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 . The following is a Final Office Action. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-23 are rejected below.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 101 have been fully considered but are moot and/or non-persuasive.
Applicant argues, “As a threshold matter, all pending claims generally concern computer modeling of aviation emissions that are produced by machines, namely by aircraft conducting flights. Within this context, the claimed subject matter offers the potential to address technological issues relating to computer modeling of aviation emissions, as discussed below. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to a mental
process or a method of organizing human activity cited as the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.... Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at Step 2A, Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility test set forth in MPEP 2106. As a combination, the above features of the claims enable a user to visualize relative contributions of each of a plurality of modeling strategies implemented by a computer by adjusting input values for strategic parameters of the modeling strategies. As described at Para. [0003], existing techniques for modeling emission data are difficult and time consuming, even using computer technology. As described at Para. [0034], many of the modeling strategies are interdependent in ways that are not apparent to even skilled users. It is thus not practical for a user to a) adjust strategic parameters for a plurality of modeling strategies based on adjusting even a single input value, b) simulate aviation emissions information based on the plurality of modeling strategies, and c) rapidly generate and display updates to the relative contribution of each of the plurality of modeling strategies.
Examiner responds the receiving...displaying...applying....and adjusting recite an abstract idea relating to Mental processes and/or Certain methods of organizing human activity of managing personal behavior (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the steps can be performed in the human mind and/or are managing strategies to reduce emissions over time (ie. human behavior).
Applicant argues, “Even assuming for the sake of argument that the pending claims relate generally to an abstract idea (which Applicant does not concede), Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed subject matter integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application - e.g., enabling users to adjust and visualize the relative contribution of various modeling strategies on aviation emission predictions over a future period of time. Additionally, the claimed subject matter enables a user to adjust the modeling strategies in a manner that is reflected in the relative contributions of each of the modeling strategies presented via the GUI for reducing aviation emissions from the forecasted aviation emissions to the net aviation emissions over the future time period. As the adjustment initiated by the user may impact the net or forecasted emissions, these aspects can be updated within the GUI, in combination with updates to the relative contribution of each of the plurality of modeling strategies. Applicant respectfully submits that these technological features and benefits integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A.”
Examiner responds the “GUI” and “presenting, via the GUI, a plurality of graphical input mechanisms” fail to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
Applicant argues, “Additionally, Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test set forth in MPEP 2106. At Step 2B, Applicant respectfully submits that all pending claims demonstrate the indicia MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05 of reciting elements that amount to significantly more than any judicial exception by applying or using a judicial exception in a meaningful way, namely implementing an interactive modeling tool that provides a user with visual feedback based on updating input values for strategic parameters for modeling strategies for reducing aviation emissions. The claimed approach offers the potential to improve the user's understanding of how different modeling strategies are inter-dependent, and the relative contribution of each of the modeling strategies. According to the claims, net aviation emissions remaining over the future time period is generated and displayed, allowing a user to determine whether their input values achieve a technical result (e.g., net- zero emissions at a future date). Thus, even if the claims are regarded as being directed to an abstract idea, the claims when considered as a whole amount to significantly more than any such abstract idea.
Examiner responds the “GUI” and “presenting, via the GUI, a plurality of graphical input mechanisms” generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
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, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-23 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 12 and 18 includes limitations for graphically displaying aviation emissions information, including:
Receiving flight parameters for a plurality of flights over a time period...
Graphically displaying...aspects of the aviation emissions information...
Presenting modeled aviation emissions information indicating a relative contribution of each of a plurality of modeling strategies...
Presenting...strategic parameters for each of the plurality of modeling strategies...
Receiving...user input indicating input values for one or more of the strategic parameters...
Applying the input values for the one or more strategic parameters to generate updated modeled aviation emissions information
Adjusting graphical display of aspects of the aviation emissions information based on the updated modeled aviation emissions information to include...
An update to the relative contribution...
An update to one or more of the net aviation emissions and/or the forecasted aviation emissions...
The elements above recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the identified elements recite an abstract idea relating to Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the steps can be performed in the human mind, and relating to Certain methods of organizing human activity because the claimed functions describe managing personal behavior (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
As a result, claim 1, 12, and 18 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 3-5, 7-11, 14-17, and 19-23 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 18.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1, 12 and 18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1, 12, and 18 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include display device, GUI, computing system, logic machine, processors, storage machine, instructions. 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 that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. The “GUI” and “presenting, via the GUI, a plurality of graphical input mechanisms” fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization. The “global database” generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
As a result, claim 1, 12, and 18 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 3-5, 7-11, 14-17, and 19-23 include no additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent claims 1, 12, and 18 and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above. Thus, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-23 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1 12 and 18 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 12 and 18 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements include computer-readable medium, instructions, computer, automatically, neural network models, user interface, graphical display. The additional elements include display device, GUI, computing system, logic machine, processors, storage machine, instructions. As stated above the display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology and do not improve the functioning of the display, nor improve the technical field of visualization. The “global database” generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
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, claim 1 12 and 18 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 3-5, 7-11, 14-17, and 19-23 include no additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent claims 1 12 and 18.
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, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-23 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 additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-5, 7-12, and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Prior Art Section
The independent claims would overcome prior art and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 101 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
127
925
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
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, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623