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 .
Remarks
Claims 1-11 are pending.
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.
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the aircraft flight" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claim 11 is similarly rejected and dependent claims 2-10 are rejected based up on their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the questions" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 is rejected based upon its dependency on parent claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "they" in line 2. It is unclear to whom “they” refers in the claim language.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the lemma taxons” and “the lemma" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the electronic interaction device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim lacks the necessary physical articles or objects to constitute a machine or a manufacture within the meaning of 35 USC 101. The claimed “computer program products” are defined in the specification as “software programs” or “a computer program” (see specification, page 5, lines 15-19) and are clearly not a series of steps or acts to be a process nor are they a combination of chemical compounds to be a composition of matter. As such, they fail to fall within a statutory category. They are, at best, functional descriptive material per se.
Descriptive material can be characterized as either “functional descriptive material” or “nonfunctional descriptive material.” Both types of “descriptive material” are nonstatutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. Compare In re Lawry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Merely claiming nonfunctional descriptive material, i.e., abstract ideas, stored on a computer-readable medium, in a computer, or on an electromagnetic carrier signal, does not make is statutory. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 185-186, 209 USPQ at 8 (noting that the claims for an algorithm in Benson were unpatentable as abstract ideas because “[t]he sole practical application of the algorithm was in connection with the programming of a general purpose computer.”).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A decision aid method for a pilot of an aircraft, the method comprising a phase of generating a structured database implemented by an electronic generation device, and a phase of interaction between the structured database and the pilot, implemented by an electronic interaction device integrated into an aircraft cockpit, the generation phase being implemented prior to the aircraft flight and comprising the following steps: obtaining a plurality of texts corresponding to pilot responses in the context of a transfer of responsibility, from one pilot to another, during a flight simulation of the aircraft, extracting data from the obtained texts to form a set of data, called taxons, each taxon comprising a word, or a set of words, related to a characteristic of the cockpit, generating the structured database by classifying the taxons in a predetermined database structure, and determining a set of quantified importance indicator(s) for each taxon by comparing each taxon to the obtained texts, the interaction phase being implemented during the aircraft flight and comprising the following steps: receiving a request from the pilot, determining the data from the structured database that are relevant to the request by comparing the request to the data in the structured database, transmitting the determined data to the pilot”.
The limitations of “A decision aid method for a pilot of indicator(s) for each taxon by comparing each taxon to the obtained texts, the interaction phase being implemented during the aircraft flight and comprising the following steps:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “an electronic generation device”, “an aircraft”, “an electronic interaction device” and “an aircraft cockpit” to perform the claimed steps. The “electronic generation device”, “aircraft”, “electronic interaction device” and “aircraft cockpit” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “an electronic generation device”, “an aircraft”, “an electronic interaction device” and “an aircraft cockpit” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining a plurality of texts corresponding to pilot responses in the context of a transfer of responsibility, from one pilot to another, during a flight simulation of the aircraft” and “receiving a request from the pilot” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting the determined data to the pilot”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “an electronic generation device”, “an aircraft”, “an electronic interaction device” and “an aircraft cockpit” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtaining a plurality of texts corresponding to pilot responses in the context of a transfer of responsibility, from one pilot to another, during a flight simulation of the aircraft” and “receiving a request from the pilot” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmitting the determined data to the pilot”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining step comprises the following sub-steps: Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim also recites the additional elements of “acquisition of audio tracks comprising the speech of pilots performing tasks on a simulator and to whom a list of questions is posed” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim also recites the additional elements of “acquisition of audio tracks comprising the speech of pilots performing tasks on a simulator and to whom a list of questions is posed” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method according to claim 2, wherein the list of questions comprises a first group of questions related to the takeover of the cockpit by a pilot, and a second group of questions related to the transfer of the cockpit to another pilot”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the set of quantified importance indicator(s) comprises at least one relevance score whose value is based on the frequency of occurrence of said taxon in the texts, the relevance score being greater the more the corresponding taxon is presented as important in the obtained texts during the obtaining step”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method according to claim 4, wherein the list of questions comprises a first group of questions related to the takeover of the cockpit by a pilot, and a second group of questions related to the transfer of the cockpit to another pilot, and wherein the set of quantified importance indicator(s) for each taxon comprises: a frequency of occurrence of the taxon in a part of the obtained texts, a TF-IDF score of said taxon resulting from a vectorization of the taxon, the relevance score of the taxon”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method, according to claim 5, wherein the second group of questions comprises: a first question asking the pilot for the information they would have liked to transmit, a second question asking the pilot for the information they would not have liked to transmit, the relevance score of each taxon depending positively on the frequency of occurrence of said taxon in the response to the first question, and negatively on the frequency of occurrence of said taxon in the response to the second question”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of extracting terms from the texts comprises the following sub-steps: division of each text into a plurality of smaller word sets compared to the text,
parsing of the word sets into tokens each comprising a smaller number of words than the word sets, for each token, reduction of said token to a lemma comprising a semantic root of the word(s) of the token, selection, among the formed lemmas, based on the frequency of occurrence of these lemmas among the texts from different pilots”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the list of questions comprises a question asking the pilot to transmit the information they consider important for the transfer to the other pilot, during the selection sub-step of the extraction step, and the lemma taxons are further selected only among the lemmas from the response texts to said question”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “The method according to claim 1, wherein the generation phase further comprises a filtering step, during which the taxons whose set of quantified importance indicator(s) do not meet a respective criterion are removed from the structured database”. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In addition to any abstract ideas and additional elements in the parent claim(s), the claim recites “A set of non-transitory computer program products comprising software instructions which, when executed by computers, implement the decision aid method according to claim 1”. The “set of non-transitory computer program products” and “computers” are generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1), 2106.04(a)(2). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, any additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A decision aid system for a pilot of an aircraft, the system comprising a device for generating a structured database, and an interaction device between the structured database and the pilot, the electronic interaction device being integrated into an aircraft cockpit, the generation device being configured to, prior to the aircraft flight: obtain a plurality of texts corresponding to pilot responses in the context of a transfer of responsibility, from one pilot to another, during a flight simulation of the aircraft, extract data from the obtained texts to form a set of data, called taxons, each taxon comprising a word, or a set of words, related to a characteristic of the cockpit, generate the structured database by classifying the taxons in a predetermined database structure, and determining a set of quantified importance indicator(s) for each taxon by comparing each taxon to the obtained texts, the interaction device being configured to, during the aircraft flight: receive a request from the pilot, determine the data from the structured database that is relevant to the request by comparing the request to the data in the structured database, transmit the determined data to the pilot”.
The limitations of “A during the aircraft flight:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional element – using “a decision aid system”, “an aircraft”, “a device”, “an interaction device”, “electronic interaction device” and “an aircraft cockpit” to perform the claimed steps. The “decision aid system”, “aircraft”, “device”, “interaction device”, “electronic interaction device” and “aircraft cockpit” in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as “a decision aid system”, “an aircraft”, “a device”, “an interaction device”, “electronic interaction device” and “an aircraft cockpit” performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtain a plurality of texts corresponding to pilot responses in the context of a transfer of responsibility, from one pilot to another, during a flight simulation of the aircraft” and “receive a request from the pilot” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmit the determined data to the pilot”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two. See also MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2), MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using “a decision aid system”, “an aircraft”, “a device”, “an interaction device”, “electronic interaction device” and “an aircraft cockpit” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claim also recites the additional elements of “obtain a plurality of texts corresponding to pilot responses in the context of a transfer of responsibility, from one pilot to another, during a flight simulation of the aircraft” and “receive a request from the pilot” that are the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and/or output, and can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim also discloses the additional element of “transmit the determined data to the pilot”, and the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). These additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, Step 2B. See also MPEP 2106.05.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (‘Saito’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20030140309) in view of COMIN et al. (‘COMIN’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240404423) and further in view of U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’ hereinafter) (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular No. 61-115, "Subject: POSITIVE EXCHANGE OF FLIGHT CONTROLS PROGRAM", 3/10/1995).
As per claim 1, Saito teaches
A decision aid method for a pilot of an aircraft, the method comprising a phase of generating a structured database implemented by an electronic generation device, and a phase of interaction between the structured database and the pilot, implemented by an electronic interaction device integrated into an aircraft cockpit, the generation phase being implemented prior to the aircraft flight and comprising the following steps: (see abstract and background; note that the COMIN reference teaches aspects related to the pilot and aircraft as shown below)
obtaining a plurality of texts
extracting data from the obtained texts to form a set of data, called taxons, each taxon comprising a word, or a set of words, related to a characteristic
generating the structured database by classifying the taxons in a predetermined database structure, and determining a set of quantified importance indicator(s) for each taxon by comparing each taxon to the obtained texts (topic-specific frequency of occurrence of each word and its distribution throughout documents to calculate weight, figure 3, S4; create database, figure 3, S4)
Saito does not explicitly indicate “the interaction phase being implemented during the aircraft flight and comprising the following steps: receiving a request from the pilot, determining the data from the structured database that are relevant to the request by comparing the request to the data in the structured database, transmitting the determined data to the pilot”.
However, COMIN discloses “during a flight simulation of the aircraft” (pilot training simulator, paragraph [0006]), “[related to a characteristic] of the cockpit” (request related to aircraft control element, a flight operation of the aircraft, an activation or a deactivation of a component of the simulated aircraft, paragraph [0037], where the related element, operation of aircraft, or component reads on the claimed characteristic of the cockpit), “the interaction phase being implemented during the aircraft flight and comprising the following steps: receiving a request from the pilot,” (vocal message received from pilot trainee, paragraph [0036]), “determining the data from the structured database that are relevant to the request by comparing the request to the data in the structured database,” (accessing and searching database based on the received request, paragraph [0006]”, “transmitting the determined data to the pilot” (providing response message to pilot trainee, paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Saito and COMIN because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing advice to a pilot based upon recorded command history top help the pilot interact with the cockpit (see COMIN, paragraphs [0003]&[0017]). This gives the user the advantage of being able to draw upon past experience to ensure that the correct actions are taken in a cockpit.
Neither Saito nor COMIN explicitly indicate “corresponding to pilot responses in the context of a transfer of responsibility, from one pilot to another”.
However, FAA discloses “corresponding to pilot responses in the context of a transfer of responsibility, from one pilot to another” (process for change of flight controls between pilots including conversation between the flight instructor and student, section 3, where it is noted that both the instructor and student are pilots in this context).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Saito, COMIN and FAA because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by the incident/accident statistics indicate a need to place additional emphasis on the procedure for the exchange of control of an aircraft by pilots (see FAA, section 2). This gives the user the advantage of improved safety during flight.
As per claim 4, Saito teaches
the set of quantified importance indicator(s) comprises at least one relevance score whose value is based on the frequency of occurrence of said taxon in the texts, the relevance score being greater the more the corresponding taxon is presented as important in the obtained texts during the obtaining step. (topic-specific frequency of occurrence of each word and its distribution throughout documents to calculate weight, figure 3, S4)
As per claim 5, Saito teaches
the list of questions comprises a first group of questions related to the takeover of the cockpit by a pilot, and a second group of questions related to the transfer of the cockpit to another pilot, and wherein the set of quantified importance indicator(s) for each taxon comprises: a frequency of occurrence of the taxon in a part of the obtained texts, a TF-IDF score of said taxon resulting from a vectorization of the taxon, the relevance score of the taxon, the relevance score of the taxon being calculated from the responses to the questions related to the transfer of the cockpit. (topic-specific frequency of occurrence of each word and its distribution throughout documents using tf.idf specific weight for each word, figure 3, S4, where FAA teaches questions related to transfer of the cockpit as shown previously)
As per claim 10, Saito teaches
A set of non-transitory computer program products comprising software instructions which, when executed by computers, implement the decision aid method according to claim 1. (paragraph [0030]; see also rejection of claim 1, above)
As per claim 11,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (‘Saito’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20030140309) in view of COMIN et al. (‘COMIN’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240404423) and further in view of U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’ hereinafter) (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular No. 61-115, "Subject: POSITIVE EXCHANGE OF FLIGHT CONTROLS PROGRAM", 3/10/1995) and further in view of Haynes, III (‘Haynes’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20210350463).
As per claim 2,
Neither Saito, COMIN nor FAA explicitly indicate “the obtaining step comprises the following sub-steps: acquisition of audio tracks comprising the speech of pilots performing tasks on a simulator and to whom a list of questions is posed, and conversion of each audio track into a respective text file”.
However, Haynes discloses “the obtaining step comprises the following sub-steps: acquisition of audio tracks comprising the speech of pilots performing tasks on a simulator and to whom a list of questions is posed, and conversion of each audio track into a respective text file” (paragraph [0074], where FAA teaches speech of pilots and COMIN teaches a simulator as shown previously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Saito, COMIN, FAA and Haynes because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by being able more easily process gathered verbal information by conversion into a more useful format. This gives the user the advantage of easier access to conversational data.
As per claim 3,
Neither Saito nor COMIN explicitly indicate “the list of questions comprises a first group of questions related to the takeover of the cockpit by a pilot, and a second group of questions related to the transfer of the cockpit to another pilot”.
However, FAA discloses “the list of questions comprises a first group of questions related to the takeover of the cockpit by a pilot, and a second group of questions related to the transfer of the cockpit to another pilot” (section 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Saito, COMIN and FAA because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by the incident/accident statistics indicate a need to place additional emphasis on the procedure for the exchange of control of an aircraft by pilots (see FAA, section 2). This gives the user the advantage of improved safety during flight.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (‘Saito’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20030140309) in view of COMIN et al. (‘COMIN’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240404423) and further in view of U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’ hereinafter) (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular No. 61-115, "Subject: POSITIVE EXCHANGE OF FLIGHT CONTROLS PROGRAM", 3/10/1995) and further in view of GRISHINA et al. (‘GRISHINA’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20230298086).
As per claim 7,
Neither Saito, COMIN nor FAA explicitly indicate “the step of extracting terms from the texts comprises the following sub-steps: division of each text into a plurality of smaller word sets compared to the text, parsing of the word sets into tokens each comprising a smaller number of words than the word sets, for each token, reduction of said token to a lemma comprising a semantic root of the word(s) of the token, selection, among the formed lemmas, based on the frequency of occurrence of these lemmas among the texts from different pilots, the selected lemmas forming the set of data, called taxons”.
However, GRISHINA discloses “the step of extracting terms from the texts comprises the following sub-steps: division of each text into a plurality of smaller word sets compared to the text, parsing of the word sets into tokens each comprising a smaller number of words than the word sets, for each token, reduction of said token to a lemma comprising a semantic root of the word(s) of the token, selection, among the formed lemmas, based on the frequency of occurrence of these lemmas among the texts from different pilots, the selected lemmas forming the set of data, called taxons” (paragraph [0044], where FAA teaches different pilots as shown previously).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Saito, COMIN, FAA and GRISHINA because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by providing for more efficient extraction of natural language data that is stored in semi-structured format (see GRISHINA, background). This gives the user the advantage of identifying the important topics within natural language (see GRISHINA, paragraph [0043]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (‘Saito’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20030140309) in view of COMIN et al. (‘COMIN’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20240404423) and further in view of U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (‘FAA’ hereinafter) (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular No. 61-115, "Subject: POSITIVE EXCHANGE OF FLIGHT CONTROLS PROGRAM", 3/10/1995) and further in view of MAEDA et al. (‘MAEDA’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20200058292).
As per claim 9,
Neither Saito, COMIN nor FAA explicitly indicate “the generation phase further comprises a filtering step, during which the taxons whose set of quantified importance indicator(s) do not meet a respective criterion are removed from the structured database”.
However, MAEDA discloses “the generation phase further comprises a filtering step, during which the taxons whose set of quantified importance indicator(s) do not meet a respective criterion are removed from the structured database” (paragraph [0036])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Saito, COMIN, FAA and MAEDA because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by saving space and processing time by removing keywords that are not useful. This gives the user the advantage of more efficient use of expensive resources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, these claims have 35 USC 101 and 112 rejections that must be resolved.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
