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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a scope or standard for “a gain associated with making available the data of the aircraft”, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Here, “gain” is relative term. The claims and specification provides no units, no baseline against which gain is measured., and no indication whether the gain is monetary, temporal or operational. Without a standard of measurement in the specification , one of ordinary skill would not be apprised of the scope.
Claims 1 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a scope or standard for “a contractual time remaining for making available the data of the aircraft”, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Here, the scope of this factor depends entirely on the terms of an agreement that is not part of the claimed architecture and is not otherwise recited. The claim therefore varies in scope and the metes and bounds cannot be determined.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “means for transmitting the flight data report installed on board the aircraft” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Upon inspection no clear means for ‘transmitting’ is recited. “Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G or 5G” disclosed by the applicant are mediums for transport rather than “means for transmitting”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “means for transmitting the flight data report installed on board the aircraft” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Upon inspection no clear means for ‘transmitting’ is recited. “Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G or 5G” disclosed by the applicant are mediums for transport rather than “means for transmitting”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “means for bidirectional transmission” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Upon inspection no clear means for ‘transmitting’ is recited. “Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G or 5G” disclosed by the applicant are mediums for transport rather than “means for bidirectional transmission”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the data" in lines 10-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the data" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections ‐ 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Statutory Category: Claims 1-4, 6, 111 are directed to a architecture, and claims 7-8 & 10 are directed to a method, all of which are statutory classes of invention.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Nevertheless, independent claims 1 & 7 recite an abstract idea of obtaining, calculating information and determining a parameter based on that information. These claims fall under Mathematical Concepts and methods of organizing human activity.
The independent claim 1 recites the following limitations which fall mathematical concepts and organizing human activity:
at least one data acquisition unit installed on board the aircraft;
means for transmitting the flight data report installed on board the aircraft; and
a station for collecting the flight data report on a ground, comprising:
a computer configured for calculating a cost index, and
a choice of a means for transmitting the flight data report and its content according to the
value of the cost index,
wherein the cost index is determined on a basis of factors comprising:
a time of transmission of the data from the aircraft,
a cost of transmission of the data from the aircraft,
a contractual time remaining for making available the data of the aircraft, and
a gain associated with making available the data of the aircraft.
The independent claim 7 recites the following limitations which fall mathematical concepts and organizing human activity:
determining, with a processor computer, a calculation of a cost index for optimizing the
choice of the means for transmitting the flight data report and its content according to the value of
the cost index; and
sending, when necessary, the optimized data report from the aircraft to the station for
collecting data on the ground,
wherein the cost index is determined on a basis of factors comprising:
a time of transmission of the data from the aircraft,
a cost of transmission of the data from the aircraft,
a contractual time remaining for making available the data of the aircraft, and
a gain associated with making available the data of the aircraft.
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), mathematical concepts are defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within this grouping as abstract ideas including: a procedure for converting binary-coded decimal numerals into pure binary form, Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); a mathematical formula for calculating an alarm limit, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978); the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191, 209 USPQ 1, 15 (1981); and a mathematical formula for hedging, Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ 2d 1001, 1004 (2010).
A mathematical relationship is a relationship between variables or numbers. A mathematical relationship may be expressed in words or using mathematical symbols. For example, pressure (p) can be described as the ratio between the magnitude of the normal force (F) and area of the surface on contact (A), or it can be set forth in the form of an equation such as p = F/A.
Examples of mathematical relationships recited in a claim include:
i. a relationship between reaction rate and temperature, which relationship can be expressed in the form of a formula called the Arrhenius equation, Diamond v. Diehr; 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981);
ii. a conversion between binary coded decimal and pure binary, Benson, 409 U.S. at 64, 175 USPQ at 674;
iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words); and
iv. organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721.
According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY encompasses concepts relating to:
• fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
• commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
• managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Step 2A – Prong 2: Practical Application: This judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe mathematical concept based on an mathematical relationship to calculate cost index based on various factors. Including contractual time which is method of organizing human activity and therefore expressly commercial and contractual interactions. Under prong 2, the recited hardware, a computer, is a generic data acquisition and calculation unit.
These additional elements of “a computer” in these steps are recited at a high‐level of generality such that it amounts to more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and are merely invoked as tools for enabling obtaining information, calculating information and sending information. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computing environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea, and does not take the claim out of the “Mental Processes” subgrouping. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept: The claims do not include additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered
individually and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as
“inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer to perform these steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, when considered individually and as an ordered combination as there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent‐eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephane et al, EP2201703 A2 (see Examiner Provided Copy) in view of Green et al. (US 8,874,459 B1) in further view of Esimai (US 2020/0122856 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Staphane discloses Architecture for collecting and transmitting a flight data report of an aircraft comprising:
at least one data acquisition unit installed on board the aircraft (see 15, “system for routing ACARS messages to a plurality of transmission media, intended to be on board an aircraft”);
means for transmitting the flight data report installed on board the aircraft (see 31, transmit and receive ACARS messages); and
a station for collecting the flight data report on a ground (see ground station, 31), comprising:
a computer configured for calculating a cost index (see cost criterion, 21, anticipated to be calculated by computing mechanism would be inherent here), and
a choice of a means for transmitting the flight data report and its content according to the
value of the cost index (see 37, “The selection means 130 retrieve from the database 140, from the profile identifier P, the list of corresponding preference ranks. The transmission medium having the highest preference rank is first selected. If the medium in question is not available or if the transmission fails on this medium, the selection means can select a support of the same rank, or in the absence of next rank. The order in which media of the same rank are selected is irrelevant.”),
wherein the cost index is determined on a basis of factors comprising:
a cost of transmission of the data from the aircraft (see 39 best cost, performance ratio and rank related to communication routing and preference which it wishes to assign to the different transmission media),
and a gain associated with making available the data of the aircraft (see performance ratio, 39).
Stephane does not explicitly disclose a computer however in analogous art Green explicitly discloses, a contractual time remaining for making available the data of the aircraft (see time and contractual, col. 8, lines 5-15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Stephane with that Green. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Stephane and Green do not explicitly disclose, however, Esimai discloses a time of transmission of the data from the aircraft (see [0047], see coordinates and other information associated with time of transmission of aircraft)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Stephane/Green with that Esimai. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 7, Stephane discloses a method for collecting and transmitting a flight data
report of an aircraft comprising at least one data acquisition unit installed on board the aircraft,
means for transmitting the flight data report installed on board the aircraft and a station for
collecting the flight data report on a ground, comprising:
determining, with a processor computer, a calculation of a cost index (see cost criterion, 21, anticipated to be calculated by computing mechanism would be inherent here) for optimizing the
choice of the means for transmitting the flight data report and its content according to the value of
the cost index (see 37, “The selection means 130 retrieve from the database 140, from the profile identifier P, the list of corresponding preference ranks. The transmission medium having the highest preference rank is first selected. If the medium in question is not available or if the transmission fails on this medium, the selection means can select a support of the same rank, or in the absence of next rank. The order in which media of the same rank are selected is irrelevant.”); and
sending, when necessary, the optimized data report from the aircraft to the station for
collecting data on the ground (see ground station, 31),
wherein the cost index is determined on a basis of factors comprising:
a cost of transmission of the data from the aircraft (see 39 best cost, performance ratio and rank related to communication routing and preference which it wishes to assign to the different transmission media),
a gain associated with making available the data of the aircraft (see performance ratio, 39).
Stephane does not explicitly disclose a computer however in analogous art Green explicitly discloses, a contractual time remaining for making available the data of the aircraft (see time and contractual, col. 8, lines 5-15)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Stephane with that Green. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Stephane and Green do not explicitly disclose however Esimai discloses a time of transmission of the data from the aircraft (see [0047], see coordinates and other information associated with time of transmission of aircraft)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Stephane/Green with that Esimai. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 2, Stephane in view of Green and Esimai disclosed the architecture according to claim 1, further comprising: means for bidirectional transmission of data between engines of the aircraft (see 31, transmit and receive ACARS messages, defined in the Arinc 633 standard).
Regarding claim 3, Stephane in view of Green and Esimai disclosed the architecture according to claim 1, wherein the means for transmitting the data report are units configured to send the flight data report by various communication channels and protocols (see various protocols and channels in 23)
Regarding claim 4, Stephane in view of Green and Esimai disclosed the architecture according to claim 1, wherein the aircraft further comprises a unit for collecting messages coming from the station for collecting data on the ground, wherein the station for collecting data on the ground comprises means for sending
a message to the unit for collecting messages of the aircraft in order to ask to receive more data
from the aircraft (see 8, “the ACARS system makes it possible to transmit data between an aircraft and a ground station, in particular to exchange Aeronautical Operational Control (AOC) type information” and/or 31 “communicate with ground installations through ACARS messages”).
Regarding claim 8, Stephane in view of Green and Esimai disclosed the method according to claim 7, further comprising requesting sending of additional data from the aircraft, the request being received by a unit for collecting messages coming from the ground placed in the aircraft and the request coming from means for sending a message to the unit for collecting messages of the aircraft, means placed in
the station for collecting data on the ground (see 8, “the ACARS system makes it possible to transmit data between an aircraft and a ground station, in particular to exchange Aeronautical Operational Control (AOC) type information” and/or 31 “communicate with ground installations through ACARS messages”)).
Regarding claim 10, Stephane in view of Green and Esimai disclose the method according to claim 7,
Stephane does not however Green best discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium with computer executable instructions stored thereon, executed by a processor computer to perform the method according to claim 7 (see non-transitory computer readable medium, claim 3);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Stephane with that Green. Doing so would conform to well-known standards in the field of invention.
Regarding claim 11, Stephane in view of Green and Esimai disclosed the architecture according to claim 1, wherein the means for transmitting the flight data report are chosen from a satellite link and a Wi-Fi network (see 33, SATCOM and WiFi).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
