89,139DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on November 30, 2022. Claims 1 – 20 are pending and examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 30, 2022 has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method of generating alerts corresponding to aircraft performance data within a region of a first aircraft (i.e., a process). Claim 9 is a computer program product. Claim 16 is a device / system claim with instructions executed by a processor (i.e. an article of manufacture). Therefore, claims 1, 9, and 16 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, 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. See MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
A claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitation(s).
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method for local transmission of aircraft acquired data between airborne aircraft, the method comprising:
generating, by one or more processors of a first aircraft, sensor data and aircraft performance data during flight;
pre-processing, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, the sensor data and performance data generating a context of the sensor data with respect to the first aircraft [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, pre-processed sensor data and first aircraft performance data to a set of aircraft within a region of the first aircraft;
receiving, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, pre-processed sensor data and aircraft performance data from aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft;
processing, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, the received pre-processed sensor data and performance data from the aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
generating, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, alerts associated with adverse conditions determined based on the analysis of the pre-processed sensor data and performance data received from the aircraft of the set of aircraft in the context of the aircraft performance data of the first aircraft [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)]; and
displaying, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, the alerts associated with the adverse conditions in the context of the first aircraft including a description of the adverse conditions. [Recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
For example, “generating a context of the sensor data…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person(s) acquiring and/or querying empirical based observation of first aircraft data; subsequently “processing… performance data from the aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region…” wherein person(s) acquiring consider and manipulate compilations of the empirical observation from the first aircraft data; “generate… alerts associated with adverse conditions…”, wherein upon considering the ramifications of the performance data from the aircraft in the region of the first aircraft respective to how this performance data may affect the first aircraft person(s) produce a warning notification so that the first aircraft may mitigate and/or eliminate any unfavorable ~ “adverse” ~ conditions. These “generated alerts” ~ warning notifications can then be outputted to the display of the person(s) internal vision receptors or internal visualizations of the such ~ i.e. “the display screens of the human eye(s)”. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II 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 idea 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 (application) activity and post-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 computer-implemented method for local transmission of aircraft acquired data between airborne aircraft, the method comprising:
generating, by one or more processors of a first aircraft [general purpose computer (performs limitations, but amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the Exception)], sensor data and aircraft performance data during flight [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
pre-processing, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft [general purpose computer (performs limitations, but amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the Exception)], the sensor data and performance data generating a context of the sensor data with respect to the first aircraft [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft [general purpose computer (performs limitations, but amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the Exception)], pre-processed sensor data and first aircraft performance data to a set of aircraft within a region of the first aircraft [post-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
receiving, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft [general purpose computer (performs limitations, but amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the Exception)], pre-processed sensor data and aircraft performance data from aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft [post-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
processing, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft [general purpose computer (performs limitations, but amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the Exception)], the received pre-processed sensor data and performance data from the aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)];
generating, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft [general purpose computer (performs limitations, but amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the Exception)], alerts associated with adverse conditions determined based on the analysis of the pre-processed sensor data and performance data received from the aircraft of the set of aircraft in the context of the aircraft performance data of the first aircraft [recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)]; and
displaying, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft [general purpose computer (performs limitations, but amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the Exception)], the alerts associated with the adverse conditions in the context of the first aircraft including a description of the adverse conditions. [Recites an abstract idea belonging to the grouping of mental processes. (Observation, Evaluation, Judgement, Opinion) established by performing in the human mind(s); or by human(s) conceptualizing, representing, or visualizing using a pen and paper; or through thoughtful discussion and collaboration with several human(s)].
For the following reasons, 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 “generating… sensor data” only requires acquisition of aircraft flight and/or weather data from conventional sensors, “receiving…” means acquiring, aircraft performance data and “transmitting…” may mean relaying and/or communicating aircraft flight and/or weather data. Furthermore, “displaying….“ can fundamentally mean outputting (specifically, i.e., displays, visually marks, prints, publishes, visualizes or transmits) as the result of the mental process) using generic sensors, but nevertheless does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. the claimed processor) to perform the process.
In particular, the receiving steps from the sensors and from the external source are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering aircraft flight and/or weather data for further computations or data manipulation, characterized as determining (evaluating) and then predicting (evaluating ~ estimating); amounting to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the execution of the instructions by the ”processor” is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of forecasting information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution (application) activity and post-solution activity that merely comprise an insignificant application of the results of acquiring data from generic / conventional sensors and computer components. Lastly, the “vehicle controller” (i.e. the one or more processors) merely describes applying the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations 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 of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply, or 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 limitations do NOT integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
35 U.S.C. § 101 – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 using a vehicle processor (computer) controller to perform the “generating a context of the sensor data…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person(s) acquiring and/or querying empirical based observation of first aircraft data; subsequently “processing… performance data from the aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region…” wherein person(s) acquiring consider and manipulate compilations of the empirical observation from the first aircraft data; “generate… alerts associated with adverse conditions…”, wherein upon considering the ramifications of the performance data from the aircraft in the region of the first aircraft respective to how this performance data may affect the first aircraft person(s) produce a warning notification so that the first aircraft may mitigate and/or eliminate any unfavorable ~ “adverse” ~ conditions. These “generated alerts” ~ warning notifications can then be outputted to the display of the person(s) internal vision receptors or internal visualizations of the such ~ i.e. “the display screens of the human eye(s)”… amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component and performing insignificant application of the results of the mental process. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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.
Using additional sensors and using generic computers to perform determining and calculating steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of automating a mental process, because the background recites conventional sensors and the vehicle controller is a conventional computer within a vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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.
Regarding claim 9, the claim does not satisfy the STEP 1 requirement of the 2019 PEG because they are directed toward computer readable storage medium and are not limited to non-transitory embodiments. Claim 9 encompasses transitory embodiments of machine readable medium, such as applicant’s claimed computer readable storage medium, have been held to not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”). The claims may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter because the specification supports a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory embodiment.
Dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 - 20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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, it can clearly be seen that dependent claims 2 – 8, 10 – 15, and 17 - 20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 16.
Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 – 4, 6, 9 – 12, 14, and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 10,585,189 B1 to DOVE et al. (herein after "Dove”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0304314 A1 to HOCHWARTH et al. (herein after "Hochwarth").
(Note: Claim language is in bold typeface, and the Examiner’s comments and cited passages from the prior art reference(s) are in normal typeface.)
As to Claim 1,
Dove’s aircraft air data sharing system discloses a computer-implemented method for local transmission of aircraft acquired data between airborne aircraft (see at least Fig. 2 ~ illustrates a schematic of an aircraft air data sharing exchange method,
PNG
media_image1.png
574
670
media_image1.png
Greyscale
see Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8 ~ processor 102 performs computer method of aircraft to aircraft sensor data and performance data exchange and Col. 4, Lines 39 - 42 "FIG. 4, a method for forecasting weather related threats on… an aircraft is shown... include receiving 402 meteorological data from aircraft in a self-organizing network"), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image2.png
588
296
media_image2.png
Greyscale
generating, by one or more processors of a first aircraft, sensor data and aircraft performance data during flight (see at least Fig. 1 ~ processor 102,
PNG
media_image3.png
564
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 2, 4, Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8, and Col. 4, Lines 39 - 42);
pre-processing, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, the sensor data and performance data generating a context of the sensor data with respect to the first aircraft (see at least Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8 ~ "Processor 102 may use meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 and meteorological data received from other nodes in the self-organizing network to produce a forecast of weather related threats");
transmitting, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, pre-processed sensor data and first aircraft performance data to a set of aircraft within a region of the first aircraft (see at least Fig. 2 ~ illustrates transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft ~ other nodes ~ in the region of the first aircraft ~ aircraft network and Col. 3, Lines 9 – 16 ~ transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft);
receiving, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, pre-processed sensor data and aircraft performance data from aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft (see at least Col. 3, Lines 11 - 16 ~ "each aircraft 200, 202 and 204 equipped with one or more meteorological sensors, a transmitter, a receiver and a computer transmitting and receiving meteorological data from other nodes in the network, including the other aircraft 200, 202 and 204"); and
processing, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, the received pre-processed sensor data and performance data from the aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft. (See Figs. 2, 4, Col. 3, Lines 9 - 16, and Col. 4, Lines 39 – 42).
Hochwarth’s flight management updating system is then introduced to disclose generating, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, alerts associated with adverse conditions determined based on the analysis of the pre-processed sensor data and performance data received from the aircraft of the set of aircraft in the context of the aircraft performance data of the first aircraft (see Figs. 3 – 4 ~ illustrate schematic of aircraft-to-aircraft sharing of adverse conditions in an airspace / region of one another and
PNG
media_image4.png
462
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
378
670
media_image5.png
Greyscale
see ¶0030); and displaying, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, the alerts associated with the adverse conditions in the context of the first aircraft including a description of the adverse conditions. (See Figs. 3 – 4, Fig. 5 ~ outlines a process method wherein aircraft-to-aircraft aircraft performance data sharing is processed to generate advisory alerts to subject aircraft,
PNG
media_image6.png
518
678
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Abstract ~ “A flight management system updat[es] flight calculations… along a current flight path, collecting real-time weather data from a network of aircraft operating in a nearby region” and ¶0030 ~ "The advisory module 36 of the tracking system 30 can be configured to provide… an advisory alert ( e.g. a recommended flight plan, a severe weather alert, or a turbulence event), or a change to a flight time display e.g. a reduced flight time due to the presence of tail winds, in non-limiting examples").
To that end, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dove’s aircraft air data sharing system with the alert display system, as taught by Hochwarth, to allow for alerting adverse conditions to the aircraft, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: aircraft collision avoidance and/or mitigation.
As to Claim 2,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the performance data during the flight include attributes of a respective aircraft of aircraft type, flight plan, GPS position, altitude, air speed, flight direction, aircraft weight, aircraft cargo, fuel level, subsystem status, and aircraft status within the flight plan. (See Col. 2, Lines 54 – 59; Dove ~ aircraft flight attribute data is acquired via sensors within the flight plan).
As to Claim 3,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein generating, by the one or more processors, the alerts associated with the adverse conditions includes generating options of actions (see ¶0030 and ¶0039; Hochwarth ~ "The pilot can select a desired trajectory from the list, including based on an automatically-generated recommendation from the trajectory module 34, advisory module 36, or the cost module 38"; thereby teaching displaying / visualizing alerts to pilots wherein the options are ranked according to risks with performing the options) to
mitigate the adverse conditions and presenting the options to a crew of the first aircraft while displaying the alerts. (See Fig. 2; Dove ~ illustrates transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft ~ other nodes ~ in the region of the first aircraft ~ aircraft network, Col. 3, Lines 9 – 16; Dove ~ transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft, and Col. 3, Lines 4 – 8; Dove ~ "Processor 102 may use meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 and meteorological data received from other nodes in the self-organizing network to produce a forecast of weather related threats"; thereby teaching wherein crew of the first aircraft is informed of adverse conditions in the immediate region of the first aircraft).
As to Claim 4,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the method of claim 3,
wherein generating the options of actions to mitigate the adverse conditions includes ranking the options in a recommended order based on risk associated with performing the option. (See ¶0030 and ¶0039; Hochwarth ~ "The pilot can select a desired trajectory from the list, including based on an automatically-generated recommendation from the trajectory module 34, advisory module 36, or the cost module 38"; thereby teaching displaying / visualizing alerts to pilots wherein the options are ranked according to risks with performing the options).
As to Claim 6,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the sensor data collected includes weather-based sensor data. (See Fig. 4 and Col. 4, Lines 39 – 42; Dove).
As to Claim 9,
Dove discloses a computer program product for local transmission of aircraft acquired data between airborne aircraft (see Fig. 1 ~ processor 102 and Col. 2, Lines 61 - 64 ~ "processor 102 may execute computer code to transmit meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 through the transmitter 106 to other nodes. In the network"), the computer program product comprising:
at least one computer-readable storage medium (see Fig. 1 ~ memory 104); and program instructions stored on the at least one computer-readable storage medium (see Fig. 1), the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to generate sensor data and aircraft performance data during flight (see Fig. 1 ~ processor 102, Figs. 2, 4, Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8, and Col. 4, Lines 39 – 42);
program instructions to pre-process the sensor data and performance data generating a context of the sensor data with respect to the first aircraft (see Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8 ~ "Processor 102 may use meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 and meteorological data received from other nodes in the self-organizing network to produce a forecast of weather related threats");
program instructions to transmit pre-processed sensor data and first aircraft performance data to a set of aircraft within a region of the first aircraft (see Fig. 2 ~ illustrates transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft ~ other nodes ~ in the region of the first aircraft ~ aircraft network and Col. 3, Lines 9 – 16 ~ transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft);
program instructions to receive pre-processed sensor data and aircraft performance data from aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft (see Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8 ~ "Processor 102 may use meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 and meteorological data received from other nodes in the self-organizing network to produce a forecast of weather related threats"); and
program instructions to process the received pre-processed sensor data and performance data from the aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft. (See Col. 3, Lines 11 - 16 ~ "each aircraft 200, 202 and 204 equipped with one or more meteorological sensors, a transmitter, a receiver and a computer transmitting and receiving meteorological data from other nodes in the network, including the other aircraft 200, 202 and 204").
Hochwarth is then relied upon to disclose program instructions to generate alerts associated with adverse conditions determined based on the analysis of the pre-processed sensor data and performance data received from the aircraft of the set of aircraft in the context of the aircraft performance data of the first aircraft (see Figs. 3 – 4 ~ illustrate schematic of aircraft-to-aircraft sharing of adverse conditions in an airspace / region of one another and ¶0030); and program instructions to display the alerts associated with the adverse conditions in the context of the first aircraft and include a description of the adverse conditions. (See Figs. 3 - 4, Fig. 5 ~ outlines a process method wherein aircraft-to-aircraft aircraft performance data sharing is processed to generate advisory alerts to subject aircraft, Abstract ~ “A flight management system updat[es] flight calculations… along a current flight path, collecting real-time weather data from a network of aircraft operating in a nearby region”, and ¶0030 ~ "The advisory module 36 of the tracking system 30 can be configured to provide… an advisory alert ( e.g. a recommended flight plan, a severe weather alert, or a turbulence event), or a change to a flight time display e.g. a reduced flight time due to the presence of tail winds, in non-limiting examples").
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dove’s aircraft air data sharing system with the alert display system, as taught by Hochwarth, to allow for alerting adverse conditions to the aircraft, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: aircraft collision avoidance and/or mitigation.
As to Claim 10,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the computer program product of claim 9,
wherein the performance data during the flight include attributes of a respective aircraft of aircraft type, flight plan, GPS position, altitude, air speed, flight direction, aircraft weight, aircraft cargo, fuel level, subsystem status, and aircraft status within the flight plan. (See Col. 2, Lines 54 – 59; Dove ~ aircraft flight attribute data is acquired via sensors within the flight plan).
As to Claim 11,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the computer program product of claim 9,
wherein program instructions to generate the alerts associated with the adverse conditions includes program instructions to
generate options of actions to mitigate the adverse conditions and
present the options to a crew of the first aircraft (see Fig. 2; Dove ~ illustrates transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft ~ other nodes ~ in the region of the first aircraft ~ aircraft network, Col. 3, Lines 9 – 16; Dove ~ transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft, and Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8; Dove ~ "Processor 102 may use meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 and meteorological data received from other nodes in the self-organizing network to produce a forecast of weather related threats"; thereby teaching wherein crew of the first aircraft is informed of adverse conditions in the immediate region of the first aircraft) while displaying the alerts. (See ¶0030 and ¶0039; Hochwarth ~ "The pilot can select a desired trajectory from the list, including based on an automatically-generated recommendation from the trajectory module 34, advisory module 36, or the cost module 38"; thereby teaching displaying / visualizing alerts to pilots wherein the options are ranked according to risks with performing the options).
As to Claim 12,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the computer program product of claim 11,
wherein program instructions to generate the options of actions to mitigate the adverse conditions includes ranking the options in a recommended order based on risk associated with performing the option. (See ¶0030 and ¶0039; Hochwarth ~ "The pilot can select a desired trajectory from the list, including based on an automatically-generated recommendation from the trajectory module 34, advisory module 36, or the cost module 38"; thereby teaching displaying / visualizing alerts to pilots wherein the options are ranked according to risks with performing the options).
As to Claim 14,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the computer program product of claim 9,
wherein the sensor data collected includes weather-based sensor data. (See Fig. 4 and Col. 4, Lines 39 – 42; Dove).
As to Claim 16,
Dove discloses a computer system for local transmission of aircraft acquired data between airborne aircraft (see Fig. 1 and Col. 2, Lines 61 - 64 ~ "processor 102 may execute computer code to transmit meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 through the transmitter 106 to other nodes. In the network"), the computer program product comprising:
one or more computer processors (see Fig. 1 ~ processor 102);
at least one computer-readable storage medium (see Fig. 1 ~ memory 104); and program instructions stored on the at least one computer-readable storage medium (see Fig. 1), the program instructions comprising:
program instructions to generate sensor data and aircraft performance data during flight (see Fig. 1 ~ processor 102, Figs. 2, 4, Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8, and Col. 4, Lines 39 – 42);
program instructions to pre-process the sensor data and performance data generating a context of the sensor data with respect to the first aircraft (see Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8 ~ "Processor 102 may use meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 and meteorological data received from other nodes in the self-organizing network to produce a forecast of weather related threats");
program instructions to transmit pre-processed sensor data and first aircraft performance data to a set of aircraft within a region of the first aircraft (see Fig. 2 ~ illustrates transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft ~ other nodes ~ in the region of the first aircraft ~ aircraft network and Col. 3, Lines 9 – 16 ~ transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft);
program instructions to receive pre-processed sensor data and aircraft performance data from aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft (see Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8 ~ "Processor 102 may use meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 and meteorological data received from other nodes in the self-organizing network to produce a forecast of weather related threats"); and
program instructions to process the received pre-processed sensor data and performance data from the aircraft of the set of aircraft within the region of the first aircraft. (See Col. 3, Lines 11 - 16 ~ "each aircraft 200, 202 and 204 equipped with one or more meteorological sensors, a transmitter, a receiver and a computer transmitting and receiving meteorological data from other nodes in the network, including the other aircraft 200, 202 and 204").
As shown above, Dove teaches a meteorological data sharing method between aircraft in a network with one another (see Figs. 1 – 4 and Col. 2, Lines 61 – 61; Dove), but is silent in explicitly disclosing program instructions to generate alerts associated with adverse conditions determined based on the analysis of the pre-processed sensor data and performance data received from the aircraft of the set of aircraft in the context of the aircraft performance data of the first aircraft; and
displaying, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, the alerts associated with the adverse conditions in the context of the first aircraft including a description of the adverse conditions.
On the other hand, Hochwarth discloses program instructions to generate alerts associated with adverse conditions determined based on the analysis of the pre-processed sensor data and performance data received from the aircraft of the set of aircraft in the context of the aircraft performance data of the first aircraft (see Figs. 3 – 4 ~ illustrate schematic of aircraft-to-aircraft sharing of adverse conditions in an airspace / region of one another and ¶0030); and displaying, by the one or more processors of the first aircraft, the alerts associated with the adverse conditions in the context of the first aircraft including a description of the adverse conditions. (See Figs. 3 - 4, Fig. 5 ~ outlines a process method wherein aircraft-to-aircraft aircraft performance data sharing is processed to generate advisory alerts to subject aircraft, Abstract ~ “A flight management system updat[es] flight calculations… along a current flight path, collecting real-time weather data from a network of aircraft operating in a nearby region”, and ¶0030 ~ "The advisory module 36 of the tracking system 30 can be configured to provide… an advisory alert ( e.g. a recommended flight plan, a severe weather alert, or a turbulence event), or a change to a flight time display e.g. a reduced flight time due to the presence of tail winds, in non-limiting examples").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dove’s aircraft air data sharing system with the alert display system, as taught by Hochwarth, to allow for alerting adverse conditions to the aircraft, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: aircraft collision avoidance and/or mitigation.
As to Claim 17,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the computer system of claim 16,
wherein the performance data during the flight include attributes of a respective aircraft of aircraft type, flight plan, GPS position, altitude, air speed, flight direction, aircraft weight, aircraft cargo, fuel level, subsystem status, and aircraft status within the flight plan (see Col. 2, Lines 54 – 59; Dove ~ aircraft flight attribute data is acquired via sensors within the flight plan), and
wherein program instructions to generate the alerts associated with the adverse conditions include program instructions to
generate options of actions to mitigate the adverse conditions and communicating the options to a crew of the first aircraft. (See Figs. 3 - 4, Fig. 5, ¶0030, and Abstract; Hochwarth).
As to Claim 18,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the computer system of claim 16,
wherein program instructions to generate options of actions to
mitigate the adverse conditions and presenting the options to a crew of the first aircraft (see Fig. 2; Dove ~ illustrates transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft ~ other nodes ~ in the region of the first aircraft ~ aircraft network, Col. 3, Lines 9 – 16; Dove ~ transmitting sensor data and first aircraft performance data to other aircraft, and Col. 3, Lines 4 - 8; Dove ~ "Processor 102 may use meteorological data produced by the plurality of meteorological data sensors 110 and 112 and meteorological data received from other nodes in the self-organizing network to produce a forecast of weather related threats"; thereby teaching wherein crew of the first aircraft is informed of adverse conditions in the immediate region of the first aircraft)
while displaying the alerts and wherein the program instructions include ranking the options in a recommended order based on risk associated with performing the option. (See ¶0030 and ¶0039; Hochwarth ~ "The pilot can select a desired trajectory from the list, including based on an automatically-generated recommendation from the trajectory module 34, advisory module 36, or the cost module 38"; thereby teaching displaying / visualizing alerts to pilots wherein the options are ranked according to risks with performing the options).
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 10,585,189 B1 to DOVE et al. (herein after "Dove”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0304314 A1 to HOCHWARTH et al. (herein after "Hochwarth") as to claims 1 and 9 respectively above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 8,344,933 B1 to Kronfeld et al. (herein after "Kronfeld").
As to Claim 7,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Dove/Hochwarth does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensor data collected includes detection of objects within or approaching the flight path of the first aircraft.
Kronfeld’s aircraft communication system, on the other hand, discloses wherein the sensor data collected includes detection of objects within or approaching the flight path of the first aircraft. (See Col. 4, Lines 1 – 14; Kronfeld ~ regarding collision avoidance systems comprising radar system 30 which detects objects within or approaching the flight path of aircraft 10 (a first aircraft)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide Dove’s aircraft air data sharing system with the object detection system, as taught by Kronfeld, to allow for alerting aircraft of adverse conditions comprising inbound airborne obstacles, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: aircraft collision avoidance and/or mitigation.
As to Claim 15,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the computer program product of claim 9.
Conversely, Kronfeld is relied upon to disclose wherein the sensor data collected includes detection of objects within or approaching the flight path of the first aircraft. (See Col. 4, Lines 1 - 14 ~ regarding collision avoidance systems comprising radar system 30 which detects objects within or approaching the flight path of aircraft 10 (a first aircraft)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide Dove’s aircraft air data sharing system with the object detection system, as taught by Kronfeld, to allow for alerting aircraft of adverse conditions comprising inbound airborne obstacles, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: aircraft collision avoidance and/or mitigation.
As to Claim 20,
Dove/Hochwarth substantially discloses the computer program product of claim 9.
As shown above, Dove/Hochwarth discloses a computer-implemented method for local transmission of aircraft acquired data between airborne aircraft (see at least Fig. 2, Col. 3, Lines 4 – 8, and Col. 4, Lines 39 – 42; Dove), but is silent in disclosing
wherein the sensor data collected includes detection of objects within or approaching the flight path of the first aircraft.
Conversely, Kronfeld discloses wherein the sensor data collected includes detection of objects within or approaching the flight path of the first aircraft. (See Kronfeld teaches in Col. 9, Lines 52-55 ~ a "communication network formed by the aircraft communicating using radar systems 30 may be an effective means of sharing remotely sensed turbulence information between aircraft flying en-route", Col. 7, Lines 9-14 ~ "To transmit the weather-related data, airborne radar system 30 is modified with a data transmission protocol to transmit and receive data... used by... traffic collision and avoidance systems (TCAS)", and Col. 4, Lines 5 - 14 ~ regarding collision avoidance systems comprising radar system 30 which detects objects within or approaching the flight path of aircraft 10 (a first aircraft)).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further provide Dove’s aircraft air data sharing system with the object detection system, as taught by Kronfeld, to allow for alerting aircraft of adverse conditions comprising inbound airborne obstacles, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: aircraft collision avoidance and/or mitigation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. US 10,585,189 B1 to DOVE et al. (herein after "Dove”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2019/0304314 A1 to HOCHWARTH et al. (herein after "Hochwarth"), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 8,344,933 B1 to Kronfeld et al. (herein after "Kronfeld") as to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. US 10,242,577 B2 to GHAROTE et al. (herein after "Gharote").
As to Claim 8,
Dove/Hochwarth/Kronfeld substantially discloses the method of claim 7.
As shown above, Dove/Hochwarth/Kronfeld discloses a computer-implemented method for local transmission of aircraft acquired data between airborne aircraft (see at least Fig. 2, Col. 3, Lines 4 – 8, and Col. 4, Lines 39 – 42; Dove), but is silent in disclosing
wherein the detection of objects within or approaching a flight path of the first aircraft includes detection of one or more birds.
On the contrary, Gharote discloses wherein the detection of objects within or approaching a flight path of the first aircraft includes detection of one or more birds. (See Col. 5, Lines 11-15 ~ "The pilot of aircraft 32 may choose to display the location of potential.... bird strike hazards received in the data stream through X-band radio… or avian radar system", Col. 7, Lines 29 - 31 and 47 - 50 ~ "Data conversion unit 202 may receive information... converting... data related to... bird flocks", and Col. 10, Lines 27-40 "Display unit 304.... presents... representation of the alert signal may include a graphical overlay... location of potential... bird strike hazards").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Dove/Kronfeld’s aircraft-to-aircraft obstacle detection sharing system with the bird strike detection system, as taught by Gharote, to allow for alerting aircraft of adverse conditions comprising potential avian / bird strike hazards, thereby enabling benefits, including but not limited to: aircraft collision avoidance and/or mitigation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are 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.
In particular, the available prior art appears to be silent in disclosing the computer program product of claim 9, further comprising:
program instructions to receive the pre-processed sensor data and performance data from the aircraft of the set of aircraft in the region,
by a machine learning model onboard the first aircraft that performs a post-processing analysis to
determine a relevance of the received pre- processed sensor data and
the aircraft performance data in the context of attributes and performance data of the first aircraft.
The prior art does not appear to explicitly teach or disclose the above recited claim limitations.
To that end and although further search and consideration would always need to be performed based upon any submitted amendments by the Applicant, it is the Examiner’s position that incorporating these above recited claim limitations into independent claims 1, 9, and 16 might possibly advance prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L. REDHEAD, JR. whose telephone number is (571) 272 - 6952. The Examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Thursday, between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. at (571) 270 – 7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/ASHLEY L REDHEAD JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661