DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on February 20, 2026. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1-5, 9, 12-16, and 20 have been amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
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.
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 1, 4-5, 9-10, 12, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCroix, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10538338) in view of Burgemeister (U.S. Patent No. 7221290) and further in view of Polynin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200209338) and further in view of Monroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040008253).
Regarding claim 1, LaCroix, et al. teaches: A method for emergency notification, the method comprising: determining, by the notifier, whether the data signals received from each of the plurality of aircraft comprise an emergency alert; (Fig. 6, Col. 17, lines 43-50: "…method may further comprise processing received messages to determine if a received data signal response is an emergency report or a connection denial message [determine whether data signals are emergency alert]. […] emergency report or a connection denial message then an alert is preferably generated, at the alerting module [notifier - alerting module].")
monitoring, by the notifier, for any subsequent data signals transmitted from the distressed aircraft for a first period of time, when the notifier determines that the data signals comprise the emergency alert or when the notifier determines that the distressed aircraft has stopped transmitting any signals; (Fig. 7, Col. 17, line 61 to Col. 18, lines 1-8: "…method of FIG. 7 […] generates (84), at an alerting module [notifier - alert module], an alert based on the determination and the aircraft location information. […] message criteria may specify that a given region or sector of airspace is monitored by a FANS enabled ANSP [monitoring message data process] […] or after the aircraft has been in the sector for a given time period [first period of time], then the method may involve generating a corresponding alert.")
and transmitting, by the notifier, first emergency notification messages to at least one of a second aircraft located within an airspace of the distressed aircraft, to an air traffic control (ATC) for the airspace of the distressed aircraft, or to an airline operations center (AOC) associated with an airlines of the distressed aircraft, after the first period of time has elapsed; (Col. 15, lines 11-16: "…airspace that an aircraft (10) is in is FANS enabled then the ATC [air traffic control (ATC)]" ; Col. 15, lines 60-67: "…FANS enabled airspace for a time period identified by the AFN message criteria then the processor (22) may cause the alerting module (30) to generate an alert [transmit emergency notification message after period of elapsed time].").
LaCroix, et al. does not teach receiving, by a ground-based notifier comprising one or more processors, data signals transmitted from a plurality of aircraft flying in a plurality of airspaces, wherein at least two airspaces of the plurality of airspaces are associated with respective different air traffic controls (ATCs); for each distressed aircraft whose data signals comprise an emergency alert.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft voice communication), Burgemeister teaches: receiving, by a ground-based notifier comprising one or more processors, data signals transmitted from a plurality of aircraft flying in a plurality of airspaces, wherein at least two airspaces of the plurality of airspaces are associated with respective different air traffic controls (ATCs); (Col. 2, lines 35-39: "…single ground station or controller [ground-based notifier - containing processor] to communicate with multiple aircraft by employing one or more different physical radio transmission channels for the aircraft [data signals transmitted from plurality of aircraft." ; Col. 15, lines 40-46: "…method [method] […] tracking an aircraft along a flight path passing through multiple airspace divisions; and sending information to the aircraft instructing the aircraft to what physical radio communication channel to employ for the virtual radio communication channel while operating within a given airspace division [flying in a plurality of airspaces]." ; Col. 16, line 65 to Col. 17, lines 1-6: "…method [method] […] facilitating communication between the plurality of aircraft within the ATC airspace division and the controller by employing at least two ATC radio facilities, each ATC radio facility employing a different physical radio communication channel comprising at least one of a different radio frequency and a different transmission domain to communicate with aircraft within its reception area [data signals transmitted which are associated with two different air traffic controls (ATCs).")
for each distressed aircraft whose data signals comprise an emergency alert (Col. 9, lines 33-42: "… techniques are provided for uniquely identifying each aircraft [each aircraft]. […] In one embodiment, messages in inbound message queue (134) are processed in the order they are received [data signals]. In another embodiment, messages may be prioritized, such that an emergency message is placed at the top of the queue upon being received [emergency message].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LaCroix, et al. to include the teaching of Burgemeister based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of communication between aircraft and ground stations using packetized digitally encoded messages and virtual communication channels (Burgemeister Col. 2, lines 29-39).
The combination of LaCroix, et al. and Burgemeister does not teach in response to determining that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for the second period of time, transmitting, by the notifier, second emergency notification messages to at least one of the second aircraft to the ATC for the airspace of the distressed aircraft, or to the AOC associated with the airlines of the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft tracking), Polynin, et al. teaches: determining, by the notifier, that data signals for the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for a second period of time; (Paragraph [0023]: "…if the trigger logic [notifier] determines that a distress event has occurred, such as an emergency of the aircraft (102) or that no RF transmissions are being sent from the aircraft (102) (i.e., all or both transponders failed or are in an OFF state) within a specified period of time, the wireless distress trigger (118) via the ELT-DT unit can be activated [distressed aircraft - no RF data signals (voice audio) for period of time].")
in response to determining that the data signals for the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for the second period of time, (Paragraph [0023]: "…if the trigger logic [notifier] determines that a distress event has occurred, such as an emergency of the aircraft (102) or that no RF transmissions are being sent from the aircraft (102) (i.e., all or both transponders failed or are in an OFF state) within a specified period of time, the wireless distress trigger (118) via the ELT-DT unit can be activated [distressed aircraft - no RF data signals (voice audio) for period of time].")
transmitting, by the notifier, second emergency notification messages to at least one of the second aircraft to the ATC for the airspace of the distressed aircraft, or to the AOC associated with the airlines of the distressed aircraft, (Paragraph [0018]: "The information from the transponder (106) can be received by air traffic control (ATC) ground stations or other aircraft [sending messages to ATC of airspace of distressed aircraft]." ; Paragraph [0019]: "The transponder (106) can also include trigger logic [notifier], such as distress trigger logic. The distress trigger logic can monitor the aircraft's performance to determine whether a distress event has occurred [identification of distress event/emergency]. If a distress event has occurred, then the transponder (106) can be activated and a distress signal can be sent to the first satellite (104). The transponder (106) can also send coded information to a matched RF detector located on the same aircraft to wirelessly activate a beacon or locator [sending messages].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al. and Burgemeister to include the teaching of Polynin, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of creating a distress radio beacon for an aircraft tracking system as a function of the lack of transmitted radio frequencies within a specific period of time (Polynin, et al. Paragraph [0005]).
The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, and Polynin, et al. does not teach while continuing to receive data signals from the distressed aircraft, determining, by the notifier, that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for a second period of time.
In a similar field of endeavor (surveillance and response system for aircraft), Monroe teaches: while continuing to receive data signals from the distressed aircraft, determining, by the notifier, that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for a second period of time Paragraph [0090]: "…multiple cameras are located in the cabin, cargo bay and cockpit of the aircraft, with additional cameras being located for monitoring the tail section, landing gear and other strategic components. The data from these cameras is routinely stored on a hardened recorder located in the aircraft. Upon command, the data may be sent in a live, real time format to off board stations [sending out signals from aircraft]. [...] Other events may also trigger transmission of live video to the ground [continuing to receive data signals], including, […] failure to respond to radio request [lack of voice audio from distressed aircraft]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, and Polynin, et al. to include the teaching of Monroe based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of collecting and distributing surveillance data for an aircraft during an emergency response (Monroe Paragraph [0002])).
Regarding claim 4, LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises fetching, by the notifier, a last known flight position for the distressed aircraft (LaCroix, et al. Col. 18, lines 58-67: "…position reports for each aircraft (10) may be identified by their source, for example as ADS-C position information rather than standard ACARS position information or any other data source that is included [last known flight position for aircraft]" ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 3-8: "Optionally, the report criteria may indicate that an immediate data signal response is required from the aircraft's avionics and the alert may be generated, at the alerting module [notifier] of the aircraft monitoring system").
Regarding claim 5, LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: analyzing, by the notifier, a threat level of the airspace of the distressed aircraft, when the notifier determines that the distressed aircraft has stopped transmitting any signals; (LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 52-60: "…Advantageously, this allows the computerised method to automatically alert the end user if the aircraft is estimated to have entered, or have already entered, undesirable airspace, such as a war zone, a region containing a volcanic ash cloud or another bad weather region [analysis of threat level of airspace]." ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 3-8: "Optionally, the report criteria may indicate that an immediate data signal response is required from the aircraft's avionics and the alert may be generated, at the alerting module [notifier] of the aircraft monitoring system")
and transmitting, by the notifier, the second emergency notification messages to at least one of the second aircraft located within the same airspace as the aircraft, to the ATC, or to the AOC, when the notifier determines that the threat level of the airspace of the distressed aircraft is determined to have a potential safety issue or is determined to have a safety issue (LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 62-67: "…alerting module [notifier], if it is determined, at the processor, […] received data signal response is an emergency report or a connection denial message [transmit emergency notification messages]. […] Automatic Dependent Surveillance Contract [message format]." ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 9, lines 21-35: "…ADS contract is a periodic contract, a demand contract or an event contract. […] interval may be altered during the flight to provide more frequent position information, for example during a given segment of the flight or in the event that concerns are raised regarding the safety of the aircraft [airspace safety issue]." ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 3, lines 16-20: "…maintain ADS contracts with a given aircraft and, currently, these ADS-C connections are typically used by the air traffic controllers [communication with ATC]").
Regarding claim 9, LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the notifier, an aircraft location for each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft based on the data signals received from plurality of the aircraft, (Burgemeister Block (408), Col. 11, line 65 to Col. 12, lines 1-5: "Thus, when the controller [notifier - controller with processor] touches the aircraft on his or her display, the display hardware, in conjunction with an aircraft locator system, such as a radar-based system or a GPS-(Global Positioning System) based system, automatically associates a representation of an aircraft on the display that is touched with an underlying identification for the aircraft. These operations are shown in block (408) [location for each aircraft - based from data signals received from aircraft).")
and storing, by the notifier, the data signals from the plurality of aircraft in a live flight location database; (LaCroix, et al. Col. 9, lines 12-15: "…criteria database (24) may be configured to store one or more report criteria [storing data signals in database]"; LaCroix, et al. Col. 17, lines 1-13: "…responses comprise aircraft location information [live flight location] corresponding to the aircraft (10). Furthermore, the one or more report criteria and the one or more alert criteria may be received from a criteria database (24) [main database for information].")
obtaining by the notifier, from the live flight location database, a listing of one or more other aircraft flying in the airspace of the distressed aircraft; (Burgemeister Block (410), Col. 11, lines 51-56: "…aircraft identifier database (212) contains a list of aircraft ID's that are being controlled by control tower (108). This list may be derived from various techniques, such as, but not limited to flight plan information (e.g., via the corresponding flight progress strip), and the Final Approach and Spacing (FAST) software too [listing of other aircraft flying in same airspace as aircraft].")
and transmitting, by the notifier, at least one of the first emergency notification messages and the second emergency notification messages to each aircraft in the listing (Burgemeister Blocks (418 - 420), Col. 12, lines 53-65: "…packet(s) are forwarded to the appropriate antenna and transmitted to the aircraft (e.g., airplane (104)) in a block (418) [transmitting message to aircraft]. […] In one embodiment, several aircraft share a frequency or frequency and transmission domain (if a transmission domain is being employed). Under this embodiment, each of the aircraft "listens" for inbound packet transmissions under their commonly-assigned frequency and optional transmission domain. Upon receipt, the header is checked to verify a listening aircraft is the appropriate recipient [notifications messages are sent to each specified aircraft in the listing]."; Col. 9, lines 38-42: "…messages in inbound message queue (134) are processed in the order they are received. In another embodiment, messages may be prioritized, such that an emergency message is placed at the top of the queue upon being received [emergency notification messages].").
Regarding claim 10, LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 1, wherein the first notification emergency messages and the second notification emergency messages comprise Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) messages (LaCroix, et al. Col. 17, lines 43-55: "…method may further comprise processing received messages to determine if a received data signal response is an emergency report or a connection denial message [emergency messages]. [….] highlight emergency situations or situations wherein a FANS connection has been unsuccessful respectively. The method may further comprise storing received CPDLC messages [comprise CPDLC messages] and/or generated alerts in a data store (34), wherein the CPDLC messages and/or generated alerts may be retrieved").
Regarding claim 12, LaCroix, et al. teaches: A system for emergency notification, the system comprising: (Col. 8, lines 41-44: "…system (20) [system], […] processor (22) [receives emergency signals]")
a plurality of an aircraft configured to transmit data signals in real-time; (Col. 7, line 66 to Col. 8, line 1: "…aircraft (10) [aircraft] […] digital data link between the aircraft (10) and one or more users on the ground [transmit real-time data during flight].")
monitor for any subsequent data signals transmitted from the distressed aircraft for a first period of time, when the notifier determines that the data signals comprise the emergency alert, (Col. 14, lines 41-46: "…emergency reports are received, or if the emergency reports are received for more than a given duration of time [monitor aircraft data emergency signals for first period of time].")
transmit first emergency notification messages to at least one of a second aircraft located within an airspace as of the distressed aircraft, to an air traffic control (ATC) for the airspace of the distressed aircraft, or to an airline operations center (AOC) associated with an airline of the distressed aircraft, after the first period of time has elapsed (Col. 15, lines 11-16: "…airspace that an aircraft (10) is in is FANS enabled then the ATC [air traffic control (ATC)]" ; Col. 15, lines 60-67: "…FANS enabled airspace for a time period identified by the AFN message criteria then the processor (22) may cause the alerting module (30) to generate an alert [transmit emergency notification message after period of elapsed time].").
LaCroix, et al. does not teach and a ground-based notifier comprising one or more processors and configured to: receive the data signals transmitted from the plurality of aircraft as the plurality of aircraft are flying in a plurality of airspaces, wherein at least two airspaces of the plurality of airspaces are associated with respective different air traffic controls (ATCs), determine whether the data signals comprise an emergency alert, for each a distressed aircraft whose data signals received from each of the plurality of aircraft comprise an emergency alert.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft voice communication), Burgemeister teaches: and a ground-based notifier comprising one or more processors and configured to: receive the data signals transmitted from the plurality of aircraft as the plurality of aircraft are flying in a plurality of airspaces, wherein at least two airspaces of the plurality of airspaces are associated with respective different air traffic controls (ATCs), determine whether the data signals received from each of the plurality of aircraft comprise an emergency alert, (Col. 2, lines 31-39: "…system supports communication between aircraft and ground stations [communication system] […] single ground station or controller [ground-based notifier - containing processor] to communicate with multiple aircraft by employing one or more different physical radio transmission channels for the aircraft [data signals transmitted from plurality of aircraft."; Col. 15, lines 40-46: "…tracking an aircraft along a flight path passing through multiple airspace divisions; and sending information to the aircraft instructing the aircraft to what physical radio communication channel to employ for the virtual radio communication channel while operating within a given airspace division [flying in a plurality of airspaces]." ; Col. 16, line 65 to Col. 17, lines 1-6: "…facilitating communication between the plurality of aircraft within the ATC airspace division and the controller by employing at least two ATC radio facilities, each ATC radio facility employing a different physical radio communication channel comprising at least one of a different radio frequency and a different transmission domain to communicate with aircraft within its reception area [data signals transmitted which are associated with two different air traffic controls (ATCs).")
for each a distressed aircraft whose data signals comprise an emergency alert (Col. 9, lines 33-42: "…techniques are provided for uniquely identifying each aircraft [each aircraft]. […] In one embodiment, messages in inbound message queue (134) are processed in the order they are received [data signals]. In another embodiment, messages may be prioritized, such that an emergency message is placed at the top of the queue upon being received [emergency message].)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LaCroix, et al. to include the teaching of Burgemeister based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of communication between aircraft and ground stations using packetized digitally encoded messages and virtual communication channels (Burgemeister Col. 2, lines 29-39).
The combination of LaCroix, et al. and Burgemeister does not teach in response to determining that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for the second period of time, transmit second emergency notification messages to at least one of the second aircraft to the ATC for the airspace of the distressed aircraft, or to the AOC associated with the airline of the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (aircraft tracking), Polynin, et al. teaches: in response to determining that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for the second period of time, (Paragraph [0023]: "…if the trigger logic [notifier] determines that a distress event has occurred, such as an emergency of the aircraft (102) or that no RF transmissions are being sent from the aircraft (102) (i.e., all or both transponders failed or are in an OFF state) within a specified period of time, the wireless distress trigger (118) via the ELT-DT unit can be activated [distressed aircraft - no RF data signals (voice audio) for period of time].")
transmit second emergency notification messages to at least one of the second aircraft to the ATC for the airspace of the distressed aircraft, or to the AOC associated with the airline of the distressed aircraft, (Paragraph [0018]: "The information from the transponder (106) can be received by air traffic control (ATC) ground stations or other aircraft [sending messages to ATC of airspace of distressed aircraft]." ; Paragraph [0019]: "The transponder (106) can also include trigger logic [notifier], such as distress trigger logic. The distress trigger logic can monitor the aircraft's performance to determine whether a distress event has occurred [identification of distress event/emergency]. If a distress event has occurred, then the transponder (106) can be activated and a distress signal can be sent to the first satellite (104). The transponder (106) can also send coded information to a matched RF detector located on the same aircraft to wirelessly activate a beacon or locator [sending messages].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al. and Burgemeister to include the teaching of Polynin, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of creating a distress radio beacon for an aircraft tracking system as a function of the lack of transmitted radio frequencies within a specific period of time (Polynin, et al. Paragraph [0005]).
The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, and Polynin, et al. does not teach while continuing to receive data signals from the distressed aircraft, determine whether the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for a second period of time.
In a similar field of endeavor (surveillance and response system for aircraft), Monroe teaches: while continuing to receive data signals from the distressed aircraft, determine whether the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for a second period of time (Paragraph [0090]: "…multiple cameras are located in the cabin, cargo bay and cockpit of the aircraft, with additional cameras being located for monitoring the tail section, landing gear and other strategic components. The data from these cameras is routinely stored on a hardened recorder located in the aircraft. Upon command, the data may be sent in a live, real time format to off board stations [sending out signals from aircraft]. [...] Other events may also trigger transmission of live video to the ground [continuing to receive data signals], including, […] failure to respond to radio request [lack of voice audio from distressed aircraft]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, and Polynin, et al. to include the teaching of Monroe based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of collecting and distributing surveillance data for an aircraft during an emergency response (Monroe Paragraph [0002])).
Regarding claim 16, LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of claim 12, wherein the notifier is further configured to: analyze a threat level of the airspace of the distressed aircraft, (LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 52-60: "…Advantageously, this allows the computerised method to automatically alert the end user if the aircraft is estimated to have entered, or have already entered, undesirable airspace, such as a war zone, a region containing a volcanic ash cloud or another bad weather region [analysis of threat level of airspace]." ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 3-8: "…alert may be generated, at the alerting module [notifier] of the aircraft monitoring system, in the absence of a data signal response being received within an interval defined by the alert criteria [aircraft not transmitting signals].")
and transmit the second emergency notification messages to at least one of the second aircraft located within the same airspace as the aircraft, to the ATC, or to the AOC, when the notifier determines that the threat level of the airspace of the distressed aircraft is determined to have a potential safety issue or is determined to have a safety issue (LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 62-67: "…alerting module [notifier], if it is determined, at the processor, that a received data signal response is an emergency report or a connection denial message [transmit emergency notification messages]. […] Automatic Dependent Surveillance Contract [message format]." ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 9 , lines 21-35: "…ADS contract is a periodic contract, a demand contract or an event contract. […] This interval may be altered during the flight to provide more frequent position information, for example during a given segment of the flight or in the event that concerns are raised regarding the safety of the aircraft [airspace safety issue]." ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 3, lines 16-20: "…maintain ADS contracts with a given aircraft and, currently, these ADS-C connections are typically used by the air traffic controllers [communication with ATC]").
Regarding claim 20, LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe remain as applied to claim 12, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of claim 12, wherein the notifier is further configured to: determine, by the notifier, an aircraft location for each aircraft of the plurality of aircraft, based on the data signals received from plurality of the aircraft, (Burgemeister Col. 11, line 65 to Col. 12, lines 1-5: "…controller [notifier - controller with processor] touches the aircraft on his or her display, the display hardware, in conjunction with an aircraft locator system, such as a radar-based system or a GPS-(Global Positioning System) based system, automatically associates a representation of an aircraft on the display that is touched with an underlying identification for the aircraft. These operations are shown in block (408) [location for each aircraft - based from data signals received from aircraft].")
and storing, by the notifier, the data signals from the plurality of aircraft in a live flight location database; (LaCroix, et al. Col. 9, lines 12-15: "…criteria database (24) may be configured to store one or more report criteria [storing data signals in database]" ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 17, lines 1-13: "…responses comprise aircraft location information [live flight location] corresponding to the aircraft (10). Furthermore, the one or more report criteria and the one or more alert criteria may be received from a criteria database (24) [main database for information].")
obtaining by the notifier, from the live flight location database, a listing of one or more other aircraft flying in the airspace of the aircraft; (Burgemeister Col. 11, lines 51-56: "…aircraft identifier database (212) contains a list of aircraft ID's that are being controlled by control tower (108). This list may be derived from various techniques, such as, but not limited to flight plan information (e.g., via the corresponding flight progress strip), and the Final Approach and Spacing (FAST) software too [listing of other aircraft flying in same airspace as aircraft].")
and transmitting, by the notifier, at least one of the first emergency notification messages and the second emergency notification messages to each aircraft in the listing (Burgemeister Col. 12, lines 53-65: "…packet(s) are forwarded to the appropriate antenna and transmitted to the aircraft (e.g., airplane (104)) in a block (418) [transmitting message to aircraft]. […] In one embodiment, several aircraft share a frequency or frequency and transmission domain (if a transmission domain is being employed). Under this embodiment, each of the aircraft "listens" for inbound packet transmissions under their commonly-assigned frequency and optional transmission domain. Upon receipt, the header is checked to verify a listening aircraft is the appropriate recipient [notifications messages are sent to each specified aircraft in the listing]."; Col. 9, lines 38-42: "…messages in inbound message queue (134) are processed in the order they are received. In another embodiment, messages may be prioritized, such that an emergency message is placed at the top of the queue upon being received [emergency notification messages].").
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCroix, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10538338), Burgemeister (U.S. Patent No. 7221290), Polynin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200209338), and Monroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040008253) in view of Zhou, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10078491).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe teaches: The method of claim 1, with the second aircraft located within the same airspace as the aircraft, (LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 52-56: "…alerting module [notifier], if the aircraft is determined or estimated to intersect a given region of airspace based on current aircraft location information or flight plan data [aircraft located in same airspace as current aircraft].")
when the notifier determines that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise the lack of voice audio for the second period of time (Polynin, et al. Paragraph [0023]: "…if the trigger logic [notifier] determines that a distress event has occurred, such as an emergency of the aircraft (102) or that no RF transmissions are being sent from the aircraft (102) (i.e., all or both transponders failed or are in an OFF state) within a specified period of time, the wireless distress trigger (118) via the ELT-DT unit can be activated [distressed aircraft - no RF data signals (voice audio) for period of time].").
The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach wherein the method further comprises notifying, by the notifier, the ATC to initiate selective calling (SELCAL).
In a similar field of endeavor (software configurable aircraft audio control panels), Zhou, et al. teaches: wherein the method further comprises notifying, by the notifier, the ATC to initiate selective calling (SELCAL) (Col. 6, lines 21-32: "…double pole rotary selector (104) may also provide the user abilities to select SELCAL channels. SELCAL is a selective-calling radio system that can notify the user that a ground radio station wishes to communicate with the aircraft [ATC to initiate SELCAL].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Zhou, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of providing a visual indication of available voice and navigation channels to an aircraft audio control panel (Zhou, et al. Col. 1, lines 27-41).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe teaches: The system of claim 12, with the second aircraft (LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 52-56: "…alerting module [notifier], if the aircraft is determined or estimated to intersect a given region of airspace based on current aircraft location information or flight plan data [second aircraft].")
when the notifier determines that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise the lack of voice audio for the second period of time (Polynin, et al. Paragraph [0023]: "…if the trigger logic [notifier] determines that a distress event has occurred, such as an emergency of the aircraft (102) or that no RF transmissions are being sent from the aircraft (102) (i.e., all or both transponders failed or are in an OFF state) within a specified period of time, the wireless distress trigger (118) via the ELT-DT unit can be activated [distressed aircraft - no RF data signals (voice audio) for period of time].").
The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach wherein the notifier is further configured to notify the ATC to initiate selective calling (SELCAL).
In a similar field of endeavor (software configurable aircraft audio control panels), Zhou, et al. teaches: wherein the notifier is further configured to notify the ATC to initiate selective calling (SELCAL) (Col. 6, lines 21-32: "…double pole rotary selector (104) may also provide the user abilities to select SELCAL channels. SELCAL is a selective-calling radio system that can notify the user that a ground radio station wishes to communicate with the aircraft [ATC to initiate SELCAL].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Zhou, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of providing a visual indication of available voice and navigation channels to an aircraft audio control panel (Zhou, et al. Col. 1, lines 27-41).
Claims 3, 6-8, 11, 14-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaCroix, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10538338), Burgemeister (U.S. Patent No. 7221290), Polynin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200209338), and Monroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040008253) in view of Shloosh (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180061243).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe teaches: The method of claim 1, when the notifier determines that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise the lack of voice audio for the second period of time (Polynin, et al. Paragraph [0023]: "…if the trigger logic [notifier] determines that a distress event has occurred, such as an emergency of the aircraft (102) or that no RF transmissions are being sent from the aircraft (102) (i.e., all or both transponders failed or are in an OFF state) within a specified period of time, the wireless distress trigger (118) via the ELT-DT unit can be activated [distressed aircraft - no RF data signals (voice audio) for period of time].").
The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach wherein the method further comprises notifying, by the notifier, a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) administrator to restrict the airspace of the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated airport air traffic control services), Shloosh teaches: wherein the method further comprises notifying, by the notifier, a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) administrator to restrict the airspace of the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0070]: "NOTAM : notice to airmen" [NOTAM]; Paragraph [0187]: "…ground all airborne aircraft at any given airspace [restrict airspace of aircraft]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Shloosh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of combining the controlling of the traffic of airborne aircrafts, aircrafts on the ground, and vehicle movements within an airfield (Shloosh Paragraph [0305]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the AOC, third emergency notification messages to at least one of (i) other aircraft owned by the same airline of the distressed aircraft, or (ii) other aircraft owned by different airlines from the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated airport air traffic control services), Shloosh teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the AOC, third emergency notification messages to at least one of (i) other aircraft owned by the same airline of the distressed aircraft, or (ii) other aircraft owned by different airlines from the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0304]: "Airport Operations Center Module (AOCM) [333] [AOC]" ; Paragraph [0199]: "…emergency personnel of aircraft emergency situation with aircraft data [emergency notification messages]" ; Paragraph [0318]: "…Pilots and Airline Operators to set preferred taxiway routes to each of the runways within the airport from different areas of the Airport where the Airline operates [aircraft owned by same airline].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Shloosh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of combining the controlling of the traffic of airborne aircrafts, aircrafts on the ground, and vehicle movements within an airfield (Shloosh Paragraph [0305]).
Regarding claim 7, LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., Monroe, and Shloosh remain as applied to claim 6, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method of claim 6, wherein the third emergency notification messages comprise Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) messages (LaCroix, et al. Col. 8, lines 11-17: "…ACARS messages that are forwarded through the communications network (14) are then sent on to, and collected centrally by, a system (20) [comprises ACARS messages]. […] include FANS messages [encompasses ADS-C messages]" ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 3, lines 1-4: "…FANS is the ability to set up an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Contract (ADS-C) [FANS messages encompasses ADS-C messages]." ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 14, lines 29-32: "ADS-C communications also support emergency alerting [ADS-C linked to emergency notifications]").
Regarding claim 8, The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the notifier, the second emergency notification messages to at least one AOC not associated with the airline of the distressed aircraft, wherein at least one of the first and second emergency notification messages comprises a voice snippet of a last conversation of a predefined length before the loss of voice audio at the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated airport air traffic control services), Shloosh teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises transmitting, by the notifier, the second emergency notification messages to at least one AOC not associated with the airline of the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0304]: "Airport Operations Center Module (AOCM) [333] [AOC]" ; Paragraph [0199]: "…emergency personnel of aircraft emergency situation with aircraft data [emergency notification messages]" ; Paragraph [0349]: "…and airline for each type of operation [different airline ownership].")
wherein at least one of the first and second emergency notification messages comprises a voice snippet of a last conversation of a predefined length before the loss of voice audio at the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0195]: "…data and voice from cockpits of all aircraft [voice snippet] at or nearby the airport that are normally sent to each aircraft's black-box [emergency notification message]," ; Paragraph [0395]: "… retaining data for aircrafts thirty minutes after handoff [last conversation of a predefined length]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Shloosh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of combining the controlling of the traffic of airborne aircrafts, aircrafts on the ground, and vehicle movements within an airfield (Shloosh Paragraph [0305]).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the first notification emergency messages comprise a “caution” alert, and wherein the second notification emergency messages comprise a “warning” alert; and wherein at least one of the first and second emergency notification messages comprises a last voice snippet from the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated airport air traffic control services), Shloosh teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the first notification emergency messages comprise a “caution” alert, (Paragraph [1010]: "…"caution turbulence for a departing 747” ["caution" alert]")
and wherein the second notification emergency messages comprise a “warning” alert (Paragraph [0209]: "…visual and audible warning to the pilot when in the direction nearing a restricted airport area ["warning" alert].")
and wherein at least one of the first and second emergency notification messages comprises a last voice snippet from the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0195]: "…data and voice from cockpits of all aircraft [voice snippet] at or nearby the airport that are normally sent to each aircraft's black-box [emergency notification message]," ; Paragraph [0395]: "…retaining data for aircrafts thirty minutes after handoff [last conversation of a predefined length]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Shloosh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of combining the controlling of the traffic of airborne aircrafts, aircrafts on the ground, and vehicle movements within an airfield (Shloosh Paragraph [0305]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe teaches: The system of claim 12, when the notifier determines that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise the lack of voice audio for the second period of time (Polynin, et al. Paragraph [0023]: "…if the trigger logic [notifier] determines that a distress event has occurred, such as an emergency of the aircraft (102) or that no RF transmissions are being sent from the aircraft (102) (i.e., all or both transponders failed or are in an OFF state) within a specified period of time, the wireless distress trigger (118) via the ELT-DT unit can be activated [distressed aircraft - no RF data signals (voice audio) for period of time].").
The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach wherein the notifier is further configured to notify a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) administrator to restrict the airspace of the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated airport air traffic control services), Shloosh teaches: wherein the notifier is further configured to notify a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) administrator to restrict the airspace of the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0070]: "NOTAM : notice to airmen" [NOTAM]; Paragraph [0187]: "…ground all airborne aircraft at any given airspace [restrict airspace of aircraft]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Shloosh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of combining the controlling of the traffic of airborne aircrafts, aircrafts on the ground, and vehicle movements within an airfield (Shloosh Paragraph [0305]).
Regarding claim 15, The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe teaches: The system of claim 12, wherein the notifier is further configured to fetch a last known flight position for the distressed aircraft, when the notifier determines that the distressed aircraft has stopped transmitting any signals (LaCroix, et al. Col. 18, lines 58-67: "…position reports for each aircraft (10) may be identified by their source, for example as ADS-C position information rather than standard ACARS position information or any other data source that is included [last known flight position for aircraft]" ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 4, lines 3-8: "Optionally, the report criteria may indicate that an immediate data signal response is required from the aircraft's avionics and the alert may be generated, at the alerting module [notifier] of the aircraft monitoring system")
the notifier being configured to fetch the last known flight position from a live location flight database maintained by the notifier (LaCroix, et al. Col. 17, lines 1-13: "…responses comprise aircraft location information [live flight location] corresponding to the aircraft (10). Furthermore, the one or more report criteria and the one or more alert criteria may be received from a criteria database (24) [main database for information]. […] whether flight plan data has been received for that flight [last known flight position].")
The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach based on flight and voice data transmitted by aircraft black boxes.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated airport air traffic control services), Shloosh teaches: based on flight and voice data transmitted by aircraft black boxes (Paragraph [0195]: "…all data from all airport sensors, all image data from cameras located at or nearby the airport, all data and voice from cockpits of all aircraft [voice and flight data] at or nearby the airport that are normally sent to each aircraft's black-box [transmitted by aircraft black boxes]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al. and Monroe to include the teaching of Shloosh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of combining the controlling of the traffic of airborne aircrafts, aircrafts on the ground, and vehicle movements within an airfield (Shloosh Paragraph [0305]).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach the system of claim 12, wherein the system further comprises the AOC, which is configured to transmit third emergency notification messages to at least one of (i) other aircraft owned by the airline of the distressed aircraft, or (ii) other aircraft owned by different airlines from the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated airport air traffic control services), Shloosh teaches: The system of claim 12, wherein the system further comprises the AOC, which is configured to transmit third emergency notification messages to at least one of (i) other aircraft owned by the airline of the distressed aircraft, or (ii) other aircraft owned by different airlines from the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0304]: "Airport Operations Center Module (AOCM) [333] [AOC]" ; Paragraph [0199]: "…emergency personnel of aircraft emergency situation with aircraft data [emergency notification messages]" ; Paragraph [0318]: "…Pilots and Airline Operators to set preferred taxiway routes to each of the runways within the airport from different areas of the Airport where the Airline operates [aircraft owned by same airline].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Shloosh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of combining the controlling of the traffic of airborne aircrafts, aircrafts on the ground, and vehicle movements within an airfield (Shloosh Paragraph [0305]).
Regarding claim 18, LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., Monroe, and Shloosh remain as applied to claim 17, and in a further embodiment, teach: The system of claim 17, wherein the third emergency notification messages comprise Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) messages (LaCroix, et al. Col. 8, lines 11-17: "…ACARS messages that are forwarded through the communications network (14) are then sent on to, and collected centrally by, a system (20) [comprises ACARS messages]. […] include FANS messages [encompasses ADS-C messages]" ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 3, lines 1-4: "…FANS is the ability to set up an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Contract (ADS-C) [FANS messages encompasses ADS-C messages]." ; LaCroix, et al. Col. 14, lines 29-32: "ADS-C communications also support emergency alerting [ADS-C linked to emergency notifications]").
Regarding claim 19, The combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe does not teach the system of claim 12, wherein the notifier is further configured to transmit the second emergency notification messages to at least one AOC not associated with the airline of the distressed, at least one of the second emergency notification messages comprising a last voice snippet from the distressed aircraft.
In a similar field of endeavor (automated airport air traffic control services), Shloosh teaches: The system of claim 12, wherein the notifier is further configured to transmit the second emergency notification messages to at least one AOC not associated with the airline of the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0304]: "Airport Operations Center Module (AOCM) [333] [AOC]" ; Paragraph [0199]: "… emergency personnel of aircraft emergency situation with aircraft data [emergency notification messages]" ; Paragraph [0349]: "…and airline for each type of operation [different airline ownership].")
at least one of the second emergency notification messages comprising a last voice snippet from the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0195]: "…data and voice from cockpits of all aircraft [voice snippet] at or nearby the airport that are normally sent to each aircraft's black-box [emergency notification message]” ; Paragraph [0395]: "…retaining data for aircrafts thirty minutes after handoff [last conversation of a predefined length]").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe to include the teaching of Shloosh based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of combining the controlling of the traffic of airborne aircrafts, aircrafts on the ground, and vehicle movements within an airfield (Shloosh Paragraph [0305]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant asserted that amended claims 1 and 12 were patentable over LaCroix, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10538338) in view of Burgemeister (U.S. Patent No. 7221290) and in further view of Polynin, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200209338) because the references did not meet the claim limitation “while continuing to receive data signals from the distressed aircraft, determining, by the notifier, that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for a second period of time”. Please note that Monroe (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20040008253) was cited in order to teach these features. In Monroe, a system installed within the aircraft involves the use of data transmitted from “…multiple cameras are located in the cabin, cargo bay and cockpit of the aircraft, with additional cameras being located for monitoring the tail section, landing gear and other strategic components” for the intent of being “…sent in a live, real time format to off board stations”, and in which will still transmit data during the case where the aircraft is in a state of distress, such as “…failure to respond to radio request”, or when the aircraft does not transmit voice audio (Paragraph [0090]). Subsequently, it would have been obvious to combine Monroe with LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, and Polynin, et al. because LaCroix, et al. teaches the determination of notification based data signals as emergency alerts (Col. 17, lines 43-50), Burgemeister teaches the dispatch of prioritized emergency messages for each uniquely identifiable aircraft (Col. 9, lines 33-42), and Polynin, et al. teaches the condition in which data signals from a distressed aircraft which lack voice audio (Paragraph [0023]) are transmitted to an ATC of the airspace of the distressed aircraft (Paragraph [0018]).
Therefore, it can be concluded that since the combination of LaCroix, et al., Burgemeister, Polynin, et al., and Monroe reads on the claim limitation “while continuing to receive data signals from the distressed aircraft, determining, by the notifier, that the data signals from the distressed aircraft comprise a lack of voice audio for a second period of time”, as stated in amended claims 1 and 12, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kroen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120218127) teaches a flight information system and method in which data can be collected and analyzed for a Terminal Intelligent Monitoring System in which communications and programmed alerts can be delivered to the end-users in a wide variety of formats and delivery mechanisms.
Byrd, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 9934620) teaches an apparatus integrated within an aircraft that allows wireless in-flight aircraft data streaming through a primary means of crowd sourced receivers.
Murray, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6385513) teaches a satellite emergency voice or data downlink method and apparatus in which cockpit audio and flight data is sent to a satellite communications system once a serious emergency condition is detected.
Wartofsky (U.S. Patent No. 11170653) teaches an automated air traffic advisory system which aims to bridge the communications gap between multiple aircraft on different frequencies in a monitored airspace and provide alerts regarding the presence of specified aircraft in a monitored airspace.
Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights