DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the arguments and amendments entered on December 9, 2025 for the patent application 18/959,992 originally filed on November 26, 2024. Claims 1, 7 and 10 are amended. Claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are pending. The first office action of June 16, 2025; the second office action of July 7, 2025; and the third office action of October 23, 2025 are fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claims 1 and 10 are directed to “a computerized simulation system” (i.e. “a machine”), and claim 7 is directed to “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” (i.e. “a machine”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to the abstract idea of “training a pilot to operate a vehicle with the guidance of a traffic controller,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity;” and/or “mental processes;” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 1:
“inputting situational data into the machine learning model to generate simulated traffic control instructions, the situational data comprising a state of the simulation model and a pilot communication recorded … while the pilot operates…; and
providing the simulated traffic control instructions …for communication to the pilot;
wherein…to provide one or more simulated external vehicles that simulate one or more external vehicles, each simulated external vehicle being operated by an autonomous agent having an autonomous agent artificial intelligence for controlling the simulated external vehicle whose movement in the multi-agent simulation is determined by observations and decisions made by the autonomous agent artificial intelligence and by reacting to one or more traffic control instructions generated by the machine learning model.”
Per claim 7:
“provide a simulation for a user to control a simulated vehicle;
provide the simulated traffic controller in the simulation, the simulated traffic controller having a traffic controller artificial intelligence for interacting verbally with the user via the simulation to coordinate movement of the simulated vehicle; and
provide one or more simulated external vehicles that simulate one or more external vehicles, each simulated external vehicle being operated by an autonomous agent having an autonomous agent artificial intelligence for controlling the simulated external vehicle whose movement in the multi-agent simulation is determined by observations and decisions made by the autonomous agent artificial intelligence and by reacting to one or more verbal instructions received by the simulated traffic controller.”
Per claim 10:
“providing: a simulated traffic controller having a traffic controller artificial intelligence for interacting verbally with the user via the simulation to coordinate movement of the simulated vehicle; and
one or more simulated external vehicles that simulate one or more external vehicles, each simulated external vehicle being operated by an autonomous agent having an autonomous agent artificial intelligence for controlling the simulated external vehicle whose movement in the multi-agent simulation is determined by observations and decisions made by the autonomous agent artificial intelligence and by reacting to one or more verbal instructions received by the simulated traffic controller.”
These limitations simply describe “a training program” (i.e. Multimedia Plus, Inc. v. PlayerLync LLC, 695 F. App’x 577 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Likewise, the limitations describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and “a mental process of evaluating” (i.e. In re BRCA1 and BRCA2-Based Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a memory,” “a processor,” “an interactive computerized simulation station,” and “an audio system,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “training a pilot to operate a vehicle with the guidance of a traffic controller,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a memory,” “a processor,” and “an interactive computerized simulation station,” and “an audio system,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are so sufficiently well-known, that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such an additional element to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a memory,” as described in para. [0039] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “The memory 144 may have multiple storage devices, e.g. the memory may be distributed memory or cloud-based memory.” As such, the Applicant’s “a memory,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Also, the Applicant’s claimed “a processor,” as described in para. [0039] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “The processor may be a single processor or multiple processors, which include one or more central processing unit (CPU) and/or graphics processing unit (GPU). Each processor may include one or more processing cores. As such, it will be appreciated that a single computing device or multiple connected computing devices may be used to run the simulation in the simulation station 1100.” As such, the Applicant’s “a processor,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Continuing, the Applicant’s claimed “an interactive computerized simulation station,” as described in paras. [0039] and [0051] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed, provides the following: “[0039] The interactive computerized simulation station 1100 has tangible instrumentation, i.e. physical controls such as a control yoke, throttle levers, rudder pedals, etc., that the user can manipulate, move or otherwise physically engage to enable the user to control a simulated vehicle in the multi-agent simulation.”
“[0051] The simulation station 1100 with which the user interacts may be a flight simulator configured with the components shown schematically by way of example in FIG. 2. In the example depicted in FIG. 2, the interactive computerized simulation station 1100 comprises a memory module 1120, a processor module 1130 and a network interface module 1140. The processor module 1130 may represent a single processor with one or more processor cores or an array of processors, each comprising one or more processor cores. In some embodiments, the processor module 1130 may also comprise a dedicated graphics processing unit 1132. The dedicated graphics processing unit 1132 may be required, for instance, when the interactive computer simulation system 1000 performs an immersive simulation (e.g., pilot training-certified flight simulator), which requires extensive image generation capabilities (i.e., quality and throughput) to maintain the level of realism expected of such immersive simulation (e.g., between 5 and 60 images rendered per second or a maximum rendering time ranging between 15 ms and 200 ms for each rendered image). In some embodiments, each of the simulation stations 1200, 1300 comprises a processor module similar to the processor module 1130 and having a dedicated graphics processing unit similar to the dedicated graphics processing unit 1132. The memory module 1120 may comprise various types of memory (different standardized or kinds of Random-Access Memory (RAM) modules, memory cards, Read-Only Memory (ROM) modules, programmable ROM, etc.). The network interface module 1140 represents at least one physical interface that can be used to communicate with other network nodes. The network interface module 1140 may be made visible to the other modules of the computer system 1000 through one or more logical interfaces. The actual stacks of protocols used by physical network interface(s) and/or logical network interface(s) 1142, 1144, 1146, 1148 of the network interface module 1140 do not affect the teachings of the present invention. The variants of the processor module 1130, memory module 1120 and network interface module 1140 that are usable in the context of the present invention will be readily apparent to persons skilled in the art.” As such, the Applicant’s “an interactive computerized simulation station,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional data gathering computing element.
Finally, the Applicant’s claimed “an audio system,” is insufficiently defined in the written description of the specification as originally filed. It is only mentioned once in para. [0072] as follows:
“The Cognitive Assistant 700 further includes a text-to-speech module 712. The user 102 (pilot) communicates verbally via an audio system 716 with the speech-to-text and text-to-speech modules 702, 712.”
As such, the Applicant’s claimed “an audio system,” is reasonably interpreted as a generic, well-known, and conventional audio device.
Therefore, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11 and 13-20 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11 and 13-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 1, 7 or 10. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on December 9, 2025 related to claims 1-11 and 13-20 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections — 35 USC § 101
Step 2A Prong 1
The Applicant respectfully argues “Moreover, the claimed invention simply cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Given the highly complex aerodynamics, mechanical and electronic systems involved in simulating an aircraft, it is impossible for a human mind to simulate an aircraft. The claimed invention therefor simply cannot be considered a mental process.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to mental processes, actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required, Further, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Appellant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Consider also that Example 38 of the USPTO's eligibility examples presents a method of simulation that is considered eligible. The rationale of the USPTO is that the method cannot be practically performed by the human mind. The same rationale applies to the present claims. The simulation system cannot be realistically performed by the human mind.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, although “the examples” consist of hypothetical cases that may parallel Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions, the examples are not considered precedential and are not fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. As such, the Applicant’s argument with regard to “Example 38” does not super cede the Examiner’s subject-matter eligibility analysis using precedential Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions. Furthermore, Example 38 is not even on point considering the Applicant is not claiming an audio mixer, but instead a pilot/air traffic controller simulator. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The Examiner also argues that the claimed invention is a method of organizing human activity. The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is essentially a training program. That is not a fair characterization. Rather, what is claimed is a computerized simulation system, not a training program. While the claimed invention can indeed be used for training a pilot, the claims do not define a training program. The claims do not recite actively following rules or instructions. Therefore, the claims cannot be fairly interpreted to be a mere training program.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is worth noting in MPEP §2106 under “II. Certain Methods Of organizing Human Activity,” certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. As applied in this case, a person interacting with a computer for “simulation training” in the form of “training a pilot to operate a vehicle with the guidance of a traffic controller,” reasonably constitutes identifying the Applicant’s claims as an abstract idea in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The claimed invention also cannot be fairly construed to be "collecting information, analyzing it and displaying it". The pilot in the simulator flies the simulated aircraft by controlling the tangible instrumentation and interacts with the simulated air traffic controller via an audio system. This is clearly far more than "collecting information, analyzing it and displaying it".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims provide for interacting with a simulation. Such interaction clearly requires "collecting information, analyzing it and displaying it" inorder to provide continued simulation based on interaction. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Finally, the claimed invention is not merely a mental process of evaluating. The pilot in the simulator flies the simulated aircraft by controlling the tangible instrumentation and interacts with the simulated air traffic controller via an audio system. This goes well beyond mere "evaluating".”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is conclusory and fails to go “well beyond” providing any evidence to the contrary. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong 2
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant submits that the underlined portions are additional limitations which do not recite a judicial exception. These additional limitations clearly help to provide an improvement as discussed in the application in the technical field of simulation systems/methods for training users to interact with air traffic control (ATC), e.g. in highly congested eVTOL airspace around airports.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided as to the proper analysis of a “Practical Application” as required under Step 2A, Prong 2. Specifically, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe a claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Applicant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first five bulleted factors and, as described above in the rejection, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully submits that the analysis of the present claims is similar to the USPTO's analysis of claim 3 of Example 47 in the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, whereby additional elements, when considered in combination, integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is once again conclusory. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence supporting the statement “the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field.” Further, and as previously stated, the examples are not considered precedential and are not fully considered as binding precedent on the USPTO. As such, the Applicant’s argument with regard to “Example 47” does not super cede the Examiner’s subject-matter eligibility analysis using precedential Supreme Court decisions and Federal Circuit decisions. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “The consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claim to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement.
The claimed invention reflects an improvement in the technical field of simulation systems/methods. As for example described in the Background of the instant application, prospective eVTOL pilots require training in operating in such environments, both in terms of more acute situational awareness of other nearby aircraft and also interacting with air traffic control (ATC).
Applicant submits that the additional claim limitations that do not recite a judicial exception clearly help to provide a technical improvement in the field of simulation systems/methods.
Thus, Applicant submits that these additional limitations recited in the amended independent claims, when considered in combination, integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the claim improves the technical field of computer simulation. Applicant thus submits that under Step 2A Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility assessment, the alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, and therefore the claims are not "directed to" the alleged exception.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously stated above, the Applicant’s argument appears to describe a claimed utility, which is not the test. Instead, the Applicant’s claims are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
Step 2B
The Applicant respectfully argues “Under Step 2B, the analysis looks to whether the claims, as a whole, contribute significantly more than the alleged judicial exception, i.e. significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The Examiner has defined the alleged abstract idea as a "training program", "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis" and "a mental process of evaluating." If, hypothetically, and merely for the sake of argumentation, the claim at issue were a method of displaying questions, evaluating answers, and displaying a grade for the student, the claim could be considered a mere "training program", "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis" and "a mental process of evaluating." However, the claimed invention is not a mere training program but rather a highly complex simulation system having tangible instrumentation and an audio system for verbally interacting with a simulated air traffic controller and having autonomous agents controlled by autonomous agent artificial intelligence that react to one or more verbal instructions. This is clearly and unambiguously far more than a "training program", "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis" and "a mental process of evaluating."
If the alleged abstract idea is a "training program", "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis" and "a mental process of evaluating", then the claims clearly provide "significantly more". The claimed invention includes an interactive computerized simulation station operable by the pilot to control a simulation model of the vehicle, the interactive computerized simulation station having tangible instrumentation enabling the pilot to control the simulation model of the vehicle, and an audio system enabling the pilot to communicate verbally with a simulated traffic controller. These elements contribute significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claimed invention includes: each simulated external vehicle being operated by an autonomous agent having an autonomous agent artificial intelligence for controlling the simulated external vehicle whose movement in the multi-agent simulation is determined by observations and decisions made by the autonomous agent artificial intelligence and by reacting to one or more verbal instructions received by the simulated traffic controller. These elements contribute significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
Therefore, under Step 2B, the claims should be considered eligible.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is misguided with regard to the Step 2B “significantly more” analysis. Specifically, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a memory,” “a processor,” and “an interactive computerized simulation station,” and “an audio system,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. This is evidenced by the Applicant’s own written description of the specification, as originally filed, as previously described above in the rejection. Therefore, the Applicant’s own written description of the specification as originally filed merely discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computing and does not provide anything “significantly more.” Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “In view of the foregoing, Applicant submits that the present claims define eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons stated previously, as well as, here and above. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are not withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715