DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to claims filed 6/26/2024.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 6/26/2024 have been entered by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/26/2024 and 12/16/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an own aircraft information acquisition unit in claim 1,
a path acquisition unit in claim 1,
a related information acquisition unit in claim 1,
an output unit in claim 1,
a path prediction unit in claim 6,
a congestion information acquisition unit in claim 9,
another aircraft information acquisition unit in claim 11,
a weather information acquisition unit in claims 14 and 16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because (1) in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of “program,” a program encompasses forms of non-transitory tangible media as well as transitory propagating signals, which are non-statutory per se (In re Nuijten), and (2) Applicant’s specification fails to limit the term “program” to only non-transitory tangible media. Per MPEP 2106.03(I), “[p]roducts that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitation” are not directed to any of the statutory categories. Therefore, the claim as a whole is non-statutory.
The examiner suggests amending the claimed “program” to recite "a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a program" which would serve to exclude non-statutory subject matter from the claim's scope.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis of Claim 1
Claim 1. An information processing device comprising:
an own aircraft information acquisition unit that acquires condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft;
a path acquisition unit that acquires a path that the target aircraft may follow;
a related information acquisition unit that acquires related information regarding the path based on the condition information; and
an output unit that outputs output information based on the related information.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites an apparatus (i.e. “device”). The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
The claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claim recites the limitation of a related information acquisition unit that acquires related information regarding the path based on the condition information. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “related information regarding the path” is data representative of the path that an aircraft may follow. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “condition information,” in light of the overall claim and Applicant's disclosure, is data representative of the condition of the aircraft. No particular operations of the aircraft or particular aircraft-related sensors are required to obtain the generally recited data. The limitation of a “related information acquisition unit” is interpreted as 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic processing unit. Generally recited data is merely acquired based on other generally recited data using generic computing components.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, but for the recitation of “related information acquisition unit.” That is, other than reciting “related information acquisition unit,” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “related information acquisition unit” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. condition information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire related information regarding the path). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer (i.e. “related information acquisition unit”). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Therefore, the mere nominal recitation of “related information acquisition unit” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
The claim is evaluated for whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception 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 potions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
The claim recites additional elements of:
an own aircraft information acquisition unit that acquires condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft;
a path acquisition unit that acquires a path that the target aircraft may follow;
an output unit that outputs output information based on the related information.
The “own aircraft information acquisition unit,” “path acquisition unit,” and “output unit” are interpreted as 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitations and are disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as generic processing units. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “output information” is data representative of output.
The “acquires condition information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “acquires a path” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of a path that the target aircraft may follow) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The “outputs output information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general outputting of output information) and amounts to post-solution activity upon generally recited data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The elements of own aircraft information acquisition unit, path acquisition unit, and output unit, interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as generic computing units, merely act in their ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), and therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
The “target aircraft” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general-purpose aircraft environment. The aircraft contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in an insignificant extra-solution activity step or in a field-of-use limitation) and is merely an object on which the method operates (e.g., acquiring condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft and a path that the target aircraft may follow); therefore, the “target aircraft” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
The claim is evaluated for whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring condition information and a path and outputting output information steps were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus, they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites the aircraft as known in the art, and the specification does not provide any indication that the own aircraft information acquisition unit, path acquisition unit, and output unit are anything other than conventional computing components. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016), OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014), but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014), indicate that mere storing and retrieving information in memory, and receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when claimed in a merely generic manner, as it is here. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
101 Analysis of Dependent Claims 2-17
Dependent claims 2-17 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of the path acquisition unit acquires the path that the target aircraft may follow based on paths flown by aircraft in the past.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “paths flown by aircraft in the past” is data representative of historical flight paths and does not require particular controlled operation or particular aircraft-related sensors. Further limiting the acquired path to be based on paths flown by aircraft in the past represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the path to be based on paths flown by aircraft in the past does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 3 recites the additional elements of the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information based on information regarding airspace facility usage fees for the path.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “information regarding airspace facility usage fees for the path” is data representative of airspace facility usage fees and does not require particular controlled operations of the aircraft. Further limiting the acquired related information to be based on information regarding airspace facility usage fees for the path represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the acquired related information to be based on information regarding airspace facility usage fees for the path does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 4 recites the additional elements of the related information acquisition unit acquires acquired information, comprising an estimated result of the engine combustor outlet temperature of the target aircraft, by applying input information based on the path to learning information corresponding to the characteristics of the target aircraft, and acquires the related information, comprising information regarding maintenance costs of the target aircraft, using the acquired information and the engine operating time for flying the path.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the limitation of “related information acquisition unit” is interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic computing unit.
Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of estimated result of the engine combustor outlet temperature is data representative of an estimated result of the engine combustor outlet temperature and does not require particular control operations or aircraft-related sensors to generated the “estimated result.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of “learning information,” in light of the overall claim Applicant's disclosure, is merely data, and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “information regarding maintenance costs” is data representative of maintenance costs. While “engine operating time for flying the path” is used to acquire the generally recited data, no particular controlled operations of the aircraft are claimed. Generally recited data is merely determined based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. input information, path, learning information, and characteristics of the aircraft) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire an estimated result of the engine combustor outlet temperature), so as to form a subsequent observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire information regarding maintenance costs) using data collected (i.e. acquired estimated result and engine operating time). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of the path acquisition unit acquires two or more paths that the target aircraft may follow, and the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information, comprising information indicating the recommended path for the target aircraft based on whether each of the acquired paths satisfies specified recommendation conditions, based on specified information designating one or more of specified factors for each path and the values of the respective factors.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the limitation of “related information acquisition unit” is interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic computing unit.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. acquired paths, specified recommendation conditions, and specified factors) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire a recommended path for the target aircraft). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “acquiring two or more paths” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of two paths that the aircraft may follow) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 6 recites the additional elements of a path prediction unit that acquires location prediction information showing the future positions of other aircraft different from the target aircraft in a time series by applying input information to a neural network with a recursive structure, wherein the path prediction unit is configured to acquire the location prediction information for each of two or more of the other aircraft using a prediction model including an attention mechanism pooling layer to share the condition within the neural network used for each of the two or more other aircraft flying simultaneously, and the related information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the related information using the location prediction information.
The limitation of “path prediction unit” is interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic computing unit. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “location prediction information” is data representative of future positions of aircraft in a time series and does not require particular aircraft-related control operations or sensors.
The “neural network with recursive structure” is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the neural network functions. The neural network is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a computer with a generic neural network to apply the abstract idea. The limitations only recite the outcomes of “acquires…” without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. Similarly, the “prediction model including an attention mechanism pooling layer” is used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting how the prediction model functions. The prediction model is described at a high level such that it amounts to using a computer with a generic prediction model to apply the abstract idea. The limitations only recite the outcomes of “acquire…” without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. See example 47 in the Federal Register Notice: Issued July 2024.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. input information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire location prediction information). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further limiting the acquired related information to be based on the location prediction information represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the acquired related information to be based on the location prediction information does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 7 recites the additional elements of the related information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the related information while the target aircraft is flying, and the output information comprises information for displaying the positions of one or more of the other aircraft after a first period and a second period and the positions of the target aircraft after the first period and the second period on a map.
No particular aircraft-related control operations or sensors are required by the claim language. The limitation of “positions” is merely data representative of the aircraft.
Further limiting the related information to be acquired while the target aircraft is flying represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the related information to be acquired while the target aircraft is flying does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Further limiting the output information to include information for displaying the positions of one or more of the other aircraft after a first period and a second period and the positions of the target aircraft after the first period and the second period on a map represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the output information to include information for displaying the positions of one or more of the other aircraft after a first period and a second period and the positions of the target aircraft after the first period and the second period on a map does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
No technological details are recited with respect to the displaying step itself. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), such limitation is interpreted as a result-oriented solution rather than an actual technological improvement. Thus, the displaying step is found not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claim 8 recites the additional elements of the related information acquisition unit is configured to acquire information regarding changing the path of the target aircraft as the related information, based on the location prediction information, when it is determined that the future relationship between the target aircraft and the other aircraft satisfies relationship conditions based on the issuance history of control instructions in air traffic control while the target aircraft is flying.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the limitation of “related information acquisition unit” is interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic computing unit. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “future relationship between the aircraft and the other aircraft” is data representative of a relationship between two aircraft and does not require particular aircraft-related sensors or controlled operations of the aircraft.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. path, related information, location prediction information, future relationship between the target aircraft and other aircraft, and relationship conditions) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire information regarding changing the path of the target aircraft as the related information based on location prediction information when the future relationship between the target aircraft and other aircraft satisfies relationship conditions). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 9 recites the additional elements of a congestion information acquisition unit that acquires congestion information indicating the congestion level at the destination of the target aircraft based on information regarding aircraft heading to the same destination, and the output unit outputs the output information based on the congestion information.
The limitation of “congestion information acquisition unit” is interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic computing unit. Based on the plain meaning of the terms in light of the Applicant's disclosure, the limitation of “congestion information” is data representative of a congestion level at a destination and does not require particular aircraft-related sensors or controlled operations of the aircraft. Generally recited data is acquired based on other generally recited data.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. information regarding aircraft heading to the same destination) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire congestion information). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further limiting the output information to be based on the congestion information represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the output information to be based on the congestion information does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 10 recites the additional elements of the output unit outputs the output information corresponding to the timing of the target aircraft arriving at the destination based on the congestion information and the condition information.
Further limiting the output information to correspond to the timing of the target aircraft arriving at the destination based on the congestion information and the condition information represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the output information to correspond to the timing of the target aircraft arriving at the destination based on the congestion information and the condition information does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 11 recites the additional elements of another aircraft information acquisition unit that acquires information regarding other aircraft different from the target aircraft, and the congestion information acquisition unit acquires the future congestion information of the destination based on the information regarding the other aircraft currently flying.
The limitation of “acquires the future congestion information,” as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. information regarding the other aircraft currently flying) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire future congestion information of the destination). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation of “another aircraft information acquisition unit” is interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic computing unit.
The “acquires information regarding other aircraft” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of information regarding other aircraft) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 12 recites the additional elements of the output unit outputs information regarding changing the flight condition of the target aircraft as the output information based on the congestion information and the condition information while the target aircraft is flying.
The “outputs information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general outputting of information regarding changing the flight condition of the target aircraft) and amounts to mere data gathering upon generally recited conditions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 13 recites the additional elements of the output information comprises information for visually displaying the congestion level at the destination by time zone in which aircraft arrive.
Further limiting the output information to comprise information for visually displaying the congestion level at the destination by time zone in which aircraft arrive represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the output information to comprise information for visually displaying the congestion level at the destination by time zone in which aircraft arrive does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 14 recites the additional elements of a weather information acquisition unit that acquires weather information comprising information regarding the condition of the atmosphere, wherein the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information, comprising the prediction results of turbulence intensity in the area corresponding to the path based on the weather information, and the output information comprises information correlating the prediction results of turbulence intensity and the path.
The limitation of “acquires the related information,” as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. path and weather information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire prediction results of turbulence intensity). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The limitation of “weather information acquisition unit” is interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic computing unit.
The “acquires weather information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of weather information) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further limiting the output to include information correlating the prediction results of turbulence intensity and the path represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the output to include information correlating the prediction results of turbulence intensity and the path does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 15 recites the additional elements of the output information is information for displaying an image that illustrates the prediction results of turbulence intensity overlaid on the path.
Further limiting the output information to be information for displaying an image that illustrates the prediction results of turbulence intensity overlaid on the path represents a mere narrowing of the abstract idea (step 2A prong one) and does not impose meaningful limits on the claim beyond what has already been identified as abstract. Thus, limiting the output information to be information for displaying an image that illustrates the prediction results of turbulence intensity overlaid on the path does not further integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 16 recites the additional elements of a weather information acquisition unit that acquires weather information comprising information regarding the condition of the atmosphere, wherein the related information acquisition unit acquires learning information configured by machine learning methods using two or more pairs of learning input information, comprising weather information and condition information acquired for the flight of one aircraft, and learning output information, comprising inertia-related information measured at each point on the flight path of the aircraft, and applies input information, comprising weather information acquired by the weather information acquisition unit and condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft, to the learning information to acquire prediction information regarding inertia at each point on the path of the target aircraft, and acquires the related information based on the prediction information.
The limitation of “weather information acquisition unit” is interpreted as a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation and is disclosed in the Applicant’s disclosure as a generic computing unit.
The “learning information configured by machine learning methods” is used to generally apply an abstract idea without limiting how the machine learning methods function. The machine learning methods are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a computer with a generic machine learning method to apply the abstract idea. These limitations only recite the outcomes of “acquires…” without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. See Example 47 in Federal Register Notice: Issued July 2024.
Therefore, this limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. input information and learning information) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire prediction information), and forms a subsequent simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire related information) based on generally recited data. Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “acquires weather information” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of weather information) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Claim 17 recites the additional elements of the path acquisition unit acquires two or more paths that the target aircraft may follow, and the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information, comprising information indicating the recommended path for the target aircraft, based on whether each of the acquired paths satisfies the recommendation conditions based on the acquired prediction information and the determination results.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple cognitive process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically covered in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected (i.e. acquired paths and recommendation conditions) and forming a simple observation and evaluation (i.e. acquire information indicating the recommended path). Such observations and evaluations are listed as abstract by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “acquires two or more paths” step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general acquiring of two or more paths that the target aircraft may follow) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Based on the tests above, the Examiner finds that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (step 2A prong two) or provide significantly more (step 2B).
Therefore, dependent claims 2-17 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
101 Analysis of Claim 18
Claim 18. An information processing method realized by the own aircraft information acquisition unit, path acquisition unit, related information acquisition unit, and output unit, comprising:
an own aircraft information acquisition step in which the own aircraft information acquisition unit acquires condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft;
a path acquisition step in which the path acquisition unit acquires a path that the target aircraft may follow;
a related information acquisition step in which the related information acquisition unit acquires related information regarding the path based on the condition information; and
an output step in which the output unit outputs output information based on the related information.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category - Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception - Yes - Mental processes
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 18.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 18.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
An analysis similar to that of independent claim 1 is made for independent claim 18.
Thus, claim 18 is ineligible.
Claims 1-18 are thus found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 as directed to an abstract idea, with the additional computer-based elements, as tested above, not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more (Step 2B).
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 1-19 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 condition of the target aircraft. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a “target aircraft” and its associated “condition” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the claimed device. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 4 recites the engine combustor outlet temperature and the engine operating time. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, these limitations cannot be considered inherent features of the target aircraft, as the aircraft is not claimed to include an engine or engine combustor outlet.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of the recommended path. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a recommended path cannot be considered an inherent feature of the two or more paths.
Claim 5 also recites the limitation of the values of the respective factors. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the “one or more specified factors” do not inherently include associated values, given the factors are undefined in the claim language and may be broadly interpreted.
Claim 6 recites the limitation of the future positions of other aircraft. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, positions of other aircraft are not claimed in the preceding elements, and therefore, “future positions of other aircraft” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the other aircraft.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of the future relationship. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a “future relationship” cannot be considered an inherent feature between the “target aircraft” and “other aircraft,” given that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably conclude the “future relationship” is related to the “future positions.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation of the issuance history of control instructions. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, issuance history of control instructions cannot be considered an inherent feature of the air traffic control, given that no particular control instructions are issued in the preceding claim elements.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of the congestion level at the destination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if the “destination” pertains to the “path” of claim 1, and thus, a destination with a particular congestion level cannot be considered an inherent feature of the target aircraft.
Claim 9 also recites the limitation of the same destination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if the “same destination” is referencing the “destination” of the target aircraft, and thus, a “same destination” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the information.
Claim 11 recites the limitation of the future congestion information of the destination. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear if the “future congestion information” is related to the “congestion information,” and thus, a “future congestion information” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the congestion information.
Claim 12 recites that the output unit outputs information regarding changing the flight condition of the target aircraft as the output information based on the congestion information and the condition information while the target aircraft is flying (emphasis added). This feature cannot be clearly interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the overall claim. Specifically, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “flight condition,” and it cannot be clearly determined if this limitation is related to the “condition information.” A “flight condition” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the target aircraft, given there are no claim limitations in which the target aircraft is actively performing flight. Further, no control operations are claimed with respect to the “output information,” and one of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably determine how a “flight condition,” interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation as a condition of the target aircraft pertaining to flight, may be reasonably changed as the output information.
Claim 14 recites the limitation of the prediction results of turbulence intensity. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, no prediction has been claimed, and “prediction results” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the turbulence intensity.
Claim 14 recites the limitation of the area corresponding to the path. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, an “area” is not defined in the claims and cannot be considered an inherent feature of the “path.”
Claim 16 recites the limitations of the flight of one aircraft and the flight path of the aircraft. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a “flight” cannot be considered an inherent feature of the “one aircraft.” Further, claim 16 recites condition information acquired for the flight of one aircraft and condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft, while claim 1, from which claim 16 depends, recites condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft and the condition information. It is unclear if “the condition information” in claim 1 is to include the condition information of the separate aircrafts or simply the “target aircraft,” in light of the overall combination.
Claim 18 recites the own aircraft information acquisition unit. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, an own aircraft information acquisition unit cannot be considered an inherent feature of the claimed method.
Claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for incorporating the errors of claim 1 by dependency.
Key to Interpreting the Prior Art Rejections
For readability, all claim language has been underlined.
Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parentheses.
Any further explanations that were deemed necessary by the Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation.
The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sindlinger et al. (US 2018/0137765 A1), hereinafter Sindlinger.
Claim 1
Sindlinger discloses the claimed information processing device (i.e. system 30 in Figure 3) comprising:
an own aircraft information acquisition unit that acquires condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft (see ¶0019, regarding navigation module 24 determines the position and speed of vehicle 20, defined as an aircraft in ¶0016, with respect to Figure 2);
a path acquisition unit that acquires a path that the target aircraft may follow (see ¶0019-0020, regarding interference module 26 obtains the intended trajectory information of vehicle 20 from path module 25; ¶0017, regarding that the intended trajectory information includes a preplanned path of a vehicle traveling from an origin to a destination);
a related information acquisition unit that acquires related information regarding the path based on the condition information (see ¶0020, regarding that interference module 26 determines a modification of the intended trajectory of vehicle 20 based on the traffic data and intended trajectory information of other vehicles received from communication system 21, where the modifications to the intended trajectory are based on the current state of the aircraft, as described in ¶0030); and
an output unit that outputs output information based on the related information (see ¶0020, regarding that the modification of the intended trajectory information is provided to the path module 25 for presentation to the operator of vehicle 20 along with details of the prediction, such as probability of a predicted interference and a time frame for the predicted interference).
Claim 18
Sindlinger discloses the claimed information processing method, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 19
Sindlinger discloses the claimed program that makes a computer function (see ¶0004), as described in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of Altus et al. (US 2020/0265724 A1), hereinafter Altus.
Claim 2
Sindlinger discloses that the path acquisition unit acquires the path that the target aircraft may follow as a preplanned path (see ¶0017) and does not further disclose the “path” as being based on paths flown by aircraft in the past. However, modifying the preplanned path of Sindlinger to be based on past paths flown by aircraft would be obvious in light of Altus.
Specifically, Altus teaches the known technique of determining a route for an aircraft to fly between locations (similar to the path that the target aircraft may follow taught by Sindlinger) based on paths flown by aircraft in the past (see ¶0063, regarding that historic route data stored in route database 108 is used to determine an efficient route for aircraft to fly between locations, as further described in ¶0031).
Since the systems of Sindlinger and Altus are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a path for an aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path that the target aircraft may follow of Sindlinger to be based on paths flown by aircraft in the past, in light of Altus, with the predictable result of determining an efficient route for an aircraft to fly to a destination for a time frame (¶0008-0009 of Altus) using historical routes (¶0048 of Altus).
Claim 5
Sindlinger does not further disclose that the path acquisition unit acquires two or more paths that the target aircraft may follow, and the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information, comprising information indicating the recommended path for the target aircraft based on whether each of the acquired paths satisfies specified recommendation conditions, based on specified information designating one or more of specified factors for each path and the values of the respective factors. However, the technique of selecting an optimal path from two or more paths based on particular conditions is well known in the art and would be obvious to incorporate into Sindlinger, in light of Altus.
Specifically, Altus teaches the known technique of acquiring two or more paths that an aircraft (similar to the target aircraft taught by Sindlinger) may follow (see ¶0063, regarding a set of efficient routes are determined) and acquiring information indicating the recommended path for the aircraft based on whether each of the acquired paths satisfies specified recommended conditions, based on specified information designating one or more of specified factors for each path and the values of the respective factors (see ¶0063, regarding the most favorable route is selected depending on current weather conditions, which is associated with a route that has been flown the most frequently, has the lowest fuel burn, or highest payload capacity during the analyzed period, as described in ¶0051).
Since the systems of Sindlinger and Altus are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a path for an aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path acquisition unit of Sindlinger to acquire two or more paths that the target aircraft may follow, and the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information, comprising information indicating the recommended path for the target aircraft based on whether each of the acquired paths satisfies specified recommendation conditions, based on specified information designating one or more of specified factors for each path and the values of the respective factors, in light of Altus, with the predictable result of analyzing vast amounts of data in a short time to quickly and efficiently output efficient routes (¶0074 of Altus).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of Schwartz (US 2021/0110444 A1), hereinafter Schwartz.
Claim 3
Sindlinger does not further discloses that the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information based on information regarding airspace facility usage fees for the path.
However, Schwartz teaches the known technique determining flight route options (similar to the related information taught by Sindlinger) based on information regarding airspace facility usage fees for the flight route (similar to the path taught by Sindlinger) (see ¶0054, regarding that a recommended route is determined based on overflight costs for a given route, where overflight costs include entry fee data of an airspace, as described in ¶0034).
Since the systems of Sindlinger and Schwartz are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a flight route for an aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the related information acquisition unit of Sindlinger to acquire the related information based on information regarding airspace facility usage fees for the path, in light of Schwartz, with the predictable result of taking into account the variable flight costs (¶0004-0006 of Schwartz) that influence the determination of a suitable route to a destination (¶0009 of Schwartz).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of Mattikalli et al. (US 2023/0192304 A1), hereinafter Mattikalli.
Claim 4
Sindlinger does not further disclose that the related information acquisition unit acquires acquired information, comprising an estimated result of the engine combustor outlet temperature of the target aircraft, by applying input information based on the path to learning information corresponding to the characteristics of the target aircraft, and acquires the related information, comprising information regarding maintenance costs of the target aircraft, using the acquired information and the engine operating time for flying the path. However, determining maintenance costs of an aircraft using parameters such as engine operating time and engine temperature would be obvious to incorporate into Sindlinger, in light of Mattikalli, given the broadness of the limitations and the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Specifically, Mattikalli teaches the known technique of acquiring acquired information, comprising an estimated result of the engine combustor outlet temperature of an aircraft (similar to the target aircraft taught by Sindlinger), by applying input information based on the planned flight trajectory (similar to the path taught by Sindlinger) to learning information corresponding to the characteristics of the aircraft (see ¶0044, regarding that equipment operating points are determined to result in a minimum airplane-related operating cost, which include maintenance costs, defined as being determined from mathematical models of the engine and airplane dynamics that take into account the temperature of an engine in ¶0059, where the models are updated, as described in ¶0055, and the optimal control model is constructed for a planned flight trajectory and planned total fuel and weight of the aircraft, as described in ¶0066). Mattikalli further teaches the technique of acquiring information regarding maintenance costs of the aircraft, using the acquired information and the engine operating time for flying the planned flight trajectory (see ¶0064, regarding determining the cost function as equipment efficiency and other equipment parameters are updated based on actual data, where the cost function is defined as the cost of maintain the aircraft, as described in ¶0062, and the maintenance costs are influenced by the temperature of the engine, as described in ¶0059).
Since the systems of Sindlinger and Mattikalli are directed to the same purpose, i.e. modifying aircraft operation based on acquired data, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the related information acquisition unit of Sindlinger to acquires acquired information, comprising an estimated result of the engine combustor outlet temperature of the target aircraft, by applying input information based on the path to learning information corresponding to the characteristics of the target aircraft, and acquires the related information, comprising information regarding maintenance costs of the target aircraft, using the acquired information and the engine operating time for flying the path, in light of Mattikalli, with the predictable result of prolonging the operational life of the system by considering long-term effects (¶0004 of Mattikalli), such as maintenance costs (¶0006 of Mattikalli).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of Soleyman et al. (US 2022/0414460 A1), hereinafter Soleyman, and Santos et al. (“Attentive Pooling Networks,” 2016, arXiv), hereinafter Santos.
Claim 6
Sindlinger further discloses a path prediction unit that acquires location prediction information showing the future positions of other aircraft different from the target aircraft in a time series (see ¶0029, regarding the determination of predicted trajectories of the other aircraft, where process 400 is executed by the vehicle processing system 22, as described in ¶0027), wherein the related information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the related information using the location prediction information (see ¶0029-0030, regarding that the determined modifications to the intended trajectory are determined based on the predicted trajectories of the other aircraft).
Sindlinger does not further disclose that the “location prediction information” is acquired by applying input information to a neural network with a recursive structure, wherein the path prediction unit is configured to acquire the location prediction information for each of two or more of the other aircraft using a prediction model including an attention mechanism pooling layer to share the condition within the neural network used for each of the two or more other aircraft flying simultaneously. However, predicting trajectories of other aircraft using a neural network is well-known in the art, in light of Soleyman.
Specifically, Soleyman teaches the known technique of predicting future trajectories of multiple aircraft (similar to the path prediction unit that acquires location prediction information showing the future positions of other aircraft different from the target aircraft in a time series taught by Sindlinger) by applying input information to a neural network with a recursive structure (see ¶0058-0059, with respect to Figure 5, regarding that model 500 uses a deep neural network to predict the state observation 512 in the next timestep and feeds it back to the current state observation input similar to a RNN, where each aircraft 204 in the model comprises a number of states 206 describing the behavior of the aircraft over time and includes a heading 210 and velocity 212 of the aircraft 204 at a specific time step 214, as described in ¶0036, such that future trajectories of multiple aircrafts are predicted based on current and past state observations). The neural network of Soleyman may reasonably interpreted as having a “recursive structure,” due to its use of feedback loops where predicted future states are used as inputs, as depicted in Figure 5. Soleyman further teaches that the technique of predicting future trajectories of multiple aircraft us[es] a prediction model to share current observed states (similar to the condition taught by Sindlinger) within the neural network used for each of the multiple aircraft flying simultaneously (see ¶0098-0101, with respect to Figure 12, regarding that a world model encoder generates compressed output 1210 to separate neural network controllers of each of the adversarial aircraft based on each current observed state of each aircraft).
Soleyman teaches the use of a compressive encoder to reduce state complexity (see ¶0029) and does not further teach that the “prediction model” includ[es] an attention mechanism pooling layer. However, it would be capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration to include an attention mechanism pooling layer that would shift the model from static compression to a dynamic weighting configuration, in light of Santos.
Specifically, Santos teaches applying an attention mechanism pooling layer to a recurrent neural network (similar to the neural network taught by Soleyman) (see abstract). No particular operations are claimed with respect to the “attention mechanism pooling layer,” and therefore, inclusion of this layer into the neural network of Soleyman would be reasonable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Since the systems of Soleyman and Santos are directed to the same purpose, i.e. using recurrent neural networks (RNNs), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the neural network of Soleyman to further include an attention mechanism pooling layer, in light of Santos, with the predictable result of providing improved flexibility in processing inputs with significant length variations (last paragraph on first page of Santos) that is applicable to RNNs (first paragraph on second page of Santos).
Claim 8
Sindlinger further discloses that the related information acquisition unit is configured to acquire information regarding changing the path of the target aircraft as the related information, based on the location prediction information (see ¶0027-0029, regarding that the determined modifications to the intended trajectory are based on the predicted trajectories of other aircraft) when it is determined that the future relationship between the target aircraft and the other aircraft satisfies relationship conditions based on the issuance history of control instructions in air traffic control while the target aircraft is flying (see ¶0028-0029, regarding that relevant aircraft used to determine the modified intended trajectory are based on historical ADS-B recordings of a relevant aircraft and past trip data, such as flight plans and schedules of other aircraft, where an air traffic management facility 12 is responsible for direction the aircraft and communicates via a data link, e.g., ADS-B, as described in ¶0014). See issues with this limitation discussed in the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of Soleyman and Santos, and in further view of Wise et al. (US 2010/0145599 A1), hereinafter Wise.
Claim 7
Sindlinger further discloses that the related information acquisition unit is configured to acquire the related information while the target aircraft is flying (see ¶0030, regarding that the determined modifications are based on the current state of the aircraft, current sensor data, and the surrounding traffic). While Sindlinger further discloses displaying the aircraft on a map from a birds-eye-view with respect to a time frame (see ¶0032), Sindlinger does not specifically disclose that the output information comprises information for displaying the positions of one or more of the other aircraft after a first period and a second period and the positions of the target aircraft after the first period and the second period on a map. However, including the display of the target aircraft and other aircraft positions with respect to different time periods would be obvious, in light of Wise.
Specifically, Wise teaches the known technique of displaying nearby aircraft 308 depicted in Figures 3 and 4 (similar to the positions of one or more of the other aircraft taught by Sindlinger) after a first period and a second period (see Figures 3 and 4, depicting nearby aircraft 308 and its projected flight trajectory 310 and predicted protected air space 312 for nearby aircraft 308, described in ¶0032 as further including additional aircraft of interest) and first aircraft 302 (similar to the positions of the target aircraft taught by Sindlinger) after the first period and the second period on a map (see Figures 3 and 4, depicting first aircraft 302 and its projected flight trajectory 304 and predicted protected air space 306 for first aircraft 302, as described in ¶0030). Similar to Sindlinger, Wise further teaches that the projected flight trajectory path of aircraft 302 may be altered (see ¶0034). The limitations of “first period” and “second period” are broadly claimed and are not defined with respect to time or space.
Since the systems of Sindlinger and Wise are directed to the same purpose, i.e. providing output based on a determined path that an aircraft may follow and predicted paths of other aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the output information of Sindlinger to comprise information for displaying the positions of one or more of the other aircraft after a first period and a second period and the positions of the target aircraft after the first period and the second period on a map, in light of Wise, with the predictable result of quickly and accurately allowing pilots to assess aircraft separation (¶0007 of Wise).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of Sridhar et al. (US 8,290,696 B1), hereinafter Sridhar.
Claim 9
Sindlinger does not further disclose a congestion information acquisition unit that acquires congestion information indicating the congestion level at the destination of the target aircraft based on information regarding aircraft heading to the same destination, and the output unit outputs the output information based on the congestion information. However, determining a congestion level at a destination airport is known in the art and would be obvious to incorporate into Sindlinger, in light of Sridhar.
Specifically, Sridhar teaches a congestion information acquisition unit that acquires congestion information indicating the congestion level at the destination of a selected aircraft (similar to the target aircraft taught by Sindlinger) based on information regarding aircraft heading to the same destination (see col. 2, lines 44-51, regarding that the system analyzes flight arrival information for a selected destination airport and determines if the destination will be too congested when a selected aircraft arrives there at its scheduled arrival time). Sridhar further teaches that the system provides alternate destination for the flight or advices delay of departure of the flight (similar to the output information taught by Sindlinger) based on the congestion information (see col. 11, lines 14-33). See issues regarding this limitation in the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Since the systems of Sindlinger and Sridhar are directed to the same purpose, i.e. modifying a flight based on air traffic conditions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sindlinger to further include a congestion information acquisition unit that acquires congestion information indicating the congestion level at the destination of the target aircraft based on information regarding aircraft heading to the same destination, and the output unit outputs the output information based on the congestion information, in light of Sridhar, with the predictable result of avoiding or minimizing air traffic incidents by changing one or more flight plan parameters where appropriate for an aircraft (col. 1, lines 40-50 of Sridhar).
Claim 10
Sridhar further teaches that the system provides alternate destination for the flight or advices delay of departure of the flight (similar to the output information taught by Sindlinger) corresponding to the timing of the selected aircraft (similar to the target aircraft taught by Sindlinger) arriving at the destination based on the congestion information and real-time flight data (similar to the condition information taught by Sindlinger) (see col. 17, line 59-col. 18, line 12, regarding that when the user selects live mode, the system allows modification of one or more NAS constraints in step 151, such that one or more flight parameters, such as the flight route, departure time, and destination airport, are modified in step 153 to comply with the NAS constraints in step 151, where the constraints include a congested airport, as described in col. 10, lines 61-66).
Claim 11
Sindlinger further discloses another aircraft information acquisition unit that acquires information regarding other aircraft different from the target aircraft (see ¶0027, regarding that vehicle processing system 22 obtains location information of one or more other aircraft that includes traffic information and trip information).
Sridhar further teaches that the congestion information acquisition unit acquires the future congestion information of the destination based on flight activity (similar to the information regarding the other aircraft taught by Sindlinger) currently flying (see col. 18, lines 16-32, regarding that the system uses predicted trajectories of active aircraft to forecast the demand for airport resources, including selected airports).
Claim 12
Sridhar further teaches that the system outputs information regarding changing the flight condition of an aircraft (similar to the target aircraft taught by Sindlinger) as an alternate destination for the flight or delay of departure of the flight (similar to the output information taught by Sindlinger) based on the congestion information and real-time flight data (similar to the condition information taught by Sindlinger) while the aircraft is flying (see col. 17, line 59-col. 18, line 12, regarding that when the user selects live mode, the system allows modification of one or more NAS constraints in step 151, such that one or more flight parameters, such as the flight route, departure time, and destination airport, are modified in step 153 to comply with the NAS constraints in step 151, where the constraints include a congested airport, as described in col. 10, lines 61-66; col. 11, lines 14-30, regarding the variations in which the system may provide an alternate destination for the flight or advise a delay of departure of the flight). Prior art is applied liberally to the limitations of claim 12 due to the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 13
Sridhar further teaches including information for visually displaying the congestion level at the destination by time zone in which aircraft arrive (see col. 5, lines 40-44, regarding visualizing the airport arrival demand at a selected destination within a specified time interval; col. 4, lines 18-22, regarding the GUI that provides static and/or animated views of the present and/or predicted air traffic in a selected region).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of McCann et al. (US 2017/0243496 A1), hereinafter McCann.
Claim 14
While Sindlinger further discloses a weather information acquisition unit that acquires weather information comprising information regarding the condition of the atmosphere (see ¶0027-0030, regarding that modifications to the intended trajectory are determined based on the traffic information obtained by a communication system), wherein the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information (see ¶0020, regarding that interference module 26 determines a modification of the intended trajectory of vehicle 20 based on the traffic data and intended trajectory information of other vehicles received from communication system 21, where the modifications to the intended trajectory are based on the current state of the aircraft, as described in ¶0030), Sindlinger does not further disclose the “related information” comprising the prediction results of turbulence intensity in the area corresponding to the path based on the weather information, and the output information comprises information correlating the prediction results of turbulence intensity and the path.
McCann teaches the determination of the prediction results of turbulence intensity in the area corresponding to a flight path (similar to the path taught by Sindlinger) based on weather data input (similar to the weather information taught by Sindlinger) and information correlating the prediction results of turbulence intensity and the flight path (see ¶0338, regarding that DTEC transforms weather data input into predictive turbulence feeds; ¶0020-0021, with respect to Figure 1A, depicting the flight path on turbulence enhanced geospatial output). Similar to Sindlinger, McCann teaches modifying the flight path based on weather conditions (see ¶0034).
Since the systems of Sindlinger and McCann are directed to the same purpose, i.e. modifying a flight path based on weather conditions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the related information of Sindlinger to compris[e] the prediction results of turbulence intensity in the area corresponding to the path based on the weather information, such that the output information of Sindlinger comprises information correlating the prediction results of turbulence intensity and the path, in light of McCann, with the predictable result of improving the safety of an aircraft by incorporating turbulence awareness (¶0049 of McCann).
Claim 15
McCann further teaches outputting information for displaying an image that illustrates the prediction results of turbulence intensity overlaid on the flight path (similar to the path taught by Sindlinger) (see ¶0020-0021, with respect to Figure 1A, depicting the flight path on turbulence enhanced geospatial output).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of Tucker et al. (US 2021/0199685 A1), hereinafter Tucker.
Claim 16
While Sindlinger further discloses a weather information acquisition unit that acquires weather information comprising information regarding the condition of the atmosphere (see ¶0027-0030, regarding that modifications to the intended trajectory are determined based on the traffic information obtained by a communication system), Sindlinger does not further disclose that the related information acquisition unit acquires learning information configured by machine learning methods using two or more pairs of learning input information, comprising weather information and condition information acquired for the flight of one aircraft, and learning output information, comprising inertia-related information measured at each point on the flight path of the aircraft, and applies input information, comprising weather information acquired by the weather information acquisition unit and condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft, to the learning information to acquire prediction information regarding inertia at each point on the path of the target aircraft, and acquires the related information based on the prediction information. However, it would be obvious to predict “inertia-related information” using weather and condition information, so as to further modify the related information of Sindlinger, in light of Tucker, given the broadness of the claim language and the issues discussed in the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Specifically, Tucker teaches the known technique of acquiring learning information configured by machine learning methods using two or more pairs of learning information, comprising weather information and condition information acquired for the flight of one aircraft (see ¶0044-0045, regarding that inputs are received from multiple sources including accelerometers and external weather and turbulence forecasting data for execution of the deep learning algorithm 242), and learning output information, comprising inertia-related information measured at each point on the flight path of the aircraft (see ¶0045-0047, regarding that predictions made regarding the atmospheric parameters of interest, such as clear air turbulence, are refined using the fused data fed to the deep learning model), and applies input information, comprising weather information acquired by external sources (similar to the weather information acquisition unit taught by Sindlinger) and condition information regarding the condition of the aircraft (similar to the target aircraft taught by Sindlinger), to the learning information to acquire prediction information regarding inertia at each point on the path of the aircraft (see ¶0045, regarding that turbulence predictions are made using the fused data that include accelerometers and external weather and turbulence forecasting data, as described in ¶0044), and acquires changed flight parameters (similar to the related information taught by Sindlinger) based on the prediction information (see ¶0048, regarding that optimized courses of action for the aircraft are determined by changing flight parameters as a reaction to predicted weather conditions that include turbulence, as described in ¶0045). Turbulence is well-known to be related to inertia and thus, may be reasonably applied to teach “inertia-related information,” under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Since the systems of Sindlinger and Tucker are directed to the same purpose, i.e. modifying aircraft operation in response to acquired conditions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the related information acquisition unit of Sindlinger to further acquire learning information configured by machine learning methods using two or more pairs of learning input information, comprising weather information and condition information acquired for the flight of one aircraft, and learning output information, comprising inertia-related information measured at each point on the flight path of the aircraft, and applies input information, comprising weather information acquired by the weather information acquisition unit and condition information regarding the condition of the target aircraft, to the learning information to acquire prediction information regarding inertia at each point on the path of the target aircraft, and acquire the related information based on the prediction information, in light of Tucker, with the predictable result of suggesting optimized courses of action for the aircraft that minimize the impact of predicted weather conditions, such as turbulence (¶0048 of Tucker).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sindlinger in view of Tucker, and in further view of Altus.
Claim 17
Sindlinger does not further disclose that the path acquisition unit acquires two or more paths that the target aircraft may follow, and the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information, comprising information indicating the recommended path for the target aircraft, based on whether each of the acquired paths satisfies the recommendation conditions based on the acquired prediction information and the determination results. However, the technique of selecting an optimal path from two or more paths based on particular conditions is well known in the art and would be obvious to incorporate into Sindlinger, in light of Altus.
Specifically, Altus teaches the known technique of acquiring two or more paths that an aircraft may follow (see ¶0063, regarding a set of efficient routes are determined) and acquiring information indicating the recommended path for the aircraft based on whether each of the acquired paths satisfies the recommended conditions based on weather data (similar to the acquired prediction information taught by Tucker) and the determination results (see ¶0063, regarding the most favorable route is selected depending on current weather conditions, which is associated with a route that has been flown the most frequently, has the lowest fuel burn, or highest payload capacity during the analyzed period, as described in ¶0051).
Since the systems of Sindlinger and Altus are directed to the same purpose, i.e. determining a path for an aircraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the path acquisition unit of Sindlinger to acquire two or more paths that the target aircraft may follow, and the related information acquisition unit acquires the related information, comprising information indicating the recommended path for the target aircraft, based on whether each of the acquired paths satisfies the recommendation conditions based on the acquired prediction information and the determination results, in light of Altus, with the predictable result of analyzing vast amounts of data in a short time to quickly and efficiently output efficient routes (¶0074 of Altus).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Tieftrunk et al. (US 2016/0057032 A1) teaches displaying a flight tracking map that integrates graphical representations of regions of interest that include turbulence and air traffic based on external monitoring system overlying the projected flight path of the aircraft (see ¶0024).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661