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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, regarding the 101 rejections, filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the applicant has filed amendments that recite “certain” limitations from claims which were not previously rejected under U.S.C this is not persuasive, as previously claim 8/18 recited five different types of sensors (one or more of each type) which were used in the voting system, and thus provided a specific machine (layout/configuration of sensors); however instead of directly integrating these claims, the amended language instead it still generalized in that the independent claims now only require “one or more” of the various type; while it is true that each singular sensor is not abstract, as it is a physical sensor, generally claiming known (for aircraft) sensors doesn’t provide a specific machine integration in that it is merely generally linking the abstract idea to well understood, routine, and conventional physical components. For example, the use of pitot tubes to sense air data surrounding aircraft is a well understood, routine, and conventional use of pitot tubes, with this being used since the 1920s.
Put another way the original claims 8 and 18 were not previously rejected under U.S.C 101 as they recited multiple different types sensors which provide integration/captures the improvement (allowing for the determining of corrupted voted signals), it was the recitation of requiring all of these sensor types which was considered to provide specific machine integration based on a preponderance of evidence standard (i.e. was considered more than 50% certainty to not be directed to an abstract idea).
Merely claiming a singular well understood routine and conventional aircraft sensor does not provide specific machine integration/captures the improvement for the abstract idea as this is merely an additional element of reciting a well understood routine and conventional limitation to the abstract idea (i.e. fails to satisfy the Step 2B considerations for abstract ideas). As such the abstract idea 101 rejections are maintained for the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-7 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1,
On January 7, 2019, the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a system.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The system in claim 1 is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It currently consists of collecting (recited at a high level of generality) data and then “Voting” on that data. This is equivalent to a person making mental determination/pattern recognition between three data numbers to determine if any of the numbers are an outlier (I.e. forming a mental opinion on a set of numbers).
In fact the applicant’s own specification recognizes that this is a known mental process already/previously perform in the human mind in [0003] “In general, modern aircraft include fairly robust air data systems. Again though, the air data systems can be affected by external threats, such as icing, bird-strikes, volcanic ash, and the like. Such threats can potentially corrupt all air data sensors at the same time. Thus, despite redundancy, an external threat can potentially corrupt all measurements at once, typically called a common-cause event. In some known aircraft, pilots would be presented with multiple sources of airspeed and altitude, and they would have to decide which information to trust if something appeared wrong. In more recent aircraft, software performs comparison monitoring and voting to present a pilot with a trusted measurement. However, if all the measurements are wrong, there is no way to provide accurate information. Such monitoring systems can then flag data as erroneous or unreliable” (underline added for emphasis)
Notably, the claims do not recite any control of the aircraft, the “flight control unit” is only claimed as receiving and then voting on the signals to determine if any are corrupted.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. While the claim does recite that the system is/includes “air data sensors configured to detect one more characteristics of air surrounding an aircraft,”, at the level of generality claimed it is only generally linking to a particular environment (aircraft). While the data is selected and transmitted, it is not transformed by any steps of the method, or used implement a specific control of the vehicle.
Also, as noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In the instant case, the receiving and processing (voting) of the data are performed by a “flight control unit”, i.e. a computer. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. The additional limitation of the sensors collecting data (at the level of generality claimed; i.e. “one or more” of the various recited sensors) is a simply appending WURC activities/limitations (for example pitot tubes being used on the aircraft for air data readings dates back to at least the 1920s; further the applicants own background section [0004]-[0005] details that these sensors are known parts of existing air monitoring systems of aircraft)
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 10 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claim 2, it further defines the abstract idea (the voting) “The system of claim 1, wherein the flight control unit is configured to vote in relation to redundant signals by selecting a mid-value to prevent an errant signal from affecting a voted output”. This is equivalent to a person taking an average of three numbers first and determining the difference between the average and the individual numbers. This is a mental process performable in the human mind.
Regarding Claim 3, is claims “selecting” of sensors which behave differently. “selecting” currently includes the purely mental process of identifying the sensors types which are behaving differently. This is a mental process reasonably performed in the human mind (again see [0003] of applicant’s specification) which includes e.g. the pilot determining that the pitot tube readings are wrong/not reasonable. (e.g. too static, too high, too low)
Regarding Claim 4, it recites the abstract idea/mental process of “. The system of claim 1, wherein the flight control unit is further configured to determine that a majority of the air data sensors is corrupted when none of the air data matches.” This determination can reasonable be performed in the human mind/is a logical conclusion which can be made by the human mind, e.g. receiving three data points representing the same variable that are supposed to be equal to each other, if none of them match then logically at least two of the points/their sources are malfunctioning/corrupted.
Regarding Claim 5, it recites that at least three of the air data sensors vary in “type” this is only generally linking the abstract determination, there are no details recited as to what the types are nor how the different types are used in the voting to determine if they/any of sensors are corrupted.
Regarding Claim 6, it further defines the voting by comparing a first and second types of sensors and reserving a third as a monitoring signal. This is a determination that can be performed in the human mind, e.g. a person can decide that a third data source is highly reliable but is unsure of the first two sources/types thus in the comparison they would trust/rely on the trusted sources when determining if the first two sources/points (i.e. are their values similar to the trusted sources) .
Regarding claim 7, it recites outputting (displaying) of the air data, this is extra solution (post-solution activity) of generally displaying. Which has been determined by the courts to not constitute practical integration when recited at a high level of generality. Additionally as currently worded this displayed data doesn’t even have to be the voted data, instead it includes merely displaying the raw sensor readings.
Regarding Claims 12-17 they are method equivalents to system claims 1-7 above, thus they have the same overall 101 analysis and are rejected as being directed to a mental process reasonably performed in the human mind for the same reasons as their respective equivalent system claims above.
Claims 8-11, 18-20 are not rejected under U.S.C 101 as claims 8 and 18 more specifically recite/limit what the sensors are i.e. two or more sensors of “one or more first flush mounted pressure sensors; one or more multi-function probes (MFPs); one or more pitot probes; one or more angle of attack (AOA) vanes; one or more second flush mounted pressure sensors, one or more total air temperature (TAT) probes, wherein the one or more first flush mounted pressure sensors, the one or more MFPs, the one or more pitot probes, the one or more AOA vanes, the one or more second flush mounted pressure sensors,” This specific pairing of the at least two sensor types/layout is captures the improvement of allowing for voted signal corruption detection when read in light of the specification.
Integrating Claims 8 and 18 into their respective independent claims would overcome the abstract idea rejections above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding the independent claims they were amended to recite that the air data sensors “comprise one or more:” of various types of sensors which as part of a voting process on their requires that the voted signals“, and provide multiple voted signals of a given parameter to determine if any of the voted signals are corrupted.”
This is not supported by the applicant’s originally filed specification in that the applicant’s specification discloses/makes clear that in order to determine if “any of the voted signals are corrupted” at least two different types of sensors are needed (grounds for at least two types of sensors from [0009]); it is unclear how one can determine via voting of a singular type of air sensor data that the voted signal is corrupted using only that voted signals of the singular type of sensor, as regardless of if the voted signals are corrupted or not they would still agree with each other for the parameter.
As such the independent claims have been broaden such that their amendments introduce new matter not supported or adequately disclosed in the specification.
Claim 1-7, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for at least two types of sensors/their signals which after voting in relation to that type “and provide multiple voted signals of a given parameter to determine if any of the voted signals are corrupted.”, does not reasonably provide enablement for: only a singular type of sensor being able to “provide multiple voted signals of a given parameter to determine if any of the voted signals are corrupted”.
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Similar to the new matter rejection, the applicant’s specification makes clear that it is the voting/comparison among the voted signals of multiple different types of sensors which is how if a particular voted sensor signal (of a sensor type/failure mode) is determined to be corrupted or not; it is unclear how from a single type of sensor one can determine via that the re corrupted based solely on its own voted signal. [0004]-[0005] disclose just this issue problem with conventional systems in that one cannot determine a corrupted voted signal if all of the voted signals (such as when a singular type of sensor is used and thus has a common mode failure) are corrupted/have failed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding the independent claims they were amended to recite “wherein the air data sensors comprise one or more of: one or more first flush mounted pressure sensors; one or more multi-function probes (MFPs): one or more pitot probes: one or more angle of attack (AOA) vanes; or one or more second flush mounted pressure sensors;”
This renders the scope of protection unclear in that it covers embodiments where there is only “one or more” “second flush mounted pressure sensors”, as it is unclear how one can make an embodiment with only a “second” flush mounted sensors in that there are no “first” flush mounted sensor.
The various dependent claims do not fix this issue, similarly 9/12 cover embodiments (due to the “two or more” sensor type) which there is no “first” flush mounted sensor, at which point is become unclear what constitutes a “second” flush mounted sensor.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MICHAEL DUNNE whose telephone number is (571)270-7392. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:30-6:30.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights