DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 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
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to European Patent Application No. 23382924.1, filed on 9/12/2023.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/8/26, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘the amended claims are not directed to a mental process because the claims require continuous, real-time monitoring of streaming input from a transition state model against a defined time boundary, and the generation of control signals that are sent to physical controllers to influence conditions of a dynamic system… claims recite a specific technical architecture in which a transition state model continuously supplies real-time state-transition data for a dynamic system, a defined threshold-time fail-safe governs when that data is released as output, and the output is used to generate control signals for one or more controllers that influence physical conditions of an instance of the dynamic system. This is a real-time monitoring and control architecture, not a mental process’ (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that this argument is moot because the claims do not actually recite ‘real-time’, ‘physical controllers’ or ‘streaming input’. Furthermore, inputting data is considered mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d) and generating one or more control signals for one or more controllers of the dynamic system to influence one or more conditions of an instance of the dynamic is mere instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) — note that both the control signal and the ‘controllers’ are mere generic recitations. See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 below. In addition, the ‘specific technical architecture’ consists of generic computing elements (processors and memory), generic ‘controllers’ and an extremely broadly recited ‘dynamic system’, i.e. generic elements that are broadly recited. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the instant claims are similar to those in CardioNet ‘explaining that it was difficult to understand how a doctor could mentally or manually apply the claimed real-time signal processing logic’ (page 10).
It is respectfully submitted that the above quote from CardioNet is in reference to claim 10, i.e. ‘The device of claim 1, wherein the relevance de-termination logic comprises logic to identify the relevance of the variability using a non-linear function of a beat-to-beat interval’ that recites substantially dissimilar subject matter to the instant claims. In addition, it has been established by the courts that a mere recitation of collecting and analyzing data, such as ‘receiving a plurality of data streams, each of the data streams comprising sub-second, time stamped synchronized phasor measurements wherein the measurements in each stream are collected in real time at geographically distinct points over the wide area of the interconnected electric power grid… deriving a composite indicator of reliability that is an indicator of power grid vulnerability and is derived from a combination of one or more real time measurements or computations of measurements from the data streams and the dynamic stability metrics covering the wide area as well as non-power grid data received from the non-grid data source’ as recited in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cited in MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05, is not alone sufficient to render a claim eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘A human mind is not equipped to perform this kind of continuous, time-bounded monitoring of streaming, sensor-derived state data at the speed required for real-time operation of a dynamic system such as an aircraft, where state transitions can occur on the order of seconds. The processing of automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) data through a continuously updated transition state model, combined with a threshold time-based fail-safe and generation of control signals for physical controllers, involves real-time operations that require specialized hardware and timing mechanisms for proper execution’ (page 11).
It is respectfully submitted that this argument is moot because the claims do not actually recite ‘real-time’ or ‘streaming’. As indicated below collecting data is not considered part of the abstract idea performed in the human mind, but mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d) is not considered significantly more. And the Electric Power Group decision cited above considers ‘sub-second’ measurements alone insufficient to render claims eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, generic processors, memory and controllers are not considered ‘specialized hardware’ but broadly recited generic conventional components. It is also noted that ‘aircraft’ and ‘ADS-B data’ are not recited in the independent claims. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ‘claims implement the alleged abstract idea with a particular machine that is integral to the claim’ and references Example 45 and Diamond v. Diehr (page 11).
It is respectfully submitted that generic processors, memory and controllers are not considered to be a particular machine but broadly recited generic conventional components. Further, and by contrast with the instant claims, both Example 45 and Diehr recite specific machines and specific control actions: for example, Example 45 recites an injection molding machine and opening the mold to eject the molded polyurethane. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ‘The claims reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field’ (page 11).
It is respectfully submitted that improving a mental process is merely an improvement to an abstract idea and eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) as cited in MPEP 2106.04, i.e. an improvement to the abstract idea itself (retrieving data based on other data and determining when a transition confidence metric indicates that the state transition is valid, including waiting an amount of time) is still merely an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims recite an ‘unconventional technical solution’ that is not well-understood, routine and conventional (pages 12-13).
It is respectfully submitted that an unconventional improvement to an abstract idea is still merely an abstract idea (see above). Further, the combination of the abstract mental process with generic broadly recited elements, e.g. a processor to perform the abstract idea, is not a novel/non-obvious combination. It is also noted that even the more specific claim elements, e.g. aircraft and flight phases and automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) are well-understood, routine and conventional, see the detailed rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 below. Further, while Applicant’s comments on 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are noted, those statutes constitute a separate enquiry from the 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis; and an unconventional/non-obvious improvement to an abstract idea is still merely an abstract idea. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (pages 13-14) are moot because the claims are no longer rejected under that statute.
For at least these reasons, the rejection of the claims is maintained.
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(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea (mental process) of retrieving data based on other data and determining when a transition confidence metric indicates that the state transition is valid, including waiting an amount of time.
Claim 1 recites a system, i.e. a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. The claim recites:
retrieve a transition confidence metric associated with the state transition from a transition confidence matrix for the dynamic system based on the first state and the second state… when the transition confidence metric indicates that the state transition is valid ; and when the transition confidence metric indicates that the state transition is invalid, wait for additional input from the transition state model without provision of the output, and… responsive to the one or more processors not receiving, before passage of a threshold amount of time, additional input from the transition state model indicating another state transition that may be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, i.e. retrieve data based on data and determining when a transition confidence metric indicates that the state transition is valid including waiting for a period of time. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea (mental processes), see MPEP 2106.04(a).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, i.e. one or more processors; and a memory comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), obtain first input from a transition state model, wherein the first input indicates a first state of a dynamic system; obtain second input from the transition state model, wherein the second input indicates a state transition from the first state to a second state (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) and provide the second state as output (insignificant extra-solution activity — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and the output is used to generate one or more control signals for one or more controllers of the dynamic system to influence one or more conditions of an instance of the dynamic system (insignificant extra-solution activity — instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, one or more processors; and a memory comprising instructions executable by the one or more processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), obtain first input from a transition state model, wherein the first input indicates a first state of a dynamic system; obtain second input from the transition state model, wherein the second input indicates a state transition from the first state to a second state (insignificant extra-solution elements – mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05 I A, MPEP 2106.05(g) MPEP 2106.05(d)) and provide the second state as output (insignificant extra-solution activity — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)) and the output is used to generate one or more control signals for one or more controllers of the dynamic system to influence one or more conditions of an instance of the dynamic system (insignificant extra-solution activity — instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) are not considered significantly more. Considering the additionally elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Note that aircraft and flight phases are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example, Debenbusch et al. U.S. Patent No. 11702191 [col. 10 lines 34-61] and the other references cited below. Also note that automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) systems are well-understood, routine and conventional, see for example Shen-Feng et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 20040044463 [0004] or Sanders U.S. Patent Publication No. 20180026707 [0018].
Claim 2 recites the memory further comprises instructions executable by the one or more processors to generate the transition confidence matrix (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C), wherein generating the transition confidence matrix includes: generating a first dataset of transitions for the dynamic system based on historical data that includes, for each state transition that was detected by the transition state model for the historical data: an identifier of a case of the dynamic system that experienced a state transition, a time of the state transition, and a final state associated with the state transition; generating a second dataset of data including a single entry for each case for each distinct type of identified final state; processing the second dataset to identify first cases that satisfy one or more criterion; processing the first dataset to identify, for each state transition of the first cases and based on the time of the state transition, an initial state associated with the state transition that preceded the final state; determining, for each type of state, a first sum of occurrences of the first cases in the first dataset where the state is identified as the initial state; determining, for each initial state and final state pairing, a second sum of occurrences of transitions from the initial state to the final state in the first dataset for the first cases; and generating entries of the transition confidence matrix, wherein an entry associated with a particular initial state and a particular final state is based on the second sum for the particular initial state and the particular final state divided by the first sum associated with the particular initial state (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites a control system, wherein the control system generates the one or more control signals for the instance of the dynamic system based on a model of the second state used in response to receipt by the control system of the output, and wherein the one or more controllers associated with the instance of the dynamic system implement the one or more control signals (insignificant extra-solution activity — instructions to apply the exception using a technique recited at a high level of generality, see MPEP 2106.05(f) — based on an abstract analysis). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites a notification system, wherein the notification system generates updated information associated with the instance of the dynamic system based on receipt of the output and provides the updated information to one or more output devices (insignificant extra-solution activity — see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III A regarding displaying information and MPEP 2106.05(d)). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites a method, i.e. a process, which is a statutory category of invention. However, the process is similar to that recited in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6-7 recite similar limitations to claims 3-4 and are rejected under the same respective rationales.
Claim 8 recites ‘the first device or a second device is configured to generate the transition confidence matrix, and wherein generating the transition confidence matrix includes: generating a first dataset of transitions for the dynamic system based on historical data that includes, for each state transition that was detected by the transition state model for the historical data: an identifier of a case of the dynamic system that experienced a state transition, a time of the state transition, and a final state associated with the state transition; generating a second dataset of data including a single entry for each case for each distinct type of identified final state; processing the second dataset to identify first cases that satisfy one or more criterion; processing the first dataset to identify, for each state transition of the first cases and based on the time of the state transition, an initial state associated with the state transition that preceded the final state; determining, for each type of state, a first sum of occurrences of the first cases in the first dataset where the state is identified as the initial state; determining, for each initial state and final state pairing, a second sum of occurrences of transitions from the initial state to the final state in the first dataset for the first cases; and generating entries of the transition confidence matrix, wherein an entry associated with a particular initial state and a particular final state is based on the second sum for the particular initial state and the particular final state divided by the first sum associated with the particular initial state’ (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites setting each entry of the transition confidence matrix that is less than a confidence threshold to zero (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites setting each entry of the transition confidence matrix that is greater than a confidence threshold to one (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites changing one or more entries to zero for entries associated with transitions that are known to not occur (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites comparing the transition confidence matrix to one or more expected transitions for the dynamic system (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 13 recites changing one or more entries in the transition confidence matrix based on said comparing the transition confidence matrix to the one or more expected transitions for the dynamic system (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites causing the transition state model to be updated based on said comparing the transition confidence matrix to the one or more expected transitions for the dynamic system (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites the one or more criterion include presence of a start state and an end state (specifies abstract data). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites the dynamic system comprises flights of aircraft, and wherein the state transition from the first state to the second state includes a transition from a first phase of flight to a second phase of flight for a particular aircraft (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites the transition state model is configured to generate the first input and the second input based on automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) data (mental process and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium, i.e. an article of manufacture, which is a statutory category of invention. However, the process performed by the instructions is similar to that recited in claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Note that a non-transitory computer-readable medium considered merely applying the exception with generic computer technology – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C.
Claim 19 recites the transition confidence matrix is generated by a device configured to: generate a first dataset of transitions for the dynamic system based on historical data that includes, for each state transition that was detected by the transition state model for the historical data: an identifier of a case of the dynamic system that experienced a state transition, a time of the state transition, and a final state associated with the state transition; generate a second dataset of data including a single entry for each case for each distinct type of identified final state; process the second dataset to identify first cases that satisfy one or more criterion; process the first dataset to identify, for each state transition of the first cases and based on the time of the state transition, an initial state associated with the state transition that preceded the final state; determine, for each type of state, a first sum of occurrences of the first cases of instances in the first dataset where the state is identified as the initial state; determine, for each initial state and final state pairing, a second sum of occurrences of transitions from the initial state to the final state in the first dataset for the first cases; and generate entries of the transition confidence matrix, wherein an entry associated with a particular initial state and a particular final state is based on the second sum for the particular initial state and the particular final state divided by the first sum associated with the particular initial state (mental process). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites the device includes the one or more processors (applying the exception with generic computer technology, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C). Thus this claim recites an abstract idea.
Note that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD G. LINDSAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0665. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on (571)272-4105. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may call the examiner or use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/BERNARD G LINDSAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights