Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
Responsive to Applicant’s amendments filed on 01/20/2026:
Claims 1 and 24-26 are amended,
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 10 and 23-26 are pending in the Application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments presented in the reply mailed on 01/20/2026 are fully considered but are deemed moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlaw et al., U.S. Patent Application 2014/0236465 A1 (hereinafter, “Greenlaw”) in view of Leitch et al., US Patent Publication 2022/0026896 A1 (hereinafter, “Leitch”).
As for claim 1, Greenlaw teaches an aircraft management system, comprising:
A database storing aircraft flight strips, each flight strip including information on one or more aircrafts (see paragraph 0056, “a memory 901 can be coupled to the controller and be configured to store the flight data, data representing the electronic flight strips, and other relevant data for any disclosed embodiment.”);
a graphical user interface (see paragraph 0025) which displays the flight strips (see paragraphs 0024 and 0034) automatically combined by the application server and which allows a user to send flight instructions to the multiple aircrafts represented by the single combined flight strip simultaneously (see paragraph 0050, “the flight data associated with a particular flight can be generated by flight service specialist or an airline specialist and transmitted to an ATC computer.”)
Greenlaw does not explicitly teach an application server which automatically determines according to a predetermined set of rules, groups of flight strips in the database to be grouped together and combines each of the determined groups of flights into a single combined flight strip representing multiple aircrafts.
However, Leitch teaches application server (See paragraph [0152], “server computer”) which automatically determines according to a predetermined set of rules (see paragraph [0060], “ruleset”, see paragraph [0073], “pre-determined parameters” and see paragraph [0119], “pre-determined threshold”), groups of flight strips in the database to be grouped together and combines each of the determined groups of flights into a single combined flight strip representing multiple aircrafts (see figures 9 & 10, see paragraph [0066], “the exploration module automatically combines the flight data features and maintenance events into a single time series visualization”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Greenlaw with the teachings of Leitch, in order to have a single flight strip representing multiple aircrafts, such that as taught by Leitch, it “enables a user to discover behavior patterns in large sets of recorded flight sensor data” and would result in “enabling visual identification of important flight data patterns” (see paragraph [0066].)
As for claim 2, Greenlaw as mofied, teaches the system of claim 1, further comprising the graphical user interface (see Greenlaw, paragraph 0025) comprising a dashboard (See Greenlaw, paragraph 0024 and Fig. 1, describing and illustrating embodiments in which electronic flight strips are displayed and context-based menus and messages are provided; paragraph 0029 and Fig. 1, describing and illustrating embodiments in which an information area that includes information and control buttons is displayed; and paragraphs 0047 and 0048 and Fig. 7, describing and illustrating embodiments in which fields of an electronic flight strip are customizable and various menus are used to enter data to be assigned to a particular field. Note that any user interface display comprising a composition of various elements can be viewed as a dashboard).
As for claim 5, Greenlaw as mofied, teaches the system of claim 2 wherein the dashboard comprising a plurality of sections (see Greenlaw, paragraph 0026, “the EFS system display includes a plurality of "bays" 120-125”; and
wherein the aircraft management system moves the plurality of flight strips from a first section to a second section (see Greenlaw, paragraph 0026, “each of these bays 120-125 can be associated with a different phase of an aircraft's flight and/or location on an airport. Each bay can contain one or more electronic flight strips 100-108, each electronic flight strip associated with a different aircraft) by a set of predetermined rules (see paragraph 0051, where “predetermined rule” is read on “Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules”).
As for claim 6, Greenlaw as mofied, teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the dashboard comprising a plurality of sections (see Greenlaw, paragraph 0026, “the EFS system display includes a plurality of "bays" 120-125”; and
wherein the aircraft management system moves the plurality of flight strips from a first section to a second section (see Greenlaw, paragraph 0026, “each of these bays 120-125 can be associated with a different phase of an aircraft's flight and/or location on an airport. Each bay can contain one or more electronic flight strips 100-108, each electronic flight strip associated with a different aircraft) by a set of learned rules (see paragraph 0051, where “learned rule” is read on “visual flight rules (VFR)”).
As for claim 23, Greenlaw as mofied, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the graphical user interface (see Greenlaw, paragraph 0025) automatically sends flight instructions to the multiple aircrafts represented by the single combined flight strip when data is changed on the single combined flight strip (see Greenlaw, paragraphs 0027, 0053, and 0054, describing embodiments in which aircraft are given flight instructions and describing embodiments in which instructions are provided on electronic flight strips).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlaw in view of Leitch, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Johnson et al., US Patent Application 2014/0012490 A1 (hereinafter “Johnson”).
As for claim 10, Greenlaw as mofied, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the application server (see Leitch, paragraph [0152], “server computer”) autonomously combines flight strips (see Leitch, figures 9 & 10, see paragraph [0066], “the exploration module automatically combines the flight data features and maintenance events into a single time series visualization”) based on a set of parameters (see Leitch, paragraph [0060], “ruleset”, see paragraph [0073], “pre-determined parameters” and see paragraph [0119], “pre-determined threshold”).
Greenlaw as modified still does not teach wherein the set of parameters are modified through machine learning.
Johnson teaches an aircraft management system in which a predefined set of parameters is modified through machine learning (see, e.g., Johnson, para. 40, describing embodiments in which a learning module learns the selection preferences of aircraft operations personnel over time and controls future selection of a presented subset of the stable operating solutions based on learning such that an airline operations control system is self-learning and captures the knowledge of the aircraft operations personnel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Greenlaw, as modified by Leitch with the teachings of Johnson, to implement an aircraft management system in which a predefined set of parameters is modified through machine learning in order to more efficiently and adaptably manage complex aircraft operation decisions by learning and capturing the knowledge of the aircraft operations personnel (see, e.g., Johnson, paras. 2, 33, 40 and 43; and in view of the value of servers and APIs well known in the art).
Claims 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenlaw in view of Leitch, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Meinhart, US Patent Application 2018/0303003 A1.
As for claims 24-26, Greenlaw as modified, teaches the aircraft management system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Greenlaw as modified does not teach:
wherein the application server determines the flight strips to be combined based a set of parameters including air speed and altitude (claim 24),
wherein the application server receives data from a radar and uses the data from the radar in determining the flight strips to be combined (claim 25),
wherein the application server determines the flight strips to be combined based on a set of parameters including planned route information and real-time route information of the aircrafts (claim 26).
However, Meinhart teaches all the remaining limitations of claims 24-26 above (see paragraphs 0065 and 0082 and figure 27A, “a plurality of graphics display applications 815 configured so as to display airspace boundaries, arrival and departure routes, track data and current aircraft positions, flight plans, aircraft ID, reported altitude, assigned altitude, ground speed, metering, arrival, and departure lists, weather information, and electronic flight strips, a weather forecasting and display application 834, a plurality of system security applications 818”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Greenlaw, as modified by Leitch with the teachings of Meinhart, because including the above parameters in the flight strips would provide the ability “to record and facilitate analysis of any and all aircraft flight, track, display, and controller input, internal process functionality, inter-process communication, inter-center and inter-TRACON communications” between the aircrafts and controllers (see paragraph 0065).
Conclusion
Applicant’s Amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571) 272-4078. The examiner can normally be reached during weekdays and non-holidays between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
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, CORDELIA ZECHER can be reached at (571) 272-7771. 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.
/TONY MAHMOUDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2163