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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 68, “fourth visual sign 50C, or fourth symbol 50C” should read “fourth visual sign 50D, or fourth symbol 50D”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 10, “designated free field” should read “designated as a free field”.
In claim 11, line 9, “designated free field” should read “designated as a free field”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, 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: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a system for controlling an aircraft display (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, 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. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An electronic decision-making assistance system for assisting the decision-making of an operator of a civil aircraft, the system being carried on-board the aircraft, the system comprising:
an electronic display displaying information; and
an electronic producer producing aeronautical indicators, comprising:
an acquirer acquiring at least one aeronautical information message, each aeronautical information message comprising a heading and a useful section, the useful section including several data fields, including a free-format text field, designated free field, each aeronautical information message being chosen from the group consisting of: a NOTAM message, a SNOWTAM message and an ASHTAM message, and the free field being chosen from the group consisting of: field E of the NOTAM message, field T of the SNOWTAM message, and field K of the ASHTAM message, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization;
a calculator calculating a plurality of aeronautical indicators for each acquired aeronautical information message [mental process/step], the aeronautical indicators being calculated via application of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to the aeronautical information message, the AI algorithm receiving the free field as input and delivering the aeronautical indicators as output, the aeronautical indicators being distinct from the data contained in the aeronautical information message; and
a display displaying a readout of the calculated aeronautical indicators on the electronic display.
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. For example, “calculating a plurality of aeronautical indicators…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (pilot) looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 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” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
An electronic decision-making assistance system for assisting the decision-making of an operator of a civil aircraft, the system being carried on-board the aircraft, the system comprising:
an electronic display displaying information; and
an electronic producer producing aeronautical indicators [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], comprising:
an acquirer acquiring at least one aeronautical information message [pre-solution activity (data gathering)], each aeronautical information message comprising a heading and a useful section, the useful section including several data fields, including a free-format text field, designated free field, each aeronautical information message being chosen from the group consisting of: a NOTAM message, a SNOWTAM message and an ASHTAM message, and the free field being chosen from the group consisting of: field E of the NOTAM message, field T of the SNOWTAM message, and field K of the ASHTAM message, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization;
a calculator calculating a plurality of aeronautical indicators for each acquired aeronautical information message, the aeronautical indicators being calculated via application of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to the aeronautical information message [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module], the AI algorithm receiving the free field as input and delivering the aeronautical indicators as output, the aeronautical indicators being distinct from the data contained in the aeronautical information message; and
a display displaying a readout of the calculated aeronautical indicators on the electronic display [insignificant post-solution activity (displaying results of the mental process)].
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.
Regarding the additional limitations of “acquiring…” and “displaying…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (electronic producer) to perform the process. In particular, the acquiring step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering aeronautical information for use in the calculating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The displaying a readout step on the electronic display is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the aeronautical indicators result from the calculating step), and amounts to mere post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “electronic producer” and “artificial intelligence algorithm” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of extracting aeronautical indicator information from an aeronautical information message) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
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. see 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 element of using a “electronic producer” and “artificial intelligence algorithm” to perform the calculating… amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of “acquiring…” and “displaying…” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. In addition, these additional limitations (and the combination, thereof) amount to no more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Additional Claims
Independent claim 11 is not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4, 9, 10, and 12 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 such as controlling the aircraft based on the calculated indicators. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4, 9, 10, and 12 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 9-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by He (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0062664; hereinafter He).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches an electronic decision-making assistance system for assisting the decision-making of an operator of a civil aircraft, the system being carried on-board the aircraft, the system comprising: an electronic display displaying information; and an electronic producer producing aeronautical indicators (He: Par. 20; i.e., the example controller 102 obtains and processes runway condition information; Par. 25; i.e., the cockpit display devices 108 can include any image-generating device that operates in the cockpit of an aircraft that provides an airport display; Par. 42; i.e., cause the processor of the controller 102 to generate or otherwise provide the message analysis service 300),
comprising: an acquirer acquiring at least one aeronautical information message, each aeronautical information message comprising a heading and a useful section, the useful section including several data fields, including a free-format text field, designated free field, each aeronautical information message being chosen from the group consisting of: a NOTAM message, a SNOWTAM message and an ASHTAM message, and the free field being chosen from the group consisting of: field E of the NOTAM message, field T of the SNOWTAM message, and field K of the ASHTAM message, as defined by the International Civil Aviation Organization (He: Par. 52; i.e., receiving or otherwise obtaining a message relevant to a flight plan of an aircraft… a NOTAM analysis service 300 at the controller 102 may include or otherwise support a NOTAM retrieval service 302 capable of using the current flight plan information maintained at the FMS 140, 308 to retrieve, over a communications network via datalink 104 or another communications system onboard the aircraft, one or more NOTAMs related to the current flight plan from a remote system (e.g., a NOTAM database maintained by the FAA in the United States); Par. 46; i.e., analyze the textual content of a respective NOTAM to identify the different fields of information contained within the respective NOTAM);
a calculator calculating a plurality of aeronautical indicators for each acquired aeronautical information message, the aeronautical indicators being calculated via application of an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm to the aeronautical information message, the AI algorithm receiving the free field as input and delivering the aeronautical indicators as output, the aeronautical indicators being distinct from the data contained in the aeronautical information message (He: Par. 46; i.e., NOTAMs relevant to the current flight plan are input or otherwise provided to an surface condition extraction service 304 that is configured to utilize … syntactic AI techniques to analyze the textual content of a respective NOTAM to identify the different fields of information contained within the respective NOTAM; Par. 52; i.e., the NOTAM analysis service 300 may analyze the textual content of the NOTAM to identify or otherwise determine whether the content of the NOTAM includes specified values for one or more attributes of the condition or status of the planned runway associated with the flight plan);
and a display displaying a readout of the calculated aeronautical indicators on the electronic display (He: Par. 54; i.e., the runway condition augmentation process 400 automatically sets the field value at the onboard system(s) to be equal to the specified value derived from the message (tasks 408, 410)).
Regarding claim 2, He teaches the system according to claim 1. He further teaches wherein the aeronautical indicators comprise indicators for evaluating an impact of the content of the free field on the flight of the aircraft (He: Par. 52; i.e., a surface condition extraction service 304 associated with the NOTAM analysis service 300 may analyze the textual content of the NOTAM to identify or otherwise determine whether the content of the NOTAM includes specified values for one or more attributes of the condition or status of the planned runway associated with the flight plan; Par. 54; i.e., the runway condition augmentation process 400 automatically sets the field value at the onboard system(s) to be equal to the specified value derived from the message (tasks 408, 410)).
Regarding claim 3, He teaches the system according to claim 2. He further teaches wherein each aeronautical indicator is chosen from the group consisting of: an indicator of additional energy consumption by the aircraft, an indicator of delay of the aircraft, an indicator of disruption for the passengers of the aircraft, an indicator of disruption for the crew of the aircraft, an indicator of disruption for an environment external to the aircraft, and an indicator of additional ecological impact (He: Par. 64; i.e., when the exit point extends beyond the end of the runway (or the currently available runway length), the ROAAS 142, 310 may generate or otherwise provide a graphical user notification 504 at a prominent location within the GUI display 500 to alert the pilot or other aircraft operator of the potential runway overrun condition; as displayed in Figure 5, the “go around” notification is an indicator of disruption to the passengers).
Regarding claim 4, He teaches the system according to claim 1. He further teaches wherein each aeronautical indicator is expressed as a numerical value chosen from a binary value, a value from a range of at least three values, and a value from an interval of values (He: Par. 62; i.e., flight display may include any number of different features that are graphically rendered, including, … an airspeed indicator (or airspeed tape) that indicates the current airspeed of the aircraft, an altitude indicator (or altimeter tape) that indicates the current altitude of the aircraft… embodiments of the primary flight display may also contain additional graphical elements corresponding to or representing … numerical information).
Regarding claim 9, He teaches the system according to claim 1. He further teaches wherein the readout of the calculated aeronautical indicators comprises, for each aeronautical indicator, a respective visual sign representative of the value of the aeronautical indicator (He: Par. 64; i.e., the ROAAS 142, 310 may render the graphical indicia 502, 510 associated with the ROAAS 142, 310 using a visually distinguishable graphical characteristic (e.g., a red color) that indicates that there is insufficient available runway length for landing the aircraft on the runway).
Regarding claim 10, He teaches the system according to claim 1. He further teaches a civil aircraft comprising an electronic system for assisting the decision-making of an operator according to claim 1 (He: Par. 4; i.e., methods and systems are provided for assisting operation of a vehicle, such as an aircraft; Par. 19; i.e., FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting an example flight deck system 100 deployed onboard an aircraft. The example flight deck system 100 includes a controller 102).
Claim 11 is rejected under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, He teaches the method of claim 11. He further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium including a computer program comprising software instructions which, when executed by a computer, implement a method according to claim 11 (He: Par. 66; i.e., embodiments of the subject matter described herein can be stored on, encoded on, or otherwise embodied by any suitable non-transitory computer-readable medium as computer-executable instructions or data stored thereon that, when executed (e.g., by a processing system), facilitate the processes described above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He and further in view of Thierbach et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0280187; hereinafter Thierbach).
Regarding claim 5, He teaches the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the AI algorithm is trained using training data, the calculation of aeronautical indicators being carried out during inference by the AI algorithm, after the AI algorithm has been trained.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Thierbach teaches wherein the AI algorithm is trained using training data, the calculation of aeronautical indicators being carried out during inference by the AI algorithm, after the AI algorithm has been trained (Thierbach: Par. 26; i.e., the machine learning model 118 is trained on a training data set 120 that comprises a plurality of aviation information notices 122; Par. 58; i.e., using the text language analysis model to extract the metadata from the raw aviation information notice comprises using a machine learning model trained on a training data set comprising a plurality of aviation information notices).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of He to have further incorporated wherein the AI algorithm is trained using training data, the calculation of aeronautical indicators being carried out during inference by the AI algorithm, after the AI algorithm has been trained, as taught by Thierbach. Doing so would allow for faster and more reliable processing of the text field of the messages (Thierbach: Par. 23; i.e., the text language analysis model quickly and reliably extracts text components of the raw aviation information notice that are used to formulate the metadata).
Regarding claim 6, He in view of Thierbach teaches the system according to claim 5. Thierbach further teaches wherein the training is a supervised training (Thierbach: Par. 27; i.e., the machine learning model 118 is trained via a supervised learning approach).
Regarding claim 7, He in view of Thierbach teaches the system according to claim 5. Thierbach further teaches wherein the AI algorithm comprises a single model for all the aeronautical indicators (Thierbach: Par. 21; i.e., a text language analysis model 110 is used to extract metadata 112 from the raw aviation information notice 106).
Regarding claim 8, He in view of Thierbach teaches the system according to claim 5. Thierbach further teaches wherein the AI algorithm comprises several separate models, each model being associated with one or more respective aeronautical indicators (Thierbach: Par. 34; i.e., in some examples, two or more different text language analysis models are used to process a raw aviation information notice; Par. 35; i.e., the computing device 304 comprises a first text language analysis model 314 configured to process notices relating to the first component type 310 (e.g., a taxiway) and a second text language analysis model 316 configured to process notices relating to the second component type 312 (e.g., a runway)… the first text language analysis model 314 and the second text language analysis model 316 are different types of models).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art deemed pertinent in the art of calculating aeronautical indicators based on aeronautical information messages includes Zimmer et al. (U.S. Publication No. 8970399), Williams et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0174131), Roman et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0360540), and Rezaei Gerovi (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0263135).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON Z WILLIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Weekdays 8:00-5:30.
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, Erin D. Bishop can be reached at (571) 270-3713. 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.
/BRANDON Z WILLIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
