alNotice 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 .
1. This Office Action is in response to a communication filed on 6/18/2025.
2. This is a Non-Final Office Action on the merit. Claims 1-5 are currently pending and are addressed below.
3. Examiner notes that the fundamentals of the rejection are based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Applicant is kindly invited to consider the reference as a whole. References are to be interpreted as by one of ordinary skill in the art rather than as by a novice. See MPEP 2141. Therefore, the relevant inquiry when interpreting a reference is not what the reference expressly discloses on its face but what the reference would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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.
4. Independent claims 1, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (i.e., at most, applicant claims about using a generic computer to practice a process of creating a landing map on a monitor).
101 Analysis - Step 1: Claims 1, and 5 are directed to “a computer system” (i.e., a structure), and a display method/“a process”; therefore, they are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong I:
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent “structured” claim 1 (and implemented independent “method” claim 5) include limitation(s) that recites an abstract idea (emphasized below):
Per independent claim 1: A system, comprising:
a display unit that displays a ship-landing evaluation map relating to ship- landing feasibility of an aircraft (e.g., a generic monitor screen); and
a control unit that generates the ship-landing evaluation map, and causes the
display unit to display the ship-landing evaluation map (e.g., a processing unit using certain input data),
wherein the ship-landing evaluation map is a map in which a circumferential
direction of concentric circles around the ship is a wave direction (e.g., a certain type of computer indication) and a radial direction around the ship is a ship speed, and
the control unit executes a step of acquiring an evaluation result ”in which the ship speed and the
wave direction are associated with an evaluation relating to the ship-landing feasibility in a predetermined external environment and generating the ship-landing evaluation
map based on the acquired evaluation result and
a step of displaying the ship-landing evaluation map on the display unit. The Alice/Mayo framework requires that the claim show integration into a practical application and significantly more than the exception (currently claimed “displaying the ship-landing evaluation map based on “a wave direction and a ship speed” is an abstract idea and lacking a significant further.
As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all." 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("“[M]ental processes and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). Accordingly, a method (of pending claim 17) that claims about above steps is an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of using a monitor device/computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., there is no “significant further” or no improvement in those pending claims to implement an abstract idea of displaying a potential place for landing an aircraft, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, those claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis — Step 2A, Prong II
According to the 2019 PEG, the claim is to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application (merely displaying potential landing place” on a display is not a “practical application”. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a generic computer/processor to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity (e.g., defining concentric circles…, wave direction, or a radial direction or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., to land an aircraft) do not integrate a judicial exception into a specific practical application.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., merely reciting the use of a wave direction or a radial direction: a ship speed). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the steps amounts to nothing more than applying the exception (e.g., using a generic computer component: a display). Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations discussed above are insignificant extra-solution activities.
The additional limitations of receiving/obtaining data, comparing, and outputting estimated data are well-understood, routine and conventional activities because the background recites that these claimed activities are all conventional (e.g., display data on screen), and the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data for a ship is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner from the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int'l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere pre/post-solution activity is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
5. Claims 2-5 include insignificant generic components to practice the invention (i.e., claiming an associated method to perform an abstract process of claim 1 to predict a landing possibility/impossibility), using stored information for potential uses…, they are rejected on 35 USC 101 because they do not contain an inventive concept.
6. In summary, claims 1-5 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
7. Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being unclear because these claims are directed to a system (a structure for displaying); however, they require step limitations (to obtain input data: a ship speed); claim 4 limitations are unclear (i.e., The … display system according to claim 1, further comprising “a control unit” to execute:
a step of acquiring an operation response of the aircraft that is operated
by inputting an operation signal to the aircraft,
a step of extracting a feature quantity relating to the operation response
of the aircraft based on the acquired operation response, and
a step of inputting the extracted feature quantity to each of the plurality
of learning models to estimate the ship-landing performance of the aircraft, and
in the step of displaying the ship-landing evaluation map on the display unit, the
evaluation result is acquired based on the estimated ship-landing performance of the
aircraft.
These claimed “data-mining” for displaying steps could be done by a generic processor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained. notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner m which the invention was made.
According to MPEP 2111.05 about Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
"[the examiner] must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight." Id. at 850, 117 USPQ2d at 1268."this is an example in the MPEP of what we would give "no weight" to in a claim: "claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer."
8. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray’769 (US Pat 6989769B2) (or Gray’121 EP 1280121B1). in view of Fleischmann’924 (US Pat. 6064924A)
A. Per claims 1, and 4: Gray’769 teaches a ship- landing evaluation display system comprising a display unit that displays a ship- landing evaluation map relating to ship- landing feasibility of an aircraft (see Gray’769 FIG.2 ref. 30 “Display) . and
a control unit that generates the ship- landing evaluation map (see Gray’769 FIG.2 ref. 30 “Display) wherein the ship- landing evaluation map is a map in which a circumferential direction of concentric circles around the ship is a speed direction (see Gray’769 FIG.1c).
Gray’769 suggests that a ship’s speed is represented with a radial direction (a ship’s speed increases from inside out radially; (see Gray’769 FIG.1c) ,and the control unit executes a step of acquiring an evaluation result (e.g., a communication is distributed/indicated as “Time-to- Land” see Fleischmann‘924 col.3 lines 24- 55”in which the ship speed and the wave direction (see Fleischmann’924 Fig. 7) are associated with an evaluation relating to the ship-landing feasibility in a predetermined external environment and generating the ship- landing evaluation map based on the acquired evaluation result (see Gray’769 FIGs.1c, 2); and a step of displaying the ship-landing evaluation map on the display unit. (see Gray’769 FIG.2 ref. 30 “Display).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Gray’769 with Fleischmann‘924 to process received data for displaying potential selections according to input data which has been understood applicable expectations.
B. Per dependent claim 2: The rationales and references to reject claim 1 are incorporated.
Gray’769 also suggest about an evaluation relating to the ship- landing feasibility is performed in a plurality of stages between n possibility of the ship- landing and impossibility of the ship- landing (e.g. selecting a spot based on a ship’s speed, a heading direction, and a wave encounter angle, (see Gray’769 FIG.1c)
C. Per dependent claim 3: The rationales and references to reject claim 1 are incorporated.
Gray’769 suggests that a region in which the ship speed and the wave direction evaluated as possibility of the ship-landing are partitioned is displayed as a possible ship-landing region on the ship-landing evaluation map (see Gray’769 FIG.1c).
Per dependent claim 4: The rationales and references to reject claim 1 are incorporated.
Gray’769 suggests a storage unit (see Gray’769 claim 11) that is able to store a learning model for estimating a ship- landing performance of the aircraft, wherein the unit stores learning models associated with the ship speed and the wave direction in a predetermined environment (see Gray’121, FIG. 1a- 1c); the control unit further executes a step of acquiring an operation response of the aircraft that is operated by inputting a signal to the aircraft (see Gray’121, para. [0001],[0025], Fig. 1c);
Gray’121 also suggests a step of extracting a feature relating to the operation response of the aircraft based on the acquired response (this claimed step is inherent with Gray’121), and a step of inputting the extracted feature quantity to each of learning models aircraft (see Gray’769 Fig.2 ref. 20”Helicopter constants”, and see Gray’121, para. [0032]) to estimate the ship- landing performance of the aircraft, and in the step of displaying the ship- landing evaluation map on the display unit, the evaluation result is acquired based on the estimated ship-landing performance of the aircraft (see Gray’121, Fig. 1c para. [0025]-[0026]).
Conclusion
9. Pending claims 1-5 are rejected.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cuong H Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-6759 (email address is cuong.nguyen@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M - F: 9:30AM- 5:30PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, BENDIDI RACHID can be reached on (571) 272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only, For more information about the PAIR system, see https//ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll- free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664
Prosecution Insights