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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-10 recite a system/ machine, therefore claims 1-10 are a system/ machine which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 11-20 recite a series of steps, therefore claims 11-20 are a method/process which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
A system for displaying taxi information on an aircraft, the system comprising:
a display device;
a database including taxiing route data, the taxiing route data comprising a plurality of taxiing routes associated with taxiways and runways at an airport;
a communication system configured to receive the taxiing route data from the database; and
at least one processor in operable communication with the display device and the communication system, the at least one processor configured to execute program instructions, wherein the program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to:
receive a clearance from an air traffic controller that includes an assigned taxiing route;
receive the taxiing route data from the database through the communication system;
analyze the taxiing route data to determine whether modification to the assigned taxiing route is necessary due to the assigned taxiing route being incomplete or due to an occurrence of an event that affects the assigned taxiing route;
in response to the determination that modification of the assigned taxiing route is necessary, determine possible taxiing routes from the taxiing route data based on conditions of the aircraft;
predict preferential taxiing routes specific to the aircraft from the possible taxiing routes;
generate a display for the display device including a graphical or textual depiction of one or more of the preferential taxiing routes on the display device; and
receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes.
These limitations, as drafted, is a system that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental process. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as certain mental process. For example, “analyze …” “determine …” and “predict …” encompass a human predicting preferential taxiing routes by analyzing and determining from taxiing route data whether assigned taxiing route needs to be modified in mind. Thus, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A system for displaying taxi information on an aircraft, the system comprising:
a display device;
a database including taxiing route data, the taxiing route data comprising a plurality of taxiing routes associated with taxiways and runways at an airport;
a communication system configured to receive the taxiing route data from the database; and
at least one processor in operable communication with the display device and the communication system, the at least one processor configured to execute program instructions, wherein the program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to:
receive a clearance from an air traffic controller that includes an assigned taxiing route;
receive the taxiing route data from the database through the communication system;
analyze the taxiing route data to determine whether modification to the assigned taxiing route is necessary due to the assigned taxiing route being incomplete or due to an occurrence of an event that affects the assigned taxiing route;
in response to the determination that modification of the assigned taxiing route is necessary, determine possible taxiing routes from the taxiing route data based on conditions of the aircraft;
predict preferential taxiing routes specific to the aircraft from the possible taxiing routes;
generate a display for the display device including a graphical or textual depiction of one or more of the preferential taxiing routes on the display device; and
receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using a database, a communication system, and at least one processor to perform predicting preferential taxiing routes by analyzing and determining from taxiing route data whether assigned taxiing route needs to be modified, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a general processor to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor processing predicting preferential taxiing routes by analyzing and determining from taxiing route data whether assigned taxiing route needs to be modified) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim also recites additional element of a display device, generate a display for the display device including a graphical or textual depiction of one or more of the preferential taxiing routes on the display device. This providing information or data amounts to post solution activity in a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. It merely outputs the results of the abstract idea in the determining step.
The claim also recites additional element of receive the taxiing route data from the database, receive a clearance from an air traffic controller that includes an assigned taxiing route, and receive the taxiing route data from the database through the communication system. The examiner submits that these limitations of sending signal and data are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities merely using a general computer (a database, a communication system, and at least one processor) to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic means of gathering and sending data information) such that it amounts no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim also recites additional element of receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes. The examiner submits that these limitations of receiving signal and data are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activities merely using a general computer (a database, a communication system, and at least one processor) to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic means of gathering and sending data information) such that it amounts no more than mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for predicting preferential taxiing routes by analyzing and determining from taxiing route data whether assigned taxiing route needs to be modified, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B in the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 11 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a database, a communication system, at least one processor, a display device, generate a display for the display device including a graphical or textual depiction of one or more of the preferential taxiing routes on the display device, receive the taxiing route data from the database, receive a clearance from an air traffic controller that includes an assigned taxiing route, receive the taxiing route data from the database through the communication system, and receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes to perform predicting preferential taxiing routes by analyzing and determining from taxiing route data whether assigned taxiing route needs to be modified amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of a database, a communication system, at least one processor, a display device, generate a display for the display device including a graphical or textual depiction of one or more of the preferential taxiing routes on the display device, receive the taxiing route data from the database, receive a clearance from an air traffic controller that includes an assigned taxiing route, receive the taxiing route data from the database through the communication system, and receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes for predicting preferential taxiing routes by analyzing and determining from taxiing route data whether assigned taxiing route needs to be modified, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of, receive the taxiing route data from the database, receive a clearance from an air traffic controller that includes an assigned taxiing route, receive the taxiing route data from the database through the communication system, and receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes for predicting preferential taxiing routes by analyzing and determining from taxiing route data whether assigned taxiing route needs to be modified are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “receive …,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
The additional limitation of generate a display for the display device including a graphical or textual depiction of one or more of the preferential taxiing routes on the display device is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the providing (i.e., displaying) step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Dependent claims 2-10 and, 12-20 specify limitations that elaborate on the abstract idea of claims 1 and 11 and thus is directed to an abstract idea nor does it recite additional limitations that integrate the claim into a practical application or amount to “significantly more” for similar reasons.
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 1-2, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilek et al. (US 20130103297, hereinafter Bilek, already of record from IDS) in view of ALONSO (US 20170148333, hereinafter ALONSO).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Bilek discloses a system and a method for displaying taxi information on an aircraft, the system and the method comprising (See at least Bilek: Fig. 1; Abstract):
a display device;
a database including taxiing route data, the taxiing route data comprising a plurality of taxiing routes associated with taxiways and runways at an airport;
a communication system configured to receive the taxiing route data from the database (See at least Bilek: Fig. 1, display device 102, data storage element 118, communications system 110; Para. 0020, 0024); and
at least one processor in operable communication with the display device and the communication system, the at least one processor configured to execute program instructions, wherein the program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to (See at least Bilek: Fig. 1, processing system 106, communications system 110, display device 102; Para. 0048):
receive a clearance from an air traffic controller that includes an assigned taxiing route (See at least Bilek: Para. 0026);
receive the taxiing route data from the database through the communication system (See at least Bilek: Para. 0024, 0026);
analyze the taxiing route data to determine whether modification to the assigned taxiing route is necessary due to the assigned taxiing route being incomplete or due to an occurrence of an event that affects the assigned taxiing route (See at least Bilek: Para. 0026, 0028);
in response to the determination that modification of the assigned taxiing route is necessary, determine possible taxiing routes from the taxiing route data based on conditions of the aircraft (See at least Bilek: Para. 0026, 0028, 0031);
predict preferential taxiing routes specific to the aircraft from the possible taxiing routes (See at least Bilek: Para. 0032);
generate a display for the display device including a graphical or textual depiction of one or more of the preferential taxiing routes on the display device (See at least Bilek: Para. 0032); and …
Although Bilek already discloses displaying preferential taxiing routes on the display device, Bilek does not explicitly disclose:
receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, ALONSO teaches:
receive user input indicating a selected taxiing route from among the one or more of the preferential taxiing routes (See at least ALONSO: Para. 0106).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying user selectable taxiing routes of ALONSO to the system and the method in Bilek would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would improve user experience by involving use’s interaction with the display device.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the database includes standardized taxiing routes (See at least Bilek: Para. 0020, standardized taxiing routes information).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the processor is further configured to dynamically predict the preferential taxiing routes from the possible taxiing routes based on past, recent, and present conditions stored in the taxiing route data (See at least Bilek: Para. 0026, dynamically predict to ensure taxi path information is up to date, it is obvious for a skill in the art to gather information from past, recent, and present; Para. 0028; Para. 0032, preferential taxiing routes from the possible taxiing routes).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the database includes data sets that each include start locations, destination locations, cleared taxiways, and hold shorts (See at least Bilek: Para. 0020, regular information of an airport for a skill in the art).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the possible taxiing routes from the taxiing routes of the taxiing routes data based on conditions of the aircraft that include a position of the aircraft, a heading of the aircraft, and a ground speed of the aircraft (See at least Bilek: Para. 0022, 0029, ground speed of aircraft is a common data associated with aircraft for a skill in the art).
Claim(s) 3, 7, 13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Gannon et al. (US 20160140855, hereinafter Gannon, already of record from IDS).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11.
Although Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches database of taxiing routes, Bilek in combination with ALONSO does not explicitly teach:
wherein the database includes historical taxiing routes of the aircraft and other aircraft.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Gannon teaches:
wherein the database includes historical taxiing routes of the aircraft and other aircraft (See at least Gannon: Para. 0031).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying historical taxiing routes of Gannon to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would provide historical reference information that users can look up to.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11.
Yet, Bilek in combination with ALONSO does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is further configured to store the selected taxiing route in the database.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Gannon teaches:
wherein the processor is further configured to store the selected taxiing route in the database (See at least Gannon: Para. 0031, the most frequently used taxi clearance is maintained in the data storage element).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying storing the selected taxiing route in the database of Gannon to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would provide quick reference information to save time and effort.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of COSTAS et al. (US 20240105069, hereinafter COSTAS).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11.
Yet, Bilek in combination with ALONSO does not explicitly teach:
wherein the database includes Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, COSTAS teaches:
wherein the database includes Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) data (See at least COSTAS: Para. 0037).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying ADS-B data of COSTAS to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would be able to receive data from varies sources.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Oliveira et al. (US 20210103860, hereinafter Oliveira).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11.
Yet, Bilek in combination with ALONSO does not explicitly teach:
wherein the database includes NOtice To AirMen (NOTAM) data.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, Oliveira teaches:
wherein the database includes NOtice To AirMen (NOTAM) data (See at least Oliveira: Para. 0062).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying NOTAM data of Oliveira to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would be able to receive data from varies sources.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bilek in view of ALONSO as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of SHORTER et al. (US 20160125741, hereinafter SHORTER).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches the system and the method of claims 1 and 11. Bilek further discloses:
wherein the taxiing routes in the taxiing routes data are ranked by algorithm with predefined weight factors and the processor is configured to generate the display for the display device (See at least Bilek: Para. 0036)…
Although Bilek in combination with ALONSO teaches to generate the display for the display device, Bilek in combination with ALONSO does not explicitly teach:
to include a visual element configured to be selectable to override the predefined weight factors for pilot customization.
However, in the similar field of endeavor, SHORTER teaches:
to include a visual element configured to be selectable to override the predefined weight factors for pilot customization (See at least SHORTER: Para. 0079).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying pilot customization of SHORTER to the system and the method in Bilek in combination with ALONSO would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system that would improve user experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUFENG ZHANG whose telephone number is (469)295-9231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7am-3pm CT.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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.
YUFENG ZHANG
Examiner
Art Unit 3663B
/YUFENG ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights