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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in FR2405705 on 05/31/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2405705 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2 – 3 should read “The method of claim 1, wherein said reporting risk level comprises …”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
As per claim 8,
Line 4 – 5, “a model producer producing a digital surface model of the potential landing zone using topographic terrain data;”
Line 6 – 8, “model positioner positioning and orientating the digital surface model in space using aircraft attitude …”
Line 9 – 12, “a risk calculator calculating an overall risk level for each sub- zone …”
Line 25 – 26, “risk reporter reporting the overall risk levels …”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The “model producer”, “model positioner”, “risk calculator”, “risk reporter” corresponds to the “production module”, “placement module”, “calculation module”, “reporting module” as described in par. [0029] and are implemented by a processor as described in par. [0048].
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a
judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significant more.
Regarding to claim 1,
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is 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.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for facilitating landing a civil aircraft on a potential landing zone, implemented by an electronic landing assistance device carried on board the aircraft, the potential landing zone being divided into sub-zones, the method comprising:
producing a digital surface model of the potential landing zone using topographic terrain data;
positioning and/or orienting the digital surface model in space using aircraft attitude and/or positioning data, in order to obtain a placed digital surface model;
calculating an overall risk level for each sub-zone on the basis of at least the placed digital surface model and taking into account at least two characteristics of the sub-zone from among a topographical characterization, an accessibility characterization, a loss of visibility characterization, and a living being presence characterization, the calculating comprising:
determining, for each sub-zone, at least one individual risk level for each respective characterization; and
calculating the overall risk level from the individual risk levels associated with the various characterizations, wherein the topographical characterization of the sub-zone comprises (i) a standard deviation of elevation data with respect to an average plane of the sub-zone, the at least one individual risk level associated with the topography characterization being greater when the standard deviation is higher, and/or (ii) a slope value, the at least one individual risk level associated with the topography characterization being greater when the slope is higher; and
reporting risk level, comprising (i) generating, for at least one operator of the aircraft, an information signal dependent on the overall risk levels, and/or (ii) transmitting, to at least one avionics system, a control signal dependent on the overall risk levels.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the limitations "calculating an overall risk level for each sub-zone ..." and "calculating the overall risk level from the individual risk levels ..." recite mathematical calculations and, therefore, are directed to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept. The limitation "determining, for each sub-zone, at least one individual risk level ..." encompasses a person using observation, evaluation, and judgment to determine an individual risk level based on collected data and, therefore, recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into 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 computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for facilitating landing a civil aircraft on a potential landing zone, implemented by an electronic landing assistance device carried on board the aircraft, the potential landing zone being divided into sub-zones, the method comprising:
producing a digital surface model of the potential landing zone using topographic terrain data;
positioning and/or orienting the digital surface model in space using aircraft attitude and/or positioning data, in order to obtain a placed digital surface model;
calculating an overall risk level for each sub-zone on the basis of at least the placed digital surface model and taking into account at least two characteristics of the sub-zone from among a topographical characterization, an accessibility characterization, a loss of visibility characterization, and a living being presence characterization, the calculating comprising:
determining, for each sub-zone, at least one individual risk level for each respective characterization; and
calculating the overall risk level from the individual risk levels associated with the various characterizations, wherein the topographical characterization of the sub-zone comprises (i) a standard deviation of elevation data with respect to an average plane of the sub-zone, the at least one individual risk level associated with the topography characterization being greater when the standard deviation is higher, and/or (ii) a slope value, the at least one individual risk level associated with the topography characterization being greater when the slope is higher; and
reporting risk level, comprising (i) generating, for at least one operator of the aircraft, an information signal dependent on the overall risk levels, and/or (ii) transmitting, to at least one avionics system, a control signal dependent on the overall risk levels.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional limitation of "producing a digital surface model ..." is directed to data gathering and, therefore, constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation of "positioning and/or orienting the digital surface model ..." is directed to aligning data using conventional inputs and, therefore, constitutes pre-solution activity. The additional limitation of "reporting a risk level ..." and/or "transmitting, to at least one avionics system, a control signal ..." is directed to post-solution activity. Furthermore, as drafted, the claim requires only one of either "reporting the risk level" or "transmitting ... a control signal" to be performed, and each alternative merely constitutes post-solution activity. Accordingly, the claim does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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 a 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, 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 abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional limitation of "producing a digital surface model ..." is directed to data gathering and, therefore, constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation of "positioning and/or orienting the digital surface model ..." is directed to aligning data using conventional inputs and, therefore, constitutes pre-solution activity. The additional limitation of "reporting a risk level ..." and/or "transmitting, to at least one avionics system, a control signal ..." is directed to post-solution activity. Furthermore, as drafted, the claim requires only one of either "reporting the risk level" or "transmitting ... a control signal" to be performed, and each alternative merely constitutes post-solution activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 6 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2 – 6 do not recite any additional limitation that would integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 2 - 6 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
The analysis of claim 7 – 8 are similar to the analysis of claim 1 above. The additional limitations of “model producer”, “model positioner”, “risk calculator”, “risk reporter” are directed to generic computer performing the abstract ideas, therefore, they do not integrate the claim into practical application or to provide inventive concept.
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 8 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 8 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 101 rejections set forth above is resolved.
Conclusion
Interpreting the claim in light of the specification, examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record. The prior arts do not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as recited in independent claims 1 and 8.
Wan et al. (English Translation of CN109377029B) discloses a risk evaluation method for aircraft operation safety device, electronic device and storage medium, the aircraft safety risk evaluation method comprises: according to different data sources of the risk event, dividing the risk event into dominant risk event and recessive risk event, obtaining the severity of dominant risk event, severity of recessive risk event, probability of dominant risk event occurrence, probability of recessive risk event occurrence, probability of occurrence of dominant risk event, severity and recessive risk event risk coefficient of aircraft different flight section, weight of each recessive risk event obtaining aircraft operation recessive risk value, according to aircraft operation dominant risk value and aircraft operation recessive risk value, performing risk evaluation for aircraft operation. Through implementing the invention, the safety operation of the risk evaluation result is comprehensive, reasonable, it can provide reference basis for aircraft actual flight.
Shi et al. (English Translation of CN115689291A) discloses an airspace operation risk assessment method based on fuzzy object analysis, comprising: the airspace operation risk index is classified as conflict risk index and operation situation risk index, establishing comprehensive operation risk assessment system; calculating the weight of each evaluation index by objective weighting method; analyzing the classical domain and the node domain of the airspace running risk object model by using the clustering algorithm; combining the fuzzy mathematical theory to judge the risk level of the evaluation object, using the membership function as the objective measurement of the fuzzy, and giving the membership calculation method; finally, according to the index weight obtained in the above steps and the membership degree of the evaluation object about each risk level, taking the maximum membership degree as principle, finishing airspace operation risk level determination. The method avoids the human subjective factors interference of the operation risk level determination, and because the evaluation system, the risk level total number and other parameters can be flexibly set, ensures the practicability and expansibility of the algorithm, can provide basis for risk airspace identification.
David et al. (Publication No. GS2604509A) discloses A method for controlling flight of an aircraft system comprises deriving a 2D liability map using mapping data related to one or more ground hazard categories 101, wherein each ground hazard category is associated with a type of hazard on a ground surface. The liability map includes multiple risk liability values associated with the one or more ground hazard categories. The liability map is used to control one or more parameters for controlling flight of the aircraft system 102. The ground surface is discretised into a 2D grid, deriving an area of an element part of a ground hazard category, estimating a consequence value based on the characteristics of the aircraft, and estimating a risk liability value based on the area ratio and the consequence value. Further aspects define using the liability map to determine a risk liability value associated with a flight. The methods may be applied to unmanned aircraft systems or drones.
The features “calculating the overall risk level from the individual risk levels associated with the various characterizations, wherein the topographical characterization of the sub-zone comprises (i) a standard deviation of elevation data with respect to an average plane of the sub-zone, the at least one individual risk level associated with the topography characterization being greater when the standard deviation is higher, and/or (ii) a slope value, the at least one individual risk level associated with the topography characterization being greater when the slope is higher;” when taken in the context of claim 1 and 8 as a whole, were not uncovered in the prior art of teachings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 11am - 7pm EST.
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, James J Lee can be reached at (571) 270-5965. 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.
/STEVEN VU NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights