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 .
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 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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 25 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 26 January 2026. The Applicant has amended claims 12 and 19-21. Claims 1-11 and 14 were previously canceled. Claims 12-13 and 15-21 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Reply to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed 26 January 2026 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections previously set forth.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 26 January 2026, with regard to the rejections of claims 12-13 and 15-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that “…the claims have been amended…rendering moot the present rejection”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The amended limitation “wherein the determining of the demand further includes a predicted future demand for processing resources for a predetermined future period, the predicted future demand based on predicted values of at least one of the parameters influencing processing resources”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. A person could determine a predicted future demand for processing resources for a predetermined future period. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Claims 19-21 recites similar languages as claim 12 and the rejections are maintained for similar reasons above.
With respect to the dependent claims 13 and 15-18, the applicant provides no additional arguments other than their dependency from the independent claims. Because independent claims are not allowable, dependent claims 13 and 15-18 are not allowable.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Arguments/Remarks, filed 26 January 2026, with regard to the rejections of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that “…Each of the independent claims has been amended to recite the feature of the determining of the demand further includes a predicted future demand for processing resources for a predetermined future period, the predicted future demand based on predicted values of at least one of the parameters influencing processing resources. In contrast, nowhere do the cited references disclose or suggest this feature…” the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Barnes teaches resource allocation is determined for each avionics application in each operating condition that the aircraft will experience during normal and abnormal flight environments…, i.e. determining a predicted future demand for processing resources… (see at least Barnes col 2, lines 15-20) … The resource manager than instructs the throttling mechanisms 112 to increase, decrease or hold steady the amount of computing resources dedicated to each application 114 based on the information from the allocation table…the resource manager assigns or looks up a computing resource allocation stored in the allocation table that corresponds to the current aircraft condition (see at least Barnes col 4, lines 1-40, col 5, lines 8-25). Therefore, the prior art discloses the claim limitations as recited and the prior art and rejections have been maintained.
Claims 19-21 recites similar languages as claim 12 and the rejections are maintained for similar reasons above.
With respect to the dependent claims 13 and 15-18, the applicant provides no additional arguments other than their dependency from the independent claims. Because independent claims are not allowable, dependent claims 13 and 15-18 are not allowable.
Claim Interpretation and Contingent Limitations
Claim 12 contains conditional limitations:
Claim 12:
(Line 3) “outputting demand signals, which represent the determined demand and/or a discrepancy between the determined demand and the available processing resources, wherein the outputting occurs when the available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle are not sufficient to meet the demand for required processing resources…”
With respect to conditional limitations in process claims, MPEP 2111.04 guides
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
As claims 12-13 and 15-18 are process claims, Ex Parte Schulhauser applies to claims 12-13 and 15-18. See MPEP 2111.04, Il “contingent claims” ("[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed. .. [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 12 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim").
For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 12 does not require “outputting demand signals, which represent the determined demand and/or a discrepancy between the determined demand and the available processing resources” since “when the available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle are not sufficient to meet the demand for required processing resources” introduces a non-required step since “the available processing resources for carrying out the processing…are not sufficient to meet…” are not required to occur.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 12 is directed to a method for determining a demand… (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 12 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 12 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 12 recites:
A method for determining a demand for processing resources for carrying out processing of data for at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps:
-receiving parameter signals that represent at least one parameter influencing processing resources for carrying out processing of data for at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle;
-receiving processing resource signals that represent available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle;
determining a demand for required processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle, based on the at least one parameter and based on the available processing resources; and
-outputting demand signals, which represent the determined demand and/or a discrepancy between the determined demand and the available processing resources, wherein the outputting occurs when the available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle are not sufficient to meet the demand for required processing resources, and wherein the demand signals are used to indicate a need for adjusting the available processing resources to be adapted, based on the determined demand and/or on the discrepancy.
wherein the determination of the demand includes a determination of a demand time that indicates how long the determined demand will be required, the demand signals additionally representing the determined demand time;
wherein the determining of the demand further includes a predicted future demand for processing resources for a predetermined future period, the predicted future demand based on predicted values of at least one of the parameters influencing processing resources.
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, “determining...”, “wherein the determination of demand includes a determination…” and “wherein the determining…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement in the mind or using a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for determining a demand for processing resources for carrying out processing of data for at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle, comprising the following steps:
-receiving parameter signals that represent at least one parameter influencing processing resources for carrying out processing of data for at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle;
-receiving processing resource signals that represent available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle;
determining a demand for required processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle, based on the at least one parameter and based on the available processing resources; and
-outputting demand signals, which represent the determined demand and/or a discrepancy between the determined demand and the available processing resources, wherein the outputting occurs when the available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle are not sufficient to meet the demand for required processing resources, and wherein the demand signals are used to indicate a need for adjusting the available processing resources to be adapted, based on the determined demand and/or on the discrepancy.
wherein the determination of the demand includes a determination of a demand time that indicates how long the determined demand will be required, the demand signals additionally representing the determined demand time;
wherein the determining of the demand further includes a predicted future demand for processing resources for a predetermined future period, the predicted future demand based on predicted values of at least one of the parameters influencing processing resources.
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 “receiving parameter signals...”, “receiving processing resource signals...” and “outputting demand signals...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering vehicle and road condition data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The outputting… step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of outputting the result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 12 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 “receiving parameter signals...”, “receiving processing resource signals...” and “outputting demand signals...” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “receiving parameter signals...”, “receiving processing resource signals...” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “outputting demand signals...” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
As per Claim 19.
Claim 19, an apparatus claim, includes limitations analogous to claim 12 a process claim (a method). Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 20.
Claim 20, an apparatus claim (a computer system), includes limitations analogous to claim 12 a process claim (a method) but adds a computer network. The generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on computers. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim 21.
Claim 21, an apparatus claim (a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium), includes limitations analogous to claim 12 a process claim (a method) but adds a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium and computer program executed by a computer. The generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because, they merely amount to implementing the abstract idea on computers. Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Accordingly, claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 13 and 15-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims 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. Therefore, dependent claims 13 and 15-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 12.
Therefore, claims 12-13 and 15-21 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 12-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US9511729, hereinafter Barnes) in view of Stone (US20060168586, hereinafter Stone).
As to claims 12 and 19-21, Barnes teaches a method, an apparatus, a computer system and a non-transitory machine-readable medium for determining a demand for processing resources for carrying out processing of data for at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle (see at least Barnes, Abstract, also see col 4 lines 41-48 for each computing resources e.g., CPU, memory, storage, i.e., input/processor/output), comprising the following steps:
receiving parameter signals that represent at least one parameter influencing processing resources for carrying out processing of data for at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle (see at least Barnes col 1, lines 40-55: determining the computing resource allocation by correlating the aircraft condition to a set of resource allocation; also see col 3, lines 18-62);
receiving processing resource signals that represent available processing resources for carrying out processing of data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle (see at least Barnes col 3, line 63 - col 4, line 31: a resource manager correlates the aircraft condition to a set of resource allocations for each operation, instructing the increasing/decreasing/holding-steady of the amount of computing resources; the resource manager manages the overall operation of the system to insure the computing resources are allocated efficiently and properly; also see col 4, lines 59-67: tracking current resource usage by each computing system and have understanding of allocated and free resources);
determining a demand for required processing resources for carrying out the processing of data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle, based on the at least one parameter and based on the available processing resources (see at least Barnes col 3, line 63 - col 4, line 31: a resource manager correlates the aircraft condition to a set of resource allocations for each operation, instructing the increasing/decreasing/holding-steady of the amount of computing resources; the resource manager manages the overall operation of the system to insure the computing resources are allocated efficiently and properly; also see col 4, lines 59-67: tracking current resource usage by each computing system and have understanding of allocated and free resources).
wherein the determination of the demand includes a determination of a demand time that indicates how long the determined demand will be required, the demand signals additionally representing the determined demand time (see at least Barnes col 5, lines 8-40: the resource manager changes allocation of computing resources every time the aircraft condition changes, with the set of computing resource allocations, the resource manager instructs the plurality of throttling mechanisms to limit each application to its computing resource allocation before the next aircraft condition change);
wherein the determining of the demand further includes a predicted future demand for processing resources for a predetermined future period, the predicted future demand based on predicted values of at least one of the parameters influencing processing resources (see at least Barnes col 2, lines 15-20: Resource allocation is determined for each avionics application in each operating condition that the aircraft will experience during normal and abnormal flight environments…, also see col 4, lines 1-40, col 5, lines 8-25).
Barnes further teaches a computer network that has several networked computers is part of a cloud infrastructure (see at least Barnes col 2, lines 15-20: the allocation are maintained and tested externally to the aircraft electronics with the network operating system).
Barnes further teaches allocating resources for applications and each application having sufficient computing resources (see at least Barnes col 5, lines 8-40).
Barnes does not teach outputting demand signals, which represent the determined demand and/or a discrepancy between the determined demand and the available processing resources, wherein the outputting occurs when the available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle are not sufficient to meet the demand for required processing resources, and wherein the demand signals are used to indicate a need for adjusting the available processing resources to be adapted, based on the determined demand and/or on the discrepancy.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stone teaches request result field 1116 may display a message such as “insufficient system resources” to inform a system user that, since the projected total resource usage is greater than 100%, instantiation of the requested isochronous task will therefore not be permitted because of the negative impact on deterministic performance of isochronous tasks on device (see at least Stone, para 0089).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Barnes so as to include outputting demand signals, which represent the determined demand and/or a discrepancy between the determined demand and the available processing resources, wherein the outputting occurs when the available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle are not sufficient to meet the demand for required processing resources, and wherein the demand signals are used to indicate a need for adjusting the available processing resources to be adapted, based on the determined demand and/or on the discrepancy in view of Stone with a reasonable expectation of success. Those having ordinary skill in the art would understand that displaying a message such as insufficient system resources of Stone can be applied in a similar manner in Barnes, as required by the claim. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Barnes and Stone because this would have achieved the desirable result of informing a user that the computing resource is not sufficient for the determined demand and making the user be aware that the processing might be compromised.
Note: The limitations: “outputting demand signals, which represent the determined demand and/or a discrepancy between the determined demand and the available processing resources, wherein the outputting occurs when the available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle are not sufficient to meet the demand for required processing resources, and wherein the demand signals are used to indicate a need for adjusting the available processing resources to be adapted, based on the determined demand and/or on the discrepancy” do not positively limit claim 12 because these steps/actions are optional and are will not occur when the available processing resources for carrying out the processing of the data for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle are sufficient to meet the demand… (see MPEP 2111.04).
Nonetheless, Stone teaches the above limitations as established above.
As to claim 13, Barnes in view of Stone teaches the method as recited in claim 12.
Barnes further teaches wherein the at least one parameter is a respective element selected from the following group of parameters: (i) size of an infrastructure within which motor vehicles are being and/or are to be at least partly automatedly guided; (ii) number of motor vehicles currently being at least partly automatedly guided within the infrastructure; (iii) number of other traffic participants, other than at least partly automatedly guided motor vehicles, which are currently present within the infrastructure; (iv) environmental parameters of the infrastructure including weather data, and/or light data, and/or visibility data, and/or motor-vehicle-internal processing resources, and/or infrastructure-internal processing resources, and/or performance parameters of a surroundings sensor of the infrastructure; (v) processing resources of a computer and/or of a computer network; (vi) current reliability requirement with regard to reliable at least partly automated guidance of a motor vehicle; (vii) current reliability requirement with regard to reliable processing of the data, a current reliability requirement indicating a number of redundant processing steps utilizing the data (see at least Barnes col 3, lines 18-62: flight condition refer to current weather conditions, time of day, etc.).
As to claim 15, Barnes in view of Stone teaches the method as recited in claim 12.
Barnes further teaches wherein the determination of the demand includes a determination of a functional demand for processing resources for a predetermined function that is to be performed for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle, the demand signals additionally representing the determined functional demand (see at least Barnes col 4, lines 41-48: applications for operating the vehicle and limits for computing resources for the applications).
As to claim 16, Barnes in view of Stone teaches the method as recited in claim 12.
Barnes further teaches wherein in reaction to the outputting of the demand signals, the available processing resources are adapted based on the determined demand and/or on the discrepancy (see at least Barnes col 5, lines 8-40: resource manager may change the allocation of computing resources every time the aircraft condition changes, as indicated by the change in the information received from the inputs and change the allocation when the change in aircraft condition reaches a certain threshold; that is, the change in aircraft condition is significant enough to warrant a re-allocation of the computing resources.).
As to claim 17, Barnes in view of Stone teaches the method as recited in claim 12.
Barnes further teaches wherein the data includes one or several elements of the following group of data: (i) sensor data of a surroundings sensor; (ii) weather data; (iii) navigation data; (iv) position data; (v) control data for controlling transverse and/or longitudinal guidance of the motor vehicle; (vi) traffic data; (vii) result data of a result of a calculation for the at least partly automated guidance of the motor vehicle; (viii) diagnostic data of a sensor of the motor vehicle (see at least Barnes col 3, lines 18-62: flight condition refer to current weather conditions, e.g., precipitation…).
As to claim 18, Barnes in view of Stone teaches the method as recited in claim 12.
wherein one or more of the steps of the method is outsourced to a computer network that is part of a cloud infrastructure (see at least Barnes col 2, lines 15-20: the allocation are maintained and tested externally to the aircraft electronics with the network operating system).
Examiner’s Notes
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraph and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as "Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced" may be deemed insufficient.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONGYE LIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5410. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Rachid Bendidi can be reached on 571-272-4896. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONGYE LIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664