Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 20, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged. Claims 1, 11-12, and 17 have been amended. Claims 24-28 have been added. Claim 5, 18-20, and 23 have been canceled. Claims 1, 3-4, 7-12 14-17, 21-22, and 24-28 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 101 have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, and specifically do not recite a mental process or a method of organizing human activity, because they address technological issues related to computer modeling of aviation emissions where two or more modeling strategies are interdependent and closely related to the operation of machines.
In the current action, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been updated to remove reference to the mental process grouping of abstract idea.
With regard to the argument regarding certain methods of organizing human activity, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite limitations for forecasting aviation emissions and net emissions, presenting modeled emissions information based on modeling strategies, adjusting the information based on user input and the strategies, and graphically displaying aviation emissions information. The claims do not specifically recite the operation of the machines (aircraft) based on the strategies and the emissions information produced. The claim limitations, as outlined in step 2A prong 1 below, reasonably fall within the subgroupings of managing personal behavior (including following rules or instructions since the claims involve considering historical usage information while inputting data and organizing information about various items using parameters, and values) as well as commercial or legal interactions (since the claim involves evaluating emissions based on strategies). Per [0094], modeling strategies include items such as traffic forecast, aircraft type evolution, aircraft operational efficiency, aircraft energy sources, and market-based offsets. Each modeling strategy may comprise one or more strategy aspects that impact aviation emissions information over time. While the argument highlights computer modeling, the claim recites modeling strategies (strategies concerning aircraft energy source and the aircraft type strategy) in a computer environment. While the claim recites displaying received user input, applying the input to strategic parameter ins a database, and adjusting a display of information The claim does not include details of how computer modeling is performed (such as creating a digital or programmed representation, performing computer simulations, etc).
Applicant further argues that the amendments include additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application and amount to significantly more, referencing [0034], [0072], and [0091] of the specification that discuss existing tools in the aviation industry lack detailed analysis and dynamic depiction of dependencies between strategies to reduce emissions; and the invention allows users to input parameters for an aircraft energy source modeling strategy (related to a mix of energy sources utilized by aircraft) and/or the aircraft type modeling strategy (related to a mix of aircraft types having different energy utilization efficiencies) to update the modeled aviation emissions information based on the dependencies between the two modeling strategies and to present this information in a way to co-visualize impacts, allowing users with a broad range of expertise to generate information.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As will be discussed further below, the claim limitations that are drawn to detailed analysis and dynamic depiction of the dependencies between different strategies to reduce emissions are part of the recited abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a) lists court cases that are not indicative of improvements to computer functionality such as Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018) that discusses instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result; and BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88, 127 USPQ2d 1688, 1693-94 (Fed. Cir. 2018) discussing providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, where "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality”. If the ability to analyze and present information on the GUI based on the dependencies results in specific interface elements and implementation, examiner recommends adding those details and additional elements to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Further, applicant argues the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more, pointing to Trading Techs. Int 'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The argument discusses that Trading Tech was directed to improvements in graphical user interface devices, the patent explaining a problem in the art and its claims reciting a specific, structured graphical user interface that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying in a particular manner that prevents order entry. The argument states this is similar to the instant Application which addresses a specific problem with existing tools in the aviation industry that fail to dynamically depict dependencies between different modeling strategies and the claimed GUI has a prescribed functionality that resolves this problem in the art (per [0072]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, in Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. App'x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) there was a specific, structured graphical user interface that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying bid and asked prices in a particular manner that prevents order entry at a changed price. As stated in applicant’s arguments, in this Trading Tech decision the graphical user interface has a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's structure, which addressed the identified problem in the art.
In the instant application, as currently claimed the aircraft energy source modeling strategy is related to a mix of energy sources utilized by aircraft and the aircraft type modeling strategy is related to a mix of aircraft types having different energy utilization efficiencies. Users are able to adjust parameters and user input is received about the modeling strategies, which generates updated information based at least on a dependency between the modeling strategies. The display is adjusted and updated using this information and provides a co-visualization. The BRI of co-visualization, as currently recited, is depicting multiple datasets in a single view. It is noted that beyond the general computer environment in the claim as a whole, there are no details (such as additional elements) on how the co-visualization is accomplished or implemented. The modeling strategies and dependencies between are part of the recited abstract idea as currently claimed (representing considerations that are part of certain methods of organizing human activity). The additional elements of the claim (below on pages 10-11) do not currently include a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user interface's specific structure.
Examiner also points to Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Per MPEP 2106.05(a) II, an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in this decision the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. There is a similarity between this decision and the currently claimed invention in that the interface provides the user with more information about aviation emissions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-12 14-17, 21-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claims 1, 12 and 24 (using claim 1 as representative) include limitations for forecasting aviation emissions and net emissions, presenting modeled emissions information based on modeling strategies, adjusting the information based on user input and the strategies, and graphically displaying aviation emissions information, including:
receiving global data comprising flight parameters for a plurality of flights over a time period, the flight parameters including at least aviation emissions information for each of the plurality of flights;
graphically displaying aspects of the aviation emissions information based on a default model, including:
forecasted aviation emissions over a future time period as determined by the default model based on projections for flight parameters for a plurality of flights over the future time period, and
net aviation emissions over the future time period;
presenting modeled aviation emissions information indicating a relative contribution of each of a plurality of modeling strategies for reducing aviation emissions from the forecasted aviation emissions to the net aviation emissions over the future time period, the plurality of modeling strategies including at least an aircraft energy source modeling strategy for a mix of energy sources utilized by aircraft, and an aircraft type modeling strategy for a mix of aircraft types having different energy utilization efficiencies;
enable a user to adjust strategic parameters for each of the plurality of modeling strategies;
receiving user input indicating input values for one or more of the strategic parameters of one or more of the aircraft energy source modeling strategy and the aircraft type modeling strategy;
applying the input values for the one or more strategic parameters to generate updated modeled aviation emissions information based at least on a dependency between the aircraft energy source modeling strategy and the aircraft type modeling strategy; and
adjusting graphical display of aspects of the aviation emissions information presented based on the updated modeled aviation emissions information to include:
an update to the relative contribution of each of the plurality of modeling strategies for reducing aviation emissions from the forecasted aviation emissions to the net aviation emissions over the future time period,
an update to one or more of the net aviation emissions and/or the forecasted aviation emissions over the future time period based on implementing the plurality of modeling strategies, and
a co-visualization of the updated modeled aviation emissions information generated through the aircraft energy source modeling strategy and the aircraft type modeling strategy.
The claim limitations above recite an abstract idea, specifically certain methods of organizing human activity, because the claimed limitations recite managing personal behavior (including following rules or instructions since the claims involve considering historical usage information while inputting data and organizing information about various items using parameters, and values) as well as commercial or legal interactions (since the claim involves evaluating emissions based on strategies).
As a result, claim 1, 12, and 24 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Claims 3-4, 7-11 14-17, 21-22, and 25-28 further narrow certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1, 12, and 24.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, when considering the claims as a whole and the additional elements alone and in combination, claims 1, 12 and 24 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1, 12, and 24 include the additional elements of a global database; displaying and presenting is done via the GUI / on a display device / on the display device via the GUI; presenting, via the GUI, a plurality of graphical input mechanisms and receiving via one or more of the graphical user input mechanisms presented via the GUI, and adjusting is done automatically. Claim 12 further includes a display device; a logic machine comprising one or more processors; a storage machine comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors. Claim 24 further includes a storage machine comprising: one or more storage devices having instructions stored thereon executable by the computing system.
When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computing elements recited at a high level of generality and are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Here, the global database, use of the GUI and display device to present and display, and presenting and receiving information via input mechanisms of a GUI, a display device; a logic machine comprising one or more processors; a storage machine comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors, one or more storage devices having instructions stored thereon executable by the computing system are are claimed at the apply it level. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As to the adjustment being automatic, this is claimed at a high level of generality that is the idea of a solution without details on how it is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The “GUI” and “presenting, via the GUI, a plurality of graphical input mechanisms” can also be viewed as a general link to display technology and merely confines the recited abstract idea and the graphical representation of data to a particular environment. As currently claimed, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display or improve the technical field of visualization. They further do not provide more than a general link to the display environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
As a result, claim 1, 12, and 24 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Claims 3-4, 7-11 14-17, 21-22, and 25-28 include no further additional elements beyond those discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 24 and thus fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B, claims 1 12, and 24 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1, 12, and 24 include the additional elements of a global database; displaying and presenting is done via the GUI / on a display device / on the display device via the GUI; presenting, via the GUI, a plurality of graphical input mechanisms and receiving via one or more of the graphical user input mechanisms presented via the GUI, and adjusting is done automatically. Claim 12 further includes a display device; a logic machine comprising one or more processors; a storage machine comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors. Claim 24 further includes a storage machine comprising: one or more storage devices having instructions stored thereon executable by the computing system.. As stated above, these additional elements when considered alone and in combination are recited at a high level of generality and merely use the computer components as a tool to implement the recited abstract idea. Further, the additional elements concerning the GUI and display devices generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). Please see further discussion above.
Claims 3-4, 7-11 14-17, 21-22, and 25-28 include no further additional elements beyond those discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 24.
Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 1, 3-4, 7-12 14-17, 21-22, and 24-28 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-4, 7-12 14-17, 21-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knowles (US 2011/0178830) discloses displaying elements from a strategy model and its associated elements, including links between elements and operational data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETH V BOSWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6737. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM - 4:30PM.
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, Tariq Hafiz, can be reached at (571) 272-5350. 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.
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights