-60, “a warning device installed in a helicopter”), ,
said control unit being programmed to:
receive at least one first signal associated with respective one or more real or simulated flight parameters of said aircraft (Vuichard col. 4 lines 5-9, “During the flight the central processing unit 4 also periodically determines maximum permissible flight speed from density height and weight at a given moment by means of the program instructions stored in program memory 5.” The first signal associated with at least “density height”);
process a third signal associated with an actual or simulated weight of said aircraft (Vuichard col. 4 lines 5-9, “During the flight the central processing unit 4 also periodically determines maximum permissible flight speed from density height and weight at a given moment by means of the program instructions stored in program memory 5.” The third signal associated with weight”);
…
output the second signal for displaying an indication of the forward velocity to never exceed at the aircraft capable of hovering or the flight simulation system of said aircraft (Vuichard col. 4 lines 32-44, “The so-determined maximum permissible flight speed Vmax is displayed on the display 22. The effective flight speed is displayed to the helicopter pilot by the airspeed indicator (as measured by a Pitot or Prandtl tube) so that the pilot can adapt the flight speed according to the permissible maximum speed displayed on the display 22.”).
Vuichard does not explicitly teach every limitation of associate a plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of said third signal, each said table associating a plurality of values of a second signal associated with a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft with a respective one of said at least one first signal; process said second signal based on one of said plurality of tables associated with a relative interval of said third signal associated with the actual or simulated weight of said aircraft and the respective at least one first signal.
However, Cotton discloses associate a plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of said third signal, each said table associating a plurality of values of a second signal associated with a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft with a respective one of said at least one first signal; process said second signal based on one of said plurality of tables associated with a relative interval of said third signal associated with the actual or simulated weight of said aircraft and the respective at least one first signal (Cotton Abstract, “The factors (including collective pitch, weight, altitude density, rotor speed and airspeed) which determine the extent to which the rotor of a helicopter may be loaded, are fed into a look-up table, and the permissible acceleration normal to the rotor is compared against actual acceleration normal to the rotor, an alarm signal resulting whenever the actual exceeds the permissive,” wherein permissible acceleration of the rotor is determined by the weight and altitude density. While acceleration of the rotor is not the same as forward velocity, it is related, and one having ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to calculate forward velocity using the same factors).
Cotton is analogous to Vuichard, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard, to include associate a plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of said third signal, each said table associating a plurality of values of a second signal associated with a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft with a respective one of said at least one first signal; process said second signal based on one of said plurality of tables associated with a relative interval of said third signal associated with the actual or simulated weight of said aircraft and the respective at least one first signal, as taught by Cotton, since it would have been a simple substitution of a table-lookup technique of Cotton for a calculation technique of Vuichard. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Vuichard in view of Cotton does not explicitly teach every limitation of receive a fourth signal associated with at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft; store a plurality of velocity profiles for respective velocities to never exceed associated with said respective intervals of values of said third signal; associate each said velocity profile with a respective set of said tables, each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said fourth signal.
However, Bruno discloses receive a fourth signal associated with at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft; store a plurality of velocity profiles for respective velocities to never exceed associated with said respective intervals of values of said third signal; associate each said velocity profile with a respective set of said tables, each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said fourth signal (Bruno [083], “the measurement and calculation software program 40 is then able to convert the command to the orientation set point, taking into account, optionally, the following criteria: the ergonomics of the stick (displacement, height, etc.), the type of aircraft, as well as its engine type and the engine performance elements (number of engines in operation, etc.), and the flight phase (takeoff, cruise, approach, on land) determined among other things by measuring aircraft parameters (altitude, speed, aircraft configuration),” wherein the calculation software takes into account other parameters such as number of engines in operation, as the fourth signal; also Bruno Fig. 3 and [021], “Figure 3 is a diagram that illustrates the use of interpolation tables that provide the ability to calculate the characteristic slope values of a performance scale,” storing interpolation tables as profiles).
Bruno is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton, to include receive a fourth signal associated with at least one further actual or simulated flight parameter of said aircraft; store a plurality of velocity profiles for respective velocities to never exceed associated with said respective intervals of values of said third signal; associate each said velocity profile with a respective set of said tables, each said table of a said set being associated with a respective value of said fourth signal, as taught by Bruno, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses wherein said at least one first signal comprises a plurality of first signals that are associated with an outside temperature and an actual or simulated altitude of said aircraft (Vuichard Abstract, “determining density height from pressure height and outside temperature,” density height is determined using outside temperature).
Regarding claim 4, Vuichard in view of Cotton discloses an aircraft capable of hovering, comprising:
one or more sensors adapted to detect said one or more real flight parameters of said aircraft (Vuichard col. 2 lines 16-18, “a temperature probe 14 for measuring the outside temperature, mounted on the outside of the helicopter”);
a propulsion system comprising a plurality of engines (Vuichard col. 1 lines 12-13, “The device according to the invention measures the torque or output of the aeroengine”);
a cockpit comprising a display device on which said value of velocity to never exceed can be displayed (Vuichard col. 4 lines 33-38, “The so-determined maximum permissible flight speed Vmax is displayed on the display 22. The effective flight speed is displayed to the helicopter pilot by the airspeed indicator (as measured by a Pitot or Prandtl tube) so that the pilot can adapt the flight speed according to the permissible maximum speed displayed on the display 22.”); and
a control unit according to claim 1 (rejection of claim 1, supra).
Vuichard in view of Cotton does not explicitly teach every limitation of wherein said fourth signal is associated with an actual or simulated operating first, second or third condition of the propulsion system of said aircraft; said first condition being representative of all said engines of said propulsion system being operational; said second condition being representative of only one said engine of said propulsion system being operational; said third condition being representative of said propulsion system being deactivated.
However, Bruno discloses wherein said fourth signal is associated with an actual or simulated operating first, second or third condition of the propulsion system of said aircraft; said first condition being representative of all said engines of said propulsion system being operational; said second condition being representative of only one said engine of said propulsion system being operational; said third condition being representative of said propulsion system being deactivated (Bruno [083], “the measurement and calculation software program 40 is then able to convert the command to the orientation set point, taking into account, optionally, the following criteria: the ergonomics of the stick (displacement, height, etc.), the type of aircraft, as well as its engine type and the engine performance elements (number of engines in operation, etc.), and the flight phase (takeoff, cruise, approach, on land) determined among other things by measuring aircraft parameters (altitude, speed, aircraft configuration),” wherein the calculation software takes into account other parameters such as number of engines in operation, as the fourth signal).
Bruno is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton, to include wherein said fourth signal is associated with an actual or simulated operating first, second or third condition of the propulsion system of said aircraft; said first condition being representative of all said engines of said propulsion system being operational; said second condition being representative of only one said engine of said propulsion system being operational; said third condition being representative of said propulsion system being deactivated, as taught by Bruno, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Vuichard in view of Bruno discloses wherein said velocity profiles associate constant and different values of said velocity to never exceed, with equal values of said first signals and said fourth signals.
However, Cotton discloses wherein said velocity profiles associate constant and different values of said velocity to never exceed, with equal values of said first signals and said fourth signals (Cotton Abstract, “The factors (including collective pitch, weight, altitude density, rotor speed and airspeed) which determine the extent to which the rotor of a helicopter may be loaded, are fed into a look-up table, and the permissible acceleration normal to the rotor is compared against actual acceleration normal to the rotor, an alarm signal resulting whenever the actual exceeds the permissive,” wherein different values of said velocity to never exceed can be looked up in the tables of parameters).
Cotton is analogous to Vuichard and Bruno, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard and Bruno, to include wherein said velocity profiles associate constant and different values of said velocity to never exceed, with equal values of said first signals and said fourth signals, as taught by Cotton, since it would have been a simple substitution of a table-lookup technique of Cotton for a calculation technique of Vuichard. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 6, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses wherein said control unit is programmed to: receive a fifth signal associated with the actual or simulated velocity of said aircraft; and generate an acoustic signal associated with the actual or simulated velocity of said aircraft being equal to a predetermined rate of said velocity to never exceed; and command the display of said velocity to never exceed (Vuichard col. 4 lines 39-44, “The airspeed indicator of the helicopter could, of course, also be linked to the central processing unit 4, whereby the latter could indicate the effective flight speed together with the maximum speed on the display 22 and could trigger a flashing lamp as an optical warning signal when said maximum speed is exceeded.”; also Vuichard col. 1 lines 14-18, “the measuring device and transmits an audible signal to the pilot's headphones via an audible signal generator controlled by the control device when the measured value exceeds a maximum value,” when a value is exceeded, it is also contemplated that an acoustic signal is emitted).
Regarding claim 7, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses wherein said control unit comprises: a first storage stage wherein said velocity profiles are stored; a processing stage programmed to process said actual or simulated weight; and a second storage stage wherein said tables are stored, which second storage stage is operatively connected with said first storage stage and processing stage, and adapted to acquire said first and second signals and process said second signal (Vuichard col. 2 lines 34-40, “Stored in the program memory 5 are data processing instructions for determining density height from pressure height and temperature, permissible maximum value of the blade angle from density height, weight at a given time from take-off weight and weight of fuel used, maximum permissible flight speed from density height and weight at a given time, and maximum load.”; Vuichard col. 2 lines 40-51, “the actual weight of the helicopter stored in the program memory 5.”).
Regarding claim 8, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses wherein said control unit comprises a display stage programmed to command the display of said velocity to never exceed and commanded by said second storage stage (Vuichard col. 4 lines 32-38, “The so-determined maximum permissible flight speed Vmax is displayed on the display 22. The effective flight speed is displayed to the helicopter pilot by the airspeed indicator (as measured by a Pitot or Prandtl tube) so that the pilot can adapt the flight speed according to the permissible maximum speed displayed on the display 22.”).
Regarding claim 9, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno discloses wherein said control unit comprises an interface which can be actuated to enter a sixth signal associated with the value of the actual or simulated weight of said aircraft at take-off and/or with an actual or simulated weight of equipment of said aircraft, and operatively connected with said first storage stage; said second signal being, in use, processed based on said sixth signal (Vuichard col. 2 lines 48-51, “The central processing unit 4 calculates the take-off weight Wtake-off herefrom and from the actual weight of the helicopter stored in the program memory 5.”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, in further view of Berthou et al. (hereinafter “Berthou,” US 2006/0164260).
Regarding claim 10, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno does not explicitly teach every limitation of an indicator, said indicator comprising: a first indication associated with an actual or simulated position of a horizon; and a second indication associated with an actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon; a third indication associated with the actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft; said third indication comprising, in turn, a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication; wherein said indicator comprises: a fourth indication associated with an actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale.
However, Berthou discloses an indicator, said indicator comprising: a first indication associated with an actual or simulated position of a horizon; and a second indication associated with an actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon; a third indication associated with the actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft; said third indication comprising, in turn, a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication; wherein said indicator comprises: a fourth indication associated with an actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale (Berthou [0003], “a main display for displaying with great precision a horizon, an attitude of the aircraft, and altitude, heading and speed data; this display receives the information computed by a computer of the airplane based on data received from various sensors”; also Berthou [0023], “display of a horizon 14 (ground in brown below, sky in blue above) and standby data necessary for piloting, that is mainly altitude (scrolling graduated scale 16 on the right), speed (scrolling graduated scale 18 on the left), and an airplane attitude symbol 20”; also Berthou [0038], “Various additional buttons, pushbuttons or switches, may be used, linked with the information displayed by the software on the screen, to perform various functions similar to those of the integrated electronics standby instruments of the prior art (placing max or min speed marks for example) or to those of the automatic pilot control panels of the prior art”; see also Berthou Figs. 1-5).
Berthou is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, as both are drawn to the art of aircraft. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, to include an indicator, said indicator comprising: a first indication associated with an actual or simulated position of a horizon; and a second indication associated with an actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon; a third indication associated with the actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft; said third indication comprising, in turn, a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication; wherein said indicator comprises: a fourth indication associated with an actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale, as taught by Berthou, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, in further view of Hwang et al. (hereinafter “Hwang,” KR 20130012727 A).
Regarding claim 11, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno does not explicitly teach every limitation of a flight simulation system for simulating a flight of an aircraft capable of hovering, comprising: a station for a pilot to be trained; a display device, on which a simulated value of velocity to never exceed can be displayed; at least one simulated control device of said aircraft, which can be actuated with a command simulated by said pilot to simulate a flight condition of said aircraft; one or more flight simulation devices adapted to generate a simulated representation of said simulated flight condition for perception by said pilot; and a control unit according to claim 1.
However, Hwang discloses a flight simulation system for simulating a flight of an aircraft capable of hovering, comprising: a station for a pilot to be trained; a display device, on which a simulated value of velocity to never exceed can be displayed; at least one simulated control device of said aircraft, which can be actuated with a command simulated by said pilot to simulate a flight condition of said aircraft; one or more flight simulation devices adapted to generate a simulated representation of said simulated flight condition for perception by said pilot (Hwang Abstract, “A real time automatic generation system for a helicopter performance schedule table and a computer readable recording medium storing a PC based helicopter performance calculation simulation program are provided to receive only minimum necessary inputs from a pilot, thereby reducing a work load of the pilot and a required time.”; also Hwang page 5, “the output information shown in the case of the flight conditions are cruising flight CRUISE (cruise) than in partial ban speed (VNE: Velocity Never Exceed), the maximum flight distance (Maximum Range) and speed (Maximum Range Speed), the maximum flight time (Maximum Endurance) and speed (Maximum Endurance Speed) to include the show,” Hwang discloses a flight simulation system that calculates and shows the Velocity Never Exceed).
Hwang is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, as both are drawn to the art of helicopters. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, to include a flight simulation system for simulating a flight of an aircraft capable of hovering, comprising: a station for a pilot to be trained; a display device, on which a simulated value of velocity to never exceed can be displayed; at least one simulated control device of said aircraft, which can be actuated with a command simulated by said pilot to simulate a flight condition of said aircraft; one or more flight simulation devices adapted to generate a simulated representation of said simulated flight condition for perception by said pilot, as taught by Hwang, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, and in further view of Berthou.
Regarding claim 14, Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno does not explicitly teach every limitation of claim 14. However, Berthou discloses the limitations of claim 14 as follows:
a first indication associated with an actual or simulated position of a horizon (Berthou Abstract, “a main display system for horizon and necessary piloting parameters”); and
a second indication associated with an actual or simulated attitude of said aircraft with respect to said horizon (Berthou [0003], “a main display for displaying with great precision a horizon, an attitude of the aircraft, and altitude, heading and speed data; this display receives the information computed by a computer of the airplane based on data received from various sensors”);
a third indication associated with an actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft (Berthou [0003], “a main display for displaying with great precision a horizon, an attitude of the aircraft, and altitude, heading and speed data; this display receives the information computed by a computer of the airplane based on data received from various sensors”);
said third indication comprising a straight graduated scale placed laterally to the second indication (Berthou [0023], “display of a horizon 14 (ground in brown below, sky in blue above) and standby data necessary for piloting, that is mainly altitude (scrolling graduated scale 16 on the right), speed (scrolling graduated scale 18 on the left), and an airplane attitude symbol 20”);
wherein said indicator comprises:
a fourth indication of an actual or simulated value of forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft and arranged along said graduated scale (Berthou [0038], “Various additional buttons, pushbuttons or switches, may be used, linked with the information displayed by the software on the screen, to perform various functions similar to those of the integrated electronics standby instruments of the prior art (placing max or min speed marks for example) or to those of the automatic pilot control panels of the prior art”).
Berthou is analogous to Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, as both are drawn to the art of aircraft. It would be obvious to try by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Vuichard in view of Cotton and Bruno, to include the limitations of claim 14, as taught by Berthou, since it combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Doing so is a predictable solution that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued with a reasonable expectation of success.
Vuichard in view of Cotton, Bruno, and Berthou does not explicitly teach a fifth indication of a value of maximum actual or simulated forward velocity of said aircraft and placed along said graduated scale; and said fourth indication and fifth indication being formed by respective labels "VNE threshold" and "Vmax threshold". However, the Applicant’s use of specific display locations of values and specific labels for the values is an obvious design choice. Applicant has not disclosed that specific display locations of values and specific labels for the values solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that any display location and label of values using the device of Vuichard in view of Cotton, Bruno, and Berthou or the Applicant would perform equally well. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Berthou to obtain the device as specified in claim 14, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Vuichard in view of Cotton, Bruno, and Berthou.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on July 28, 2026 have been fully considered, and Examiner’s responses are provided below.
Rejections under 35 USC 101
The Applicant respectfully argues that “the rejected claims are plainly not directed to ‘methods of organizing human activity’ in that they are specifically tied to a method for ‘an actual or simulated manoeuvre for an aircraft’ and are not directed to fundamental economic practices (e.g., risk hedging), commercial or legal interactions (e.g., contractual negotiations), or managing behavior or relationships (e.g., scheduling), which are applied examples of ‘methods of organizing human activity.’”
Upon careful consideration, the Examiner agrees that the claims are not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Therefore, this portion of the 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn. However, the claims remain directed to “mental processes,” as discussed below.
The Applicant further respectfully argues that “independent claim 12 recites an ordered combination of computer-implemented process steps that are tied specifically to technological improvements to a control unit for a display at an aircraft or a flight simulation system of said aircraft.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite any steps that improve the functioning of the computer (control unit) itself. Instead, the claims are directed to receiving signals with information (collecting information), using tables to determine the forward velocity to never exceed (analyzing it), and displaying an indication of the forward velocity to never exceed (displaying certain results of the collection analysis). Only conventional features of generic computing devices are used in the process of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis.
The Applicant also respectfully argues, “These recited processing steps involving a computer-implemented process of interpreting plural aircraft flight parameter signals for determining a VNE and displaying an indication thereof cannot be performed with pen and paper in the human mind in that they operate on a plurality of flight parameter signals for a flight display instrument. Thus, the recited features are distinguishable from other examples of "mental processes" that involve calculations and/or processes on data from an underlying abstract idea, such as financial calculations. Instead, they relate directly to computer-implemented signal processing features on tangible flight parameter signals. As such, the invention as defined in the claims is not related merely to ‘mental processes.’”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) directs examiners to “review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claimed invention is described as the concept of “determining and indicating the forward velocity to never exceed of an aircraft capable of hovering” that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed on a generic computer or computer environment, and is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. That is, a human can perform the “determining and indicating the forward velocity to never exceed of an aircraft capable of hovering” without the use of a computing device by determining the variable factors (e.g. position of a horizon, attitude of the aircraft, forward velocity, weight of aircraft, etc.) and either calculating or looking up on tables the “forward velocity to never exceed.” The Examiner notes that although determining certain variable factors, such as weight of aircraft, may be non-trivial, the claims do not recite any specific and inventive methods of calculating any of these variables. The claims only recite receiving “signals” containing this information, so that the information may be used in calculations or to look up values on tables.
The Applicant states that the claims “relate directly to computer-implemented signal processing features on tangible flight parameter signals.” However, the claims do not recite any limitations on the technical steps of how the signals are processed, or any novel or inventive ways the signals generated or received. The claims only recite that the signals are received, then used to calculate or look up on tables the “forward velocity to never exceed.” Therefore, the claims are still directed to mental processes.
The Applicant respectfully argues, “the invention as defined in the claims is directed to an ordered combination of steps for processing a signal associated with a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft, including the specific technological steps of associating a plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of a signal associated with an actual or simulated weight of the aircraft, the tables associating output values of VNE signals with a respective flight parameter signal; and further storing a plurality of velocity profiles for respective VNE associated with the respective intervals and associating each velocity profile with a set of the tables and each table to a respective value of another flight parameter.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed ordered combination of steps for processing a signal in the present claims amounts to receiving signals containing information, using the information from the signals to calculate or look up on tables the “forward velocity never to exceed,” and then displaying the “forward velocity never to exceed” to the user. MPEP2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) gives some examples of claims that recite mental processes including “a claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” and “a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011),” both of which are analogous and relevant to the instant claims. Therefore, the claims are still believed to be directed to “mental processes.”
The Applicant further respectfully argues that “a Step 2A Prong Two analysis expressly provides for improvements that may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application without necessarily being an improvement over well understood, routine, conventional activity… the specification identifies the advantages and improvements of the inventive technique over conventional flight display systems.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, and therefore do not provide any improvements to computer functionality, as defined in MPEP2106.05(a). MPEP2106.05(b) defines improvements to any other technology or technical field. In making this determination, the MPEP cautions examiners that “it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself… is not an improvement in technology.” In the present case, the claims recite only improvements in “determining and indicating the forward velocity to never exceed of an aircraft capable of hovering,” which are not improvements in technology.
The Applicant also respectfully argues that “the claims conform to the standard set by the Federal Circuit in the McRO case… The specific ordered combination of steps… limits the invention to a specific way of processing respective flight parameter signals to facilitate the technological step of outputting a signal for displaying an indication of a forward velocity to never exceed at an aircraft capable of hovering or a flight simulation system of the aircraft. This specificity precludes the claims from monopolizing (or preempting) any underlying abstract idea. For example, the claims are not directed to all manners of determining a flight characteristic of an aircraft. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). ("the concern that drives [the Section 101] exclusionary principle [is] one of pre- emption."); see also McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d at 1315 ("[t]he specific structure of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption of all rules-based means of automating lip synchronization, unless the limits of the rules themselves are broad enough to cover all possible approaches"). Therefore, the invention as defined in the claims incorporates "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea under a Step 2B analysis.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims as recited do not provide any details for how the signals are processed, only that the signals are received. Once received, the information in the signals are used to calculate or look up in tables the “forward velocity to never exceed.” These generalities effectively monopolize any use of aircraft weight, aircraft velocity, horizon, and attitude in calculating the forward velocity to never exceed at an aircraft capable of hovering. The Examiner notes that the claims are directed to a method of calculating, rather than any specific technology or technological process.
For the reasons provided above, the 35 USC 101 rejections will be maintained.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the Applicant respectfully argues that Cotton fails to cure the deficiencies of Vuichard because “Cotton is directed to a rotor-load acceleration warning, not to determining or outputting a forward velocity to never exceed.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Cotton is not relied upon for its teaching of determining and outputting a forward velocity to never exceed. Cotton is directed to a monitoring system for helicopters similar to the system of Vuichard. While Cotton does not determine forward velocity to never exceed, Cotton does determine rotor-load acceleration and displays a warning if the “permissible acceleration normal to the rotor” exceeds acceptable levels. Cotton discloses a similar invention to that of Vuichard, and is relied upon solely for its teaching of monitoring maximum allowable parameters for a helicopter by comparing values on tables stored in memory.
Further regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the Applicant respectfully argues that “Cotton is silent with respect to the claimed table structure, for example, associating a plurality of tables to respective intervals of values of a third signal, each said table associating a plurality of values of a second signal associated with a forward velocity to never exceed of said aircraft with a respective one of said at least one first signal, as claimed. Notably, as illustrated by the notation "(ACCEL) AS f(Θ, W, S,D, N)" in the drawing figure of Cotton, the table described in Cotton only corresponds to a lookup table storing permitted accelerations (Z) as a compound function of "pitch stick position 0, weight W, airspeed S, density D, and rotor speed N, or "inputs (Θ, W, S, D, N)." Cotton at col. 3, 11. 48- 61. Thus, Cotton does not disclose or suggest associating respective intervals of values, for example, of a weight (W), with another input and further organized into velocity profiles and sets of tables indexed by a fourth signal, but rather only a lookup table of permitted accelerations (Z) stored according to a compound function of the plurality of inputs.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, Cotton is only relied upon for its teaching of using tables to store monitored values on a helicopter, and to look up values such as maximum permissible speed. The specific values that are stored in the table would vary depending on what types of monitoring and calculations the tables would be used for. Vuichard is relied upon for teaching specific parameters to be stored in memory such as aircraft weight and velocities, and values such as forward velocity to never exceed. Furthermore, table structural features such as spacing values by a certain interval are well known and conventional for lookup tables.
Also regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the Applicant respectfully argues that “Bruno also fails to remedy the deficiencies of Vuichard and Cotton… The rejection does not identify an articulated reason, grounded in the citations, why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced or modified Vuichard's maximum-speed determination using the acceleration-based rotor-load table described in Cotton or the slope-value interpolation tables described in Bruno to arrive at the claimed VNE-specific profile/table structure. The rejection relies solely upon the claims as a roadmap to piece together the disparate features directed to different objectives of these citations.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that Vuichard discloses storing the specific values recited in the instant claims, and determining and indicating the “forward velocity to never exceed” value. Vuichard only does not explicitly teach the specific organization of how the data is stored. Cotton discloses storing and referencing data in tables. Bruno is relied upon for its teaching of taking into account other parameters such as number of engines in operation, and storing interpolation tables as profiles. That is, while Vuichard closely discloses the instant claimed invention, Cotton and Bruno are relied upon for showing that the specific methods of organization of the data in memory was known in the prior art at the time the instant invention was filed.
For the above reasons, the 35 USC 103 rejections will be maintained.
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 Stephen Alvesteffer whose telephone number is (571)272-8680. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-6:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/STEPHEN ALVESTEFFER/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights