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 .
The current application filed on Nov. 15, 2022.
Appeal Brief
A conference for the Appeal Brief filed on 10/03/2025 had been held with SPE-Jelani Smith, RQAS- Genna Mott and Examiner: Nga X. Nguyen. Applicant's Appeal Brief’s Arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for allowance. The rejection is updated as shown below.
Appellant’s arguments have been considered; however, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained. Additionally, the Board has determined that the subject matter of claims 1–20 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, prosecution is reopened to enter a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See below for a detailed explanation of the new ground of rejection.
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 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims shown:
Claim 1. An avionics device configured to be coupled to a vehicle, the avionics device comprising: at least one processor; a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store a Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) interface application, wherein when executed by the at least one processor, the CPDLC interface application causes the at least one processor to:
gather data corresponding to at least one task required for establishing a CPDLC session;
generate a task list including at least one task label that respectively corresponds to each of the at least one task; and
a human-machine interface comprising a display screen coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the human- machine interface to display, on a portion of the display screen, the task list.
Claim 9. A method for processing pre-flight tasks to establish a Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) connection, comprising:
gathering data corresponding to a plurality of tasks required for establishing a CPDLC session;
determining at least one task of the plurality of tasks that has been completed based on data acquired from one or more systems on a vehicle;
generating a task list including at least one task label corresponding to each remaining task of the plurality of tasks that has yet to be completed; and
displaying, on a portion of a display screen of an avionics device coupled to the vehicle, the generated task list.
Claim 15. An avionics device configured to be coupled to a vehicle, the avionics device comprising: at least one processor; a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store a Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) interface application, wherein when executed by the at least one processor, the CPDLC interface application causes the at least one processor to:
gather data corresponding to a plurality of tasks required for accessing a CPDLC session;
determine at least one task of the plurality of tasks that has been completed based on data acquired from one or more systems on the vehicle;
generate a task list including at least one task label corresponding to each remaining task of the plurality of tasks that has yet to be completed; and
a human-machine interface comprising a display screen coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the human-machine interface is configured to display, on a portion of the display screen, the task list.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claims recite an avionics device having at least one component and a method comprising at least one step. The claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes.
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claims recite limitations for gathering data, determining the data, generating a task list, and displaying the task list on a portion of a display screen. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations describe a process that can be performed entirely within the human mind, but for the recitation of an 'avionics device' comprising a 'processor' and a 'memory.' Aside from this nominal recitation of hardware, nothing in the claim elements precludes these steps from being performed mentally. For instance, but for the 'avionics device' language, the claim would encompass a person observing data and forming simple judgments. Such nominal recitation of generic computer components does not transform these limitations from a mental process into patent-eligible subject matter.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application – No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims recite additional elements of a human-machine interface (HMI) comprising a display screen coupled to at least one processor. This HMI is configured to display the task list on a portion of the screen; however, this function is recited at a high level of generality as a generic means of displaying results from the gathering, determining, and generating steps. This recitation amounts to mere post-solution activity, which constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. The 'avionics device'—including a generic processor, memory, and display screen—merely describes a general 'application' of an otherwise mental process using standard computer components. Because these components are recited at a high level of generality and perform only post-solution display functions, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept – No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the gathering, determining, generating steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The application’s background recites that the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system includes may ground systems that send uplink messages and receiving downlink messages from aircraft. The messages are digital messages over a datalink referred to as the CPDLC, and the application’s claims do not provide any indication that the avionics device is anything other than a conventional generic computer’s components. 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 (as it is here). Further, 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 screen for displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims(s) 2-8, 10-14 & 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14 & 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 9 & 15
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuffin (20120079398) in view of Bosworth (20180364707).
With regard to claim 1, McGuffin discloses an avionics device configured to be coupled to a vehicle, the avionics device comprising (an Aircraft 10 comprises a functional module 26, see Fig.1, [0014]+):
at least one processor; a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store a Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) interface application, wherein when executed by the at least one processor, the CPDLC interface application (a processor connects to a storage medium 25 which comprises a memory 20, a CPDLC application 23, see [0018]-[0019]+) causes the at least one processor to:
gather data corresponding to at least one task required for establishing a CPDLC session (processor 45 receives and determines data message corresponding to request messages such as “request altitude...”; “request speed ..”; and etc. for establishing PDLC messages, see [0030]-[0033]+);
generate a task list including at least one task label that respectively corresponds to each of the at least one task (message log 22 shows a pilot the received uplink and downlink messages to the pilot, see [0018] connecting the processor 45 which generates the messages of what the pilot’s task, see [0022]) ; and
a human-machine interface comprising a display screen coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the human- machine interface to display, on a portion of the display screen (the CPDLC HMI 35 includes a set of screens used by members of an aircraft flight crew to receive and send CPDLC messages for viewing on the CPDLC HMI display 36, see [0014]-[0015]+).
McGuffin is silent about generating and displaying and labeling the task list
Bosworth a system coupled to an aircraft. The system includes an HMI display which displays and labels task list (task 1, task 2, …) with checklist verification for the aircraft performance (see Fig. 3b, [0087]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify McGuffin including displaying and labeling the task list as taught by Bosworth. The combination of McGuffin and Bosworth is an adapted system for providing information to the operator more accuracy information.
With regard to claim 2, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured: to determine that a first task of the at least one task has been completed, and in response to determining that the first task of the at least one task has been completed, to cause the human-machine interface to display an indicator correlated with a task label that corresponds to the first task, the indicator indicating that the first task has been completed (HMI displays a task list and indicates whether the task is completed, see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 3, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 2, wherein the indicator is a checkmark that is displayed next to the task label that has been completed (Fig. 3b shows a checklist with task numeric been checked or not).
With regard to claim 4, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured: to determine that a first task of the at least one task has been completed, and in response to determining that the first task of the at least one task has been completed, to remove a task label associated with the first task from the task list displayed on the display screen (the pilot enables to add, reorganize or remove certain of the display icon, see [0083]+).
With regard to claim 5, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 4, wherein the at least one task label comprises a plurality of task labels, wherein the at least one processor is configured to remove each respective task label of the plurality of tasks labels upon determining that the respective task associated with the respective task label has been completed (see [0083]-[0084]+).
With regard to claim 6, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the human-machine interface to display an indicator of a connection status between the vehicle and a ground system on the display screen (the HMI 126 provides communication status such as the aircrew automation status application 302, and etc., see [0083]+).
With regard to claim 7, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 1, wherein the at least one task label comprises: a label associated with a task for determining an origin location of the vehicle, a label associated with a task for determining a destination location for the vehicle, a label associated with a task for determining a flight identifier of the vehicle, and/or a label associated with a task for establishing a communication link with a ground system (when the pilot selects the route tab 328, the HIM displays an area map with icon 322 representing the current location along a flight path relative to its various waypoints 320, see [0086]+).
With regard to claim 8, McGuffin teaches that the avionics device of claim 1, wherein the avionics device is configured to establish the CPDLC session when the at least one processor determines that the at least one task has been completed (the HMI system 104 is to facilitate checklist monitoring and/or execution, marking item as complete, see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 9, McGuffin discloses a method for processing pre-flight tasks to establish a Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) connection, comprising: gathering data corresponding to a plurality of tasks required for establishing a CPDLC session (processor 45 receives and determines data message corresponding to request messages such as “request altitude...”; “request speed ..”; and etc. for establishing PDLC messages, see [0030]-[0033]+);
determining at least one task of the plurality of tasks that has been completed based on data acquired from one or more systems on a vehicle (the processor 45 determines if the DL messages got UL responded, see [0030], determines whether UL messages with “positive” which means the requested message (DL) from is accepted by the traffic controller, see [0030]-[0031]+);
generating communicating messages between the ground controller and aircrews (message log 22 shows a pilot the received uplink and downlink messages to the pilot, see [0018] connecting the processor 45 which generates the messages of what the pilot’s task, see [0022]); and
displaying, on a portion of a display screen of an avionics device coupled to the vehicle, messages (the CPDLC HMI 35 includes a set of screens used by members of an aircraft flight crew to receive and send CPDLC messages for viewing on the CPDLC HMI display 36, see [0014]-[0015]+).
McGuffin fails to teach generating and displaying a task list including at least one task label corresponding to each remaining task of the plurality of tasks that has yet to be completed.
Bosworth a system coupled to an aircraft. The system includes an HMI display which displays a lest of task for the aircraft performance (see Fig. 3b, [0087]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify McGuffin including displaying the task list as taught by Bosworth. The combination of McGuffin and Bosworth is an adapted system for providing information to the operator more accuracy information.
With regard to claim 10, Bosworth teaches that the method of claim 9, further comprising: determining that one of the remaining tasks has been completed; and removing a task label associated with the one of the remaining tasks from the task list displayed on the display screen in response to determining that the one of the remaining tasks has been completed (HMI displays a task list and indicates whether the task is completed, see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 11, Bosworth teaches that the method of claim 10, further comprising removing the task list from the display screen when each of the remaining tasks has been completed (Fig. 3b shows a checklist with task numeric been checked or not).
With regard to claim 12, Bosworth teaches that the method of claim 9, wherein the at least one task label comprises: a label associated with a task for determining an origin location of the vehicle, a label associated with a task for determining a destination location for the vehicle, a label associated with a task for determining a flight identifier of the vehicle, or a label associated with a task for establishing a communication link with a ground system (see [0083]-[0084]+).
With regard to claim 13, McGuffin teaches that the method of claim 9, further comprising establishing a CPDLC session upon completing each of the remaining tasks (the HMI system 104 is to facilitate checklist monitoring and/or execution, marking item as complete, see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 14, Bosworth teaches that the method of claim 9, comprising: receiving a selection of one of the remaining task labels; retrieving data of the one of the remaining tasks in response to receiving the selection of the task label; and displaying the data corresponding to the one of the remaining tasks on the display screen (when the pilot selects the procedures tab 330, the pilot reviews and monitors checklist items, and etc., see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 15, McGuffin discloses an avionics device configured to be coupled to a vehicle (an Aircraft 10 comprises a functional module 26, see Fig.1, [0014]+), the avionics device comprising:
at least one processor; a memory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to store a Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) interface application, wherein when executed by the at least one processor, the CPDLC interface application (a processor connects to a storage medium 25 which comprises a memory 20, a CPDLC application 23, see [0018]-[0019]+) causes the at least one processor to:
gather data corresponding to a plurality of tasks required for accessing a CPDLC session; determine at least one task of the plurality of tasks that has been completed based on data acquired from one or more systems on the vehicle (processor 45 receives and determines data message corresponding to request messages such as “request altitude...”; “request speed ..”; and etc. for establishing PDLC messages, see [0030]-[0033]+);
a human-machine interface comprising a display screen coupled to the at least one processor, wherein the human-machine interface is configured to display, on a portion of the display screen, the messages (the CPDLC HMI 35 includes a set of screens used by members of an aircraft flight crew to receive and send CPDLC messages for viewing on the CPDLC HMI display 36, see [0014]-[0015]+).
McGuffin fails to teach generating and displaying and labeling a task list including corresponding to each remaining task of the plurality of tasks that has yet to be completed; and
Bosworth a system coupled to an aircraft. The system includes an HMI display which displays and labels task list (task 1, task 2, …) with checklist verification for the aircraft performance (see Fig. 3b, [0087]+).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify McGuffin including displaying and labeling the task list as taught by Bosworth. The combination of McGuffin and Bosworth is an adapted system for providing information to the operator more accuracy information.
With regard to claim 16, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is configured: to determine that one of the remaining tasks has been completed, and to remove a task label associated with the one of the remaining tasks from the task list displayed on the display screen in response to determining that the one of the remaining tasks has been completed (HMI displays a task list and indicates whether the task is completed, see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 17, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is configured to remove the task list from the display screen when each of the remaining tasks has been completed (Fig. 3b shows a checklist with task numeric been checked or not).
With regard to claim 18, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 15, wherein the at least one task label comprises: a label associated with a task for determining an origin location of the vehicle, a label associated with a task for determining a destination location for the vehicle, a label associated with a task for determining a flight identifier of the vehicle, and/or a label associated with a task for establishing a communication link with a ground system (the HMI 126 provides communication status such as the aircrew automation status application 302, and etc., see [0083]+).
With regard to claim 7, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 1, wherein the at least one task label comprises: a label associated with a task for determining an origin location of the vehicle, a label associated with a task for determining a destination location for the vehicle, a label associated with a task for determining a flight identifier of the vehicle, and/or a label associated with a task for establishing a communication link with a ground system (when the pilot selects the route tab 328, the HIM displays an area map with icon 322 representing the current location along a flight path relative to its various waypoints 320, see [0086]+).
With regard to claim 19, Bosworth teaches that the avionics device of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is configured: to cause the human-machine interface to display a log-on button correlated with the task list, and to adjust a characteristic of the log-on button when each of the remaining tasks has been completed (when the pilot selects the procedures tab 330, the pilot reviews and monitors checklist items, and etc., see [0087]+).
With regard to claim 20, McGuffin teaches that the avionics device of claim 19, wherein the at least one processor is configured: to receive a selection of the log-on button after the log-on button has been adjusted, and to establish the CPDLC session in response to the selection of the log-on button (the HMI system 104 is to facilitate checklist monitoring and/or execution, marking item as complete, see [0087]+).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5217. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30AM - 2:30PM.
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, JELANI SMITH can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/NGA X NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662