Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 2-11 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the claims filed 05/27/2026.
4. Claims 9, 10 and 11 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made non-final.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 12/27/2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(f)
7. 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations of claim 11 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because they use a generic placeholder “an obtaining module”, “a determination module”, “a comparison module”, and “a sending module” respectively coupled with functional language “to obtain”, “to determine”, “to compare”, and “to send”, “to identify, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since claim 11 limitation invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 11 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation.
“In the example shown in Figure 1, the obtaining module 30, the determination module 35, the comparison module 40 and the sending module 45 are each implemented in the form of a software program, or a software brick, which can be executed by the second processor 75. The first memory 70 of the electronic enrichment device 20 is then apt to store an obtaining software, a determination software, a comparison software and a sending software. The first processor 75 is then apt to execute each of the software programs among the obtaining software, the determination software, the comparison software, and the sending software.”
“In a variant (not shown), the obtaining module 30, the determination module 35, the comparison module 40, the sending module 45, and, as an optional supplement, the reception module 50, the selection module 55 and the transmission module 60 are each produced in the form of a programmable logic component, such as an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), or else in the form of an integrated circuit, such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit).”
However, the written description fails and confusing one ordinary skill in the art to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function as the modules could be software or hardware.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
10. Referring to claim 11, the phrases “the electronic enrichment device comprising: modules.” are construed to invoke 35 USC 112 (f) for at least the reasons noted above.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) limitation.
“In the example shown in Figure 1, the obtaining module 30, the determination module 35, the comparison module 40 and the sending module 45 are each implemented in the form of a software program, or a software brick, which can be executed by the second processor 75. The first memory 70 of the electronic enrichment device 20 is then apt to store an obtaining software, a determination software, a comparison software and a sending software. The first processor 75 is then apt to execute each of the software programs among the obtaining software, the determination software, the comparison software, and the sending software.”
“In a variant (not shown), the obtaining module 30, the determination module 35, the comparison module 40, the sending module 45, and, as an optional supplement, the reception module 50, the selection module 55 and the transmission module 60 are each produced in the form of a programmable logic component, such as an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array), or else in the form of an integrated circuit, such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit).”
The written description fails and confuses one ordinary skill in the art in disclosing the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function as the modules could be software or hardware so as to render the claim definite. Particularly, it is unclear what structure is encompassed by the different modules. Because one of ordinary skill would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention, claim 11 is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
13. Claim 11 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to a system. Paragraph “In the example shown in Figure 1, The obtaining module 1, the reception module 50, the selection module 55 and the transmission module 60 are each produced in the form of a software program, or a software brick, which can be executed by the second processor 85” of this instant published specification, has provided evidence that the claimed system is a software per se, wherein a series of modules are to be executed. The claims do not define structural and functional descriptive material used in interrelationship between the computer software and the hardware like a memory or processor. Software per se does not fit within recognized categories of statutory subject matter therefore it is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
14. 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.
15. Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
Claims 9, 10, and 11 all appear to be directed to a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Claims 9, 10, and 11 recite an abstract idea in the following limitations:
“Determining of at least two indicators from the group of indicators consisting of: a frequency indicator quantifying the frequency of occurrence of each word in the initial structured base, an interconnection indicator representative of a distribution of semantic links in the initial structured base, a relevance indicator quantifying the usefulness of the data in the initial structured database, a precision indicator quantifying the polysemy of each word of the initial structured base”,
“Comparing each determined indicator with at least one respective threshold”,
“Selection of objects, from the validated structured base, in response to the request received”,
This limitation recites the step of determining at least two indicators which is a mentally performable process, as a form of an evaluation or judgement which is a quintessential mental process as described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Moreover, each of the indicators also appear to be mentally performable, as one can mentally quantify the frequency of occurrence of words in a collection, a distribution of semantic links in a collection, a relevance of the data in a collection, and a polysemy of each word in a collection. These all can be practically performed in the human mind as an evaluation or judgement. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
“Comparison of each determined indicator with at least one respective threshold” and “if the result of the comparison is negative…”
These limitations recite comparing information to a threshold and reaching a determination, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
The claim recites the following additional elements, which do not provide integration into a practical application:
“An electronic enrichment device”
which elements are recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application.
“Obtaining an initial structured database, known as the initial structured base, comprising a plurality of objects including: a plurality of classes, a plurality of data, and semantic links associating each datum with at least one class, each datum and/or each class comprising one or a plurality of words”,
“Reception of a request from the pilot of the aircraft”,
“Transmission of a flight instruction elaborated from the selected objects, to one amongst: the pilot of the aircraft and an actuator of the aircraft.”
which recites insignificant extra-solution activity as a form of mere data gathering that does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“Sending an enrichment command of the initial structured base to form an enriched structured database, called enriched structured base, comprising a larger number of objects than the initial structured base.”
which recites insignificant extra-solution activity as a form of mere data outputting under MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or the mere idea of a solution under MPEP 2106.05(f), neither of which provide integration into a practical application. The mere sending of a command to do something is pure data transmission and data outputting. There are no recited details of how the command would cause the result to be achieved. This results-oriented language, fails to recite any details or restrictions on how the enriched structured database is formed other than merely gathering more objects. There is no indication as to how much larger the enriched database would need to be and would encompass adding even 1 more object. Accordingly, this covers any solution with no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, and does not provide integration into a practical application because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” as stated in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly More
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(II) for Step 2B, examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h).
Therefore, the additional elements and the conclusions above under MPEP 2106.05(f) are carried over and these elements do not provide significantly more.
The conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two that additional elements were insignificant extra-solution activity should be re-evaluated in Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
With respect to the:
“Obtaining an initial structured database, known as the initial structured base, comprising a plurality of objects including: a plurality of classes, a plurality of data, and semantic links associating each datum with at least one class, each datum and/or each class comprising one or a plurality of words”,
“Reception of a request from the pilot of the aircraft”,
“Transmission of a flight instruction elaborated from the selected objects, to one amongst: the pilot of the aircraft and an actuator of the aircraft.”
“Sending an enrichment command of the initial structured base to form an enriched structured database, called enriched structured base, comprising a larger number of objects than the initial structured base.”
Identified as insignificant extra-solution activity, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II))" ( Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) , sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).”
as well as admitted in the instant application specification on page 1, “it is known to use a flight computer to provide data to the pilot of the aircraft. As a general rule, the flight computer stores a database comprising a plurality of data that the pilot of the aircraft is able to consult…. the pilot is able to query the databases stored.” Thus, this remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Thus, this remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more, as well as merely “apply it” under 2106.05(f) as explained above.
Even when considered in combination and viewing the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims 2-8 merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 2, falls within of "mental processes “groupings of abstract ideas. Each of the indicators also appear to be mentally performable, these all can be practically performed in the human mind as an evaluation or judgement. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Claims 3-6, falls within of "mental processes “groupings of abstract ideas. The claim simply describes calculations. Thus, Under the USPTO’s Alice/Mayo framework, calculations are categorized as judicial exceptions to patent eligibility.
Claims 7-8, falls within of "mental processes “groupings of abstract ideas. comparing information to a threshold and reaching a determination, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: THALES teaches limitations as per claim 9, but fail to teach limitations what claims 4 and 5 have.There is no prior art of record, whether singly or in combination, teach or suggest the above limitations together in conjunction with the other limitations of claims 4 and 5.
Examiner Note
17. The Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
18. 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 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.
19. 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;
20. Claims 2, 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by (FR 3127055 A1) hereinafter as THALES.
21. Regarding claim 9, THALES teaches A method for assisting the piloting of an aircraft (Abstract, “Electronic decision support device for the implementation of a critical function or an assistance function by an avionic system”) starting from an initial structured database, called the initial structured base (Abstract, “a recommendation from an algorithm based on the contents of a reference database”, [0014], “uses an ontology-type database”), the method comprising an enrichment phase ([0010], “generate at least one output datum associated with this critical function, from at least one input datum (enrichment phase).”) and an operating phase ([0019], “avionic system being capable of operating according to a current context defined by at least one operating parameter of said avionic system (an operating phase)”),
the enrichment phase comprising an enrichment of the initial structured base by application of a method for enriching a structured database ([0010], “generate at least one output datum associated with this critical function, from at least one input datum (enrichment phase).”, [0011-0012], “solve complex requests involving complex calculations, relating to a large quantity of data to be processed and with multifactorial constraints.”, [0014], “use an ontology reasoner”) comprising;
- obtaining an initial structured database, known as the initial structured base (Abstract, “a recommendation from an algorithm based on the contents of a reference database”, [0014], “uses an ontology-type database”), comprising a plurality of objects ([0101], object such “aircraft”, “airport” …) comprising:
a plurality of classes ([0014], “uses an ontology-type database, defining classes”, [0101], “class/subclass” such “airport” class),
a plurality of data ([0101], ontology-type database comprising data) and
semantic links associating each datum with at least one class (([0014], “uses an ontology-type database, defining classes, relationships between classes, and rules.”, [0099-0101], “semantic links (taxonomic relations)”),
each datum and/or each class comprising one or a plurality of words ([0010], “generate at least one output datum associated with this critical function, from at least one input datum (enrichment phase).”, [0101], classes with word),
- determining at least two indicators selected from the group of consisting of:
a frequency indicator quantifying the frequency of occurrence of each word in the initial structured base ([0099], “The ontology defines a structured set of concepts and relations between said concepts. the ontology is a semantic network which groups together a set of concepts linked to each other by taxonomic relations in order to prioritize concepts on the one hand, and semantics on the other. Thus, knowledge is structured in the form of a model formalized in descriptive logic. A reasoner on ontology makes it possible to deduce by inference more than the knowledge strictly written in the initial ontology.”),
an interconnection indicator representative of a distribution of semantic links in the initial structured base ([0099], “ontology”, “knowledge graph”),
a relevance indicator quantifying the usefulness of the data in the initial structured database ([0029], “the similarity reasoning module is configured to compare the query of the operator and the current context with the predetermined queries and the predetermined contexts of the reference database (the initial structured database) according to a similarity metric, the recommendation generated by the similarity reasoning module being equal to the recommendation associated with the predetermined context and with the predetermined request having the greatest similarity with the current context and the operator's request”, see also [0080-0084], “The reasoning module by similarity 38 (similarity metric so-called cosine similarity function)”), and
a precision indicator quantifying the polysemy of each word of the initial structured base, and
- comparing each determined indicator with at least one respective threshold ([0029], “a control module configured to compare the recommendations generated by the at least two reasoning modules and to check whether said recommendations are consistent between they according to a predetermined consistency rule,”, “the similarity reasoning module is configured to compare the query of the operator and the current context with the predetermined queries and the predetermined contexts of the reference database according to a similarity metric”, [0080-0084], “The reasoning module by similarity 38 (similarity metric so-called cosine similarity function)”),
- wherein, if the result of the comparison is negative ([0029], “the recommendation being generated only if the similarity is greater than a predetermined threshold value”, [0080-0084], “The reasoning module by similarity 38 (similarity metric so-called cosine similarity function), The result is therefore between -1 and 1. The value -1 indicates that the vectors are opposite, the value 0 indicates that the vectors are independent and the value 1 indicates that the vectors are similar, in particular collinear. The intermediate values between -1 and 1 make it possible to evaluate the degree of similarity between the two vectors.”), said method further comprises sending an enrichment command of the initial structured base to form an enriched structured database, called enriched structured base, comprising a larger number of objects than the initial structured base ([0010], “generate at least one output datum associated with this critical function, from at least one input datum (enrichment phase).”, [0029], “the recommendation being generated only if the similarity is greater than a predetermined threshold value”, [0068], “The recommendation is in particular a suggested action on one of the avionic systems 10, in particular a command acting on the avionic system 10 in order to modify its operation in response to the request of the operator 14.”, [0082-0084], “the generation of the recommendation by the similarity reasoning module 38 is inhibited if the similarity value is less than a predetermined threshold value.”, [0083], “The predetermined threshold value is determined so as to limit the security risks for the avionic system 10 and makes it possible to ensure that the recommendation generated is sufficiently relevant to respond to the request of the operator 14 in view of the current context.”).
the operating phase being implemented by an electronic device for interaction with the pilot of the aircraft (Abstract, “Electronic decision support device for the implementation of a critical function or an assistance function by an avionic system”), the electronic device for interaction comprising the structured database resulting from the enrichment phase, called the validated structured base, and comprising:
- reception of a request from the pilot of the aircraft (Abstract, “in response to a request transmitted by an operator (14). The device comprises a module for receiving the request and a current context and a processing module configured to generate a recommendation in response to the request”, [0011], “A request is in particular a search for information or a solution expressed by the operator.”),
- selection of objects, from the validated structured base, in response to the request received (Abstract, “in response to a request transmitted by an operator (14). The device comprises a module for receiving the request and a current context and a processing module configured to generate a recommendation in response to the request”, [0080], “the reasoning by similarity 38 selects the pair {context, query} contained in the reference database 44 whose measure of similarity with the pair {current context, query of the operator} is the highest.), and
- transmission of a flight instruction elaborated from the selected objects, to one amongst: the pilot of the aircraft and an actuator of the aircraft ( [0123], “the display module 32 is configured to display the response on the screen. head-down display or the head-up display screen in front of the operator 14 who possibly applies the instruction associated with the response.”, [0125], “the display module 32 is configured to display a button allowing the user to accept or not the instruction associated with the response. The electronic device then further comprises an acquisition module configured to acquire the choice of the operator and, in the event of acceptance by the operator of the instruction, to send the instruction to the transmission module 34.”).
22. Regarding claim 2, THALES teaches the invention as claimed in claim 9 above and further teaches wherein the determination of indicators comprises determining at least three indicators from the group of indicators, and wherein the determination of indicators further comprises the determination of each indicator from the group of indicators (see claim 9, more than 3 indicators are determined).
23. Regarding claim 6, THALES teaches the invention as claimed in claim 9 above and further teaches wherein the initial structured base comprises a plurality of scenarios each comprising a set of values and an action taken by the pilot of the aircraft in the presence of the set of values, each value of the set of values being a numerical value of a datum of the initial structured base, one of the indicators identified during the determination being the relevance indicator ([0086], “the reference database 44 notably comprises the following data represented in the table”) the determination step comprising:
- obtaining an artificial intelligence model trained to receive a scenario and to determine a logical rule combining the values of the set of values leading to the action of said scenario, and to quantify the importance of each value in the action taken ([0085-0087]),
- applying said artificial intelligence model to each scenario of the initial structured base, in order to obtain, for each value of each set of values, an importance quantifier in the action of said scenario ([0086-0092]),
-calculating the proportion of values in sets of values for which the significance quantifier is below a respective threshold ([0086]- [0096]),
the relevance indicator comprising:
- said proportion of values of the sets of values for which the significance quantifier is less than the respective threshold ([0082-0084], [0089]).
24. Regarding claim 7, THALES teaches the invention as claimed in claim 9 above and further teaches wherein, following the step of sending an enrichment command, and the obtaining, determining, comparing and, where appropriate, sending, of the method are reiterated as long as the result of the comparison is negative, the enriched structured base of one iteration being the initial structured base of the following iteration, the structured database obtained at the end of the iterations being called the validated structured base ([0010], “generate at least one output datum associated with this critical function, from at least one input datum (enrichment phase).”, [0029], “the recommendation being generated only if the similarity is greater than a predetermined threshold value”, [0068], “The recommendation is in particular a suggested action on one of the avionic systems 10, in particular a command acting on the avionic system 10 in order to modify its operation in response to the request of the operator 14.”, [0082-0084], “the generation of the recommendation by the similarity reasoning module 38 is inhibited if the similarity value is less than a predetermined threshold value.”, [0083], “The predetermined threshold value is determined so as to limit the security risks for the avionic system 10 and makes it possible to ensure that the recommendation generated is sufficiently relevant to respond to the request of the operator 14 in view of the current context.”).
25. Regarding claim 8, THALES teaches the invention as claimed in claim 7 above and further teaches wherein the method comprises, if the result of the comparison is positive, importing the validated structured base, into an electronic device for interaction with the pilot of the aircraft, for the use thereof during an aircraft mission ([0079], “the value 1 indicates that the vectors are similar”).
26. Regarding claim 10, this claim recites a system performs the method of claim 9 and is rejected under the same rationale.
27. Regarding claim 11, THALES teaches an electronic system for assisting a pilot of an aircraft in decision-making comprising an electronic enrichment device for enriching a structured database intended to assist a pilot of an aircraft in decision-making (Abstract, “Electronic decision support device for the implementation of a critical function or an assistance function by an avionic system “a recommendation from an algorithm based on the contents of a reference database”, [0014], “uses an ontology-type database”, [0010], “generate at least one output datum associated with this critical function, from at least one input datum (enrichment phase).”)), the electronic enrichment device comprising:
- an obtaining module configured to obtain an initial structured database, called initial structured base (Abstract, “a recommendation from an algorithm based on the contents of a reference database”, [0014], “uses an ontology-type database”), comprising a plurality of objects ([0101], object such “aircraft”, “airport” …) including:
a plurality of classes ([0014], “uses an ontology-type database, defining classes”, [0101], “class/subclass” such “airport” class),
a plurality of data ([0101], ontology-type database comprising data) and
semantic links associating each datum with at least one class (([0014], “uses an ontology-type database, defining classes, relationships between classes, and rules.”, [0099-0101], “semantic links (taxonomic relations)”),
each datum and/or each class comprising one or a plurality of words ([0010], “generate at least one output datum associated with this critical function, from at least one input datum (enrichment phase).”, [0101], classes with word),
- a determination module configured to determine at least two indicators from the group of indicators consisting of:
a frequency indicator quantifying the frequency of occurrence of each word in the initial structured base ([0099], “The ontology defines a structured set of concepts and relations between said concepts. the ontology is a semantic network which groups together a set of concepts linked to each other by taxonomic relations in order to prioritize concepts on the one hand, and semantics on the other. Thus, knowledge is structured in the form of a model formalized in descriptive logic. A reasoner on ontology makes it possible to deduce by inference more than the knowledge strictly written in the initial ontology.”),
an interconnection indicator representative of a distribution of semantic links in the initial structured base ([0099], “ontology”, “knowledge graph”),
a relevance indicator quantifying the usefulness of the data in the initial structured database ([0029], “the similarity reasoning module is configured to compare the query of the operator and the current context with the predetermined queries and the predetermined contexts of the reference database (the initial structured database) according to a similarity metric, the recommendation generated by the similarity reasoning module being equal to the recommendation associated with the predetermined context and with the predetermined request having the greatest similarity with the current context and the operator's request”, see also [0080-0084], “The reasoning module by similarity 38 (similarity metric so-called cosine similarity function)”), and
a precision indicator quantifying the polysemy of each word of the initial structured base,
- a comparison module configured to compare each determined indicator with at least one respective threshold ([0029], “a control module configured to compare the recommendations generated by the at least two reasoning modules and to check whether said recommendations are consistent between they according to a predetermined consistency rule,”, “the similarity reasoning module is configured to compare the query of the operator and the current context with the predetermined queries and the predetermined contexts of the reference database according to a similarity metric”, [0080-0084], “The reasoning module by similarity 38 (similarity metric so-called cosine similarity function)”), a sending module configured to, if the result of the comparison is negative, send a command to enrich the initial structured base in order to form an enriched structured database, called enriched structured base, comprising a larger number of objects than the initial structured base ([0010], “generate at least one output datum associated with this critical function, from at least one input datum (enrichment phase).”, [0029], “the recommendation being generated only if the similarity is greater than a predetermined threshold value”, [0068], “The recommendation is in particular a suggested action on one of the avionic systems 10, in particular a command acting on the avionic system 10 in order to modify its operation in response to the request of the operator 14.”, [0082-0084], “the generation of the recommendation by the similarity reasoning module 38 is inhibited if the similarity value is less than a predetermined threshold value.”, [0083], “The predetermined threshold value is determined so as to limit the security risks for the avionic system 10 and makes it possible to ensure that the recommendation generated is sufficiently relevant to respond to the request of the operator 14 in view of the current context.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
28. 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 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.
29. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
30. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over (FR 3127055 A1) hereinafter as THALES in view of Tang et al (US 20080077570 A1) hereinafter as Tang.
31. Regarding claim 3, THALES teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, THALES did not specifically teach claim 3.
However, Tang teaches wherein one of the indicators determined during the determination step is the frequency indicator, the determination step comprising:
- calculation of Shannon entropy associated with each word of the initial structured base ([0129]),
- evaluation of a percentage of words the Shannon entropy of which is greater than a respective value ([0023-0024]),
- application of a statistical test to Shannon entropies calculated to obtain a p- value and a similarity percentage ([0024], Fig 5, 8, [0065], [0124], “Percent identity”),
the quantity of information indicator comprising:
- the percentage of words the Shannon entropy of which is greater than the preset value ([0024]),
- the p-value ([0024]), and
- the similarity percentage ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Tang’s system into THALES’s and by incorporating Tang into THALES because both systems are related to enriching a database would provide a database searching method for searching a database (Tang, Abstract).
CONCLUSION
32. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant s disclosure.
De Grancey (WO 2021224411 A1) discloses an electronic decision support device (12) configured to generate a recommendation concerning the implementation of a critical function by an electronic system.
Gottlob et al (US 20250045256 A1) discloses an automatic curation and enrichment of databases using large language models.
Marcourt et al (US 20180322282 A1) discloses method for monitoring an avionics software application, able to be executed on a platform including resources and hosting an operating system, the platform being intended to be on board an aircraft, implemented by an electronic monitoring device.
Mohtar et al (US 20240038375 A1)
Elahi et al (US 20190195652 A1)
Romatka et al (US 20150066870 A1)
Matskevich et al (US 20180032508 A1)
Skiena et al (US 7440889 B1)
Lissajoux et al (US 20190389565 A1)
Matsen et al (US 20080167833 A1)
Swanson et al (US 20150375857 A1)
Kalafut et al (US 20210183498 A1)
Morozov (WO 2020091627 A1)
Huang (CN 112540749 B)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights