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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 1-10, filed January 20, 2026, with respect to the claim objections and rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 101, and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are discussed below.
Applicant argues on pg. 2, regarding the Claim Objections presented in the previous office action, that:
“Claims 3, 10, and 17 were objected to because of minor informalities. Applicant has amended these claims herein to address the noted issues.”
In response, the examiner agrees and finds the argument persuasive. Therefore, the Claim Objections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pg. 2, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action, that:
“Applicant has amended the independent claims herein, thus rendering the outstanding rejections moot and/or addressed.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections presented in the previous office action are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on pgs. 2-3, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Amended claim 1 recites hardware/software (e.g., “a communication hub computing system… comprising a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test, a transmitter, and a computer readable media…”) programmed to perform particularly-recited operations, which takes the recitation of claim 1 out of the realm of mere mental processes or generic data manipulation and recite specific improvements in aircraft in-network telemetry data handling. Such specific recited improvements include concurrent routing of measurands to distinct target systems (e.g., the recited “persistent storage device” and “workstation”) via shared memory pointers to reduce data duplication and the amount of time it takes to route an indication of a measured value to a workstation.
The 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Memorandum on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 specifies that, under Step2A Prong One, the mental process grouping cannot be expanded in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. See 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Memorandum at 2.
As recited in amended independent claim 1, operations that cannot be practically performed in a human mind include at least “using the data signal, generating, by the telemetry decoder, a measurand associated with the system under test”, “binding the measurand to two or more outbound data streams… wherein binding the measurand to the two or more outbound data streams causes the communication hub computing system to perform concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand using shared memory”, and “generating, by the communication hub computing system, the plurality of copies of the measurand… wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in the shared memory on a source computing device, wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing…” Applicant respectfully submits that, for at least this reason, amended claim 1, as a whole, is not directed to a mental process or another abstract idea.
Nor are the above-recited operations mere extra-solution activity or generic computing elements. For example, amended claim 1 clarifies that: (1) the “telemetry decoder” generates measurands in a specific way, “using data signal”, and (2) the “data signal” is generated in a particular manner, by “causing the at least on sensor associated with a system under test to generate a data signal”, and relates to a particular type of measurand information (information “relating to operation of the system under test”). Additionally, the “data streams” are managed using a specific arrangement, which includes “a pointer to a memory location in the shared memory on a source computing device… wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing…” These elements are also not tangential to the claimed process, as a whole, as the recited transmission “to a destination computing device associated with a respective outbound data stream” could not be carried out, as recited in amended claim 1, but for the invocation of preceding operations that relate to managing the generated measurands using a shared memory location and including pointers in data streams.”
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and finds the argument not persuasive. First, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea at least in line 5 disclosing “a computer-readable medium comprising instructions.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer-readable medium includes that of propagating electrical signals. A 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection was cited in the previous office action on pg. 17 recommending amending the claim language to include “non-transitory” preceding “computer-readable medium.” It appears the applicant amended claim 15 to incorporate the limitation “non-transitory” but did not amend claim 1 to disclose the same.
Second, it appears the applicant argues the merits of the use of a “telemetry decoder” as representative of significantly more than the abstract idea. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a telemetry decoder does not include the use of a “telemeter” which is utilized so as to perform the functions of taking physical sensor measurements or environmental parameters, transmits data, and processes and/or displays the information. In fact, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “telemetry decoder” involves a general-purpose computer receiving data after the data was processed by a telemeter, wherein the use of a telemeter is not a limitation of any of the instant claims; e.g., see applicant’s disclosure at para. [0031] disclosing the telemetry system (161) can be communicatively coupled, via a network, to a telemetry decoder (110) structured to receive the digital data. Further, claiming the use of a sensor associated with a system under test is equated to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, wherein a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible by simply having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use. Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h). Further to the point of generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, the broadly claimed “at least one sensor” may comprise; e.g., camera(s), temperature sensors, pressure sensors, humidity sensors, motion sensors, switching sensors, voltage and current sensors, level sensors, strain or torque sensors, GPS and positioning sensors, and/or environmental sensors. Also, the broadly claimed “system under test” may include any component of an aircraft system; e.g., fuel system, electrical system, flight system, etc.
Third, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.
Fourth, Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity is defined as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Included as a subcategory of Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity is Insignificant Post-Solution Activity which is defined as activity that analyzes and manipulates information; e.g., claim 1, lines 35-38 disclose “for each of the two or more outbound data streams, transmitting, … a copy of the measurand to a destination computing device associated with a respective outbound data stream. In this instances the Insignificant Post-Solution Activity includes transmission of data, wherein the manipulated data is each of the two or more outbound data streams. The system; e.g., claim 1, comprises a communication hub computing system. The communication hub computing system comprises a 1) telemetry decoder, which is coupled to a system under test, 2) a transmitter, 3) one or more processors, and 4) a computer-readable medium comprising instructions. From this system, data is collected about a system from a broadly claimed “sensor,” wherein the type of sensor(s) is not specified. After the data is generated, a measurand is generated. Multiple steps are performed in manipulating the data, wherein general-purpose computers; e.g., the telemetry decoder, the processor/computer-readable medium/instructions, the communication hub computing system, wherein a data output is transmitted to a destination computing device.
Applicant continues arguments directed at the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“Second, even assuming arguendo that certain limitations could be characterized as abstract, under Step 2A, Prong 2, amended claim 1 integrates an alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The specification identifies the following technical problem; e.g., see applicant’s specification paras. [0003]-[0006] for applicant’s cited support which is not reproduced here.
Amended independent claim 1 particularly recites operations directed to solving the technical problem; e.g., delays in routing telemetry through a telemetry visualization system through routing data through a persistent storage component, and only after having the data made available for control room display terminals to query and display to a responsible engineer workstation. For example, as recited in amended claim 1, binding the measurand to two or more outbound data streams from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand causes the communication hub computing system to perform concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand using shared memory, the concurrent routing being configured for automatic delivery of the measurand. As claimed, each of the plurality of copies comprises a pointer to a memory location in the shared memory on a source computing device, the pointer configured for concurrent routing of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand. One of skill in the art would appreciate that such an arrangement optimizes the amount of time it takes to transmit measured data to the workstation without first requiring the measured data to be saved in persistent memory.
For at least the foregoing reason, Applicant respectfully submits that the pending claims 1-20, as amended, are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, and requests withdrawal of the outstanding rejection.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument not persuasive and respectfully disagrees. A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such an integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology of technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not “directed to” the recited judicial exception. The courts have not provided an explicit test for this consideration, but have instead illustrated how it is evaluated in numerous decisions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
First, the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the details necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.
The applicant has claimed an improvement in aircraft in-network telemetry data handling, wherein such specified recited improvements include concurrent routing of measurands to distinct target systems (e.g., the recited “persistent storage device” and “workstation”) via shared memory pointers to reduce data duplication and the amount of time it takes to route an indication of a measured value to a workstation. the applicant has cited paras. [0003]-[0006], [0022]-[0025], [0031], and [0040]-[0048] of the disclosure for support. Paras. [0003]-[0006] are disclosed in the Background of Applicant’s Specification. Paras. [0003]-[0006] are directed to the testing an aviation system, such as an aircraft with multiple ancillary systems producing the telemetry data, which are then transmitted to a Responsible Engineer (RE) in a common or virtual control room. The cited sections go on to state that “slow telemetry data reception and/or slow RE action” could lead to significant failures during a critical phase of testing; e.g., routing telemetry through a telemetry visualization system can increase risk of significant failure. These delays in routing require a solution, wherein delays could present Res from seeing telemetry data in a more timely fashion. paras. [0003]-[0006] appear to set forth the background of the problem to be solved. Paras. [0022]-[0025] are disclosed in the Detailed Description of Applicant’s Specification, which disclosing the use of copies of a measurand and parallel processing utilizing a plurality of computing cores and parallel threaded activity; wherein the examiner notes that making copies and parallel processing and/or parallel threaded activity is not construed as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technological field.
Further, in some implementations, sufficiently sized shared memory is leveraged, wherein copies of the measurand are not required. The shared memory is further described as comprising memory-efficient pointers for locating a measurand in the storage. These memory locations are copied, and each software component downstream of each data stream can execute its own hardware execution thread; wherein the examiner notes para. [0023] is tantamount to utilizing a cloud service and is not construed as providing for an improvement.
Further, para. [0024] discloses the use of a first destination of an outbound data stream comprising a persistent storage with a buffer to smooth out the speed irregularities of an outbound data stream associated with physical implementations; wherein the examiner notes utilizing buffers and memory is well known in the art and does not represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technological field.
Further, para. [0025] discloses a second destination of an outbound data stream to one or more RE(s), wherein parallel processing is utilized to reduce/eliminate waiting for display, wherein a redundancy to the data is also provided to the system; examiner notes providing redundant data through shared memory is not construed as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technological field.
Para. [0031] discloses an aircraft telemetry system that is configured, via a network, to deliver digital data to the telemetry decoder, wherein the telemetry decoder is merely configured to receive said data. Para. [0031] further discloses the collection of airborne-side and ground-side telemetry components utilizing several different technologies for transmission such as a radio-frequency transmitter, low-range transmission, and utilization of a gateway and/or directly to an on-board satellite antenna; where the Examiner notes that taking telemetry data and transmitting the telemetry data is not construed as an improvement.
Paras. [0040]-[0048] disclose use of network interface devices such as switches, routers, etc. Further, the memory types are provided, as well as examples of program instruction, to include routines, which are carried out by a processor. Fig. 4 is also disclosed as illustrating an example of a computing environment in which the disclosed system operates, wherein the cited paragraphs disclose client computing devices and host computing devices within a networked environment. In some embodiments, an edge server or groups of servers is/are utilized. Client computing devices and server computing devices connect to a database for storing data. The disclosure further discusses the use of types of networks with various connections. Finally, some alternative embodiments may incorporate a single processor, and optimizing flow of measurands to an RE station, which may be isolated from slow components; examiner notes that the utilizing networks, servers, clients, computing devices, and processors, considered combined or separately, are not construed as providing for an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technological field. Therefore, the first criteria has not been met.
Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification.
Examiner notes that the first criteria indicating an improvement has not been met, but will continue with the evaluation for the second criteria. From the provided paragraphs of the disclosure, none of the aircraft, the aircrafts telemetry system, and/or the information related to any suitable aspect of the aircraft are disclosed in either of the instant claims. Instead, the aircraft and/or its subsystems are disclosed as “a system under test,” the only limitation toward a telemetry system involves the telemetry decoder, which merely acquires the data provided by a telemetry system which is not claimed, and the data related to an aircraft is disclosed as a “data signal.” Further, none of an analog-to-digital encoder, a radio-frequency transmitter, a low-range transmission, and/or a gateway or on-board satellite antenna are disclosed as limitations of the instant claims. Therefore, for at least these reasons, the second criteria has also not been met.
Therefore it is determined that an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technological field has not been shown.
Applicant argues on pgs. 6-8, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action, that:
“As amended, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 now recite, among other features: (i) "a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test, a transmitter"; (ii) "causing the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test;" (iii) "using the data signal, generating, by the telemetry decoder, a measurand associated with the system under test;" (iv) "the two or more outbound data streams comprising a "first" outbound data stream associated with a persistent storage device and a "second" outbound data stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation, wherein binding the measurand to the two or more outbound data streams causes the communication hub computing system to perform concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand using shared memory, the concurrent routing being configured for automatic delivery of the measurand to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation;" and (v) "wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand without duplicating the measurand."
Neither Condon nor Gvillo, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests these claimed features. Specifically, Condon is directed generally to data routing in distributed computing but does not disclose concurrent routing of multiple measurand copies using shared memory pointers to avoid duplication.”
In response, the examiner finds the argument persuasive and agrees insofar as Condon in view of Gvillo is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing amended subject matter. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection presented in the previous office action is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is presented in view of Condon et al. (WO 2021/133543 A1) in view of Gvillo (US 2007/0032922 A1), in further view of Nallamothu et al. (US 11,621,910 B1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1, lines 5-9 disclose “a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: causing the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test.” The applicant has cited paras. [0022]-[0025], [0031], and [0040]-[0048] for support, however, these para. [0024] discloses that the persistent storage device (120) can receive the copy and/or duplicate reference (pointer) to the measurand from the outbound data stream and store the copy and/or duplicate. Para. [0025] discloses that the RE (responsible engineer) (125) can receive a measurand from an outbound data stream. Para. [0031] discloses that the telemetry system (161) can be communicatively coupled, via a network, to a telemetry decoder (110) structured to receive the digital data. None of paras. [0022]-[0025], [0031], and [0040]-[0048] disclose that the communication hub computing system is capable of causing the at least one sensor to generate a data signal, but merely receives and processes the sensor data signal after measurements are taken.
Claims 2-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 8, lines 1-6 disclose “A computer-implemented method performed by a communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test, a transmitter, the computer-implemented method comprising: causing the at least on sensor associated with a system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test.” The applicant has cited paras. [0022]-[0025], [0031], and [0040]-[0048] for support, however, these para. [0024] discloses that the persistent storage device (120) can receive the copy and/or duplicate reference (pointer) to the measurand from the outbound data stream and store the copy and/or duplicate. Para. [0025] discloses that the RE (responsible engineer) (125) can receive a measurand from an outbound data stream. Para. [0031] discloses that the telemetry system (161) can be communicatively coupled, via a network, to a telemetry decoder (110) structured to receive the digital data. None of paras. [0022]-[0025], [0031], and [0040]-[0048] disclose that the communication hub computing system is capable of causing the at least one sensor to generate a data signal, but merely receives and processes the sensor data signal after measurements are taken.
Claims 9-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 8.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15, lines 1-7 discloses “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test and a transmitter, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: causing the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to generate a digital signal relating to operation of the system under test.” The applicant has cited paras. [0022]-[0025], [0031], and [0040]-[0048] for support, however, these para. [0024] discloses that the persistent storage device (120) can receive the copy and/or duplicate reference (pointer) to the measurand from the outbound data stream and store the copy and/or duplicate. Para. [0025] discloses that the RE (responsible engineer) (125) can receive a measurand from an outbound data stream. Para. [0031] discloses that the telemetry system (161) can be communicatively coupled, via a network, to a telemetry decoder (110) structured to receive the digital data. None of paras. [0022]-[0025], [0031], and [0040]-[0048] disclose that the communication hub computing system is capable of causing the at least one sensor to generate a data signal, but merely receives and processes the sensor data signal after measurements are taken.
Claims 16-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims are evaluated for patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 using the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as follows:
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A communication hub computing system, the communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test, a transmitter, and
one or more processors; and
a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
causing the at least one sensor associated with the system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test;
using the data signal, generated by the telemetry decoder, a measurand associated with the system under test,;
binding the measurand to two or more outbound data streams from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand, the two or more outbound data streams comprising a first outbound data stream associated with a persistent storage device and a second outbound data stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation;
wherein binding the measurand to the two or more outbound data streams causes the communication hub computing system to perform concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand using shared memory, the concurrent routing being configured for automatic delivery of the measurand to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation;
generating, by the communication hub computing system, the plurality of copies of the measurand,
wherein a first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of outbound data streams, and
wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, and
wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand; and
for each of the two or more outbound data streams, transmitting, by the transmitter of the communication hub computing system, a copy of the measurand to a destination computing device associated with a respective outbound data stream.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 1 discloses the operations comprising: generate a data relating to operation; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering and/or performable with pen and paper; using the data, a measurand; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation and/or performable with pen and paper; binding the measurand to two or more data from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand, the two or more data comprising a first data and a second data; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; wherein binding the measurand to the two or more data causes to perform concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; the concurrent routing being configured for automatic delivery of the measurand; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; generating, the plurality of copies of the measurand; construed as a mental step; e.g. performable with pen and paper; wherein a first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of data, and wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation; wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand without duplicating the measurand; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., human observation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 1 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 1 further recites:
A communication hub computing system, the communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder
a transmitter, and
one or more processors; and
a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations,
signal
signal, generated by the telemetry decoder,
outbound streams
outbound streams
outbound stream associated with a persistent storage device
outbound stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation
outbound streams
the communication hub computing system
using shared memory
to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation;
by the communication hub computing system,
outbound streams,
to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, and
outbound streams,
by the transmitter of the communication hub computing system,
computing device
outbound stream.
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
for each of the two or more data, transmitting a copy of the measurand to a destination associated with a respective data
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test,
causing the at least on sensor associated with a system under test to
of the system under test
associated with the system under test,
to distinct target systems
Analyzing this additional element of claim 1 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-7 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 1 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 8-14 are directed to a method and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 8 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
A computer-implemented method performed by a communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test, a transmitter, the computer-implemented method comprising:
causing the at least one sensor associated with the system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test,
using the data signal, generating, by the telemetry decoder, a measurand associated with the system under test,;
binding the measurand to two or more outbound data streams from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand, the two or more outbound data streams comprising a first outbound data stream associated with a persistent storage device and a second outbound data stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation,
wherein binding the measurand to the two or more outbound data streams comprises concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand for automatic delivery of the measurand to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation;
generating, by the communication hub computing system, the plurality of copies of the measurand, wherein a first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of outbound data streams, and
wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, and
wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand; and
for each of the two or more outbound data streams, transmitting by the transmitter of the communication hub computing system, a copy of the measurand to a destination computing device associated with a respective outbound data stream.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 8 discloses generate a data relating to operation; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; using the data a measurand; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; binding the measurand to two or more data from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand, the two or more data comprising a first data and a second data; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; wherein binding the measurand to the two or more data comprises concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand for automatic delivery of the measurand; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; generating, the plurality of copies of the measurand, wherein a first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of data, and; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer, and wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand without duplicating the measurand; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 8 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 8 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 8 further recites:
A computer-implemented method performed by a communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder
a transmitter, the computer-implemented method comprising:
signal
signal, generating, by the telemetry decoder
outbound streams
outbound streams
outbound stream associated with a persistent storage device
outbound stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation,
outbound streams
to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation;
by the communication hub computing system
outbound streams
to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, and
to distinct target systems
outbound streams,
by the transmitter of the communication hub computing system
computing device
outbound stream.
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 8 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
for each of the two or more data, transmitting a copy of the measurand to a destination associated with a respective data
Analyzing this additional element of claim 8 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test
causing the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to
of the system under test
associated with the system under test
Analyzing this additional element of claim 8 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 8 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 9-14 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 8 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1:
Claims 15-20 are directed to an apparatus and therefore falls within the four statutory categories of subject matter.
Step 2A:
This step asks if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry: in prong 1 it is determined whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then in prong 2 it is determined if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Analyzing claim 15 under prong 1 of step 2A, the abstract idea in bold:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a communication hub computing system comprises a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test and a transmitter, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
causing the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test,
using the data signal, generating by the telemetry decoder, a measurand associated with the system under test;
binding the measurand to two or more outbound data streams from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand, the two or more outbound data streams comprising first outbound data stream associated with a persistent storage device and second outbound data stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation;
wherein binding the measurand to the two or more outbound data streams comprises concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand, the concurrent routing being configured to automatic delivery of the measurand to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineering workstation;
generating, by the communication hub computing system, the plurality of copies of the measurand,
wherein the first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of outbound data streams, and
wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, the pointer configured for the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand; and
for each of the two or more outbound data streams, transmitting, by a transmitter of the communication hub computing system, a copy of the measurand to a destination computing device associated with a respective outbound data stream.
has a scope that encompasses mental steps, e.g., concepts that may be performed in the human mind; e.g., human observation/performable with pen and paper/mere data gathering. Claim 15 discloses generate a data relating to operation; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; using the data, a measurand; construed by the examiner as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; binding the measurand to two or more data from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand, the two or more data comprising first data and second data; construed as a mental step; e.g., performable with pen and paper; wherein binding the measurand to the two or more data comprises concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand, the concurrent routing being configured to automatic delivery of the measurand; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; generating, the plurality of copies of the measurand; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering; wherein the first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of data, and wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer the pointer configured for the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand without duplicating the measurand; and; construed as a mental step; e.g., mere data gathering. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the abovementioned steps in light of the specification has a scope that encompasses steps that may be performed in the human mind. It is therefore concluded under prong 1 of step 2A that claim 15 recites a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, i.e., mental steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(A-C) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
In prong 2 of step 2A it is determined whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Analyzing claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, in addition to the abstract ideas described above, claim 15 further recites:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder
a transmitter,
cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
signal
signal, generated by the telemetry decoder
outbound streams
outbound streams
outbound stream associated with a persistent storage device
outbound stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation
outbound streams
to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation;
by the communication hub computing system
outbound streams, and
to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device
outbound streams, by a transmitter of the communication hub computing system
computing device outbound stream.
Analyzing these additional elements of claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, these additional elements appear to merely recite the use of a generic processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or to perform functions in its ordinary capacity, e.g., receive, store, or transmit data. However, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
for each of the two or more data, transmitting a copy of the measurand to a destination associated with a respective data
Analyzing this additional element of claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to merely collect and interpolate mathematical data, interpreted by the examiner as insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g). Also, employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application or add significantly more. See MPEP 2106.07(a).II.
communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test and
causing the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to
of the system under test,
associated with the system under test
to distinct target systems
Analyzing this additional element of claim 15 under prong 2 of step 2A, this additional element appears to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
In step 2B it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A merely represents implementation of the abstract idea using a generic processor/computer and use of a generic processor/computer. However, use of a computer or other machine in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents insignificant extra-solution activity. The term “extra-solution activity” can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps. An example of post solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, which is recited in a claim to analyze and manipulate information. See MPEP 2016.05(g).
The still further additional elements discussed above in connection with prong 2 of step 2A also merely represents generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; e.g., see MPEP 2106.05(h).
It is therefore concluded under step 2B that claim 15 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 16-20 merely recite further details of the abstract idea of claim 15 and therefore do not represent any additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer-readable storage media” has a scope that encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se. See MPEP 2106.03.II. The examiner recommends amending the claim language to include “non-transitory” preceding “computer-readable medium”.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon et al. (WO 2021/133543 A1), hereinafter Condon, in view of Gvillo (US 2007/0032922 A1), hereinafter Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu et al. (US 11,621,910 B1), hereinafter Nallamothu.
Regarding claim 1, Condon discloses A communication hub computing system, the communication hub computing system comprising
a telemetry joiner communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test, a transmitter, and (Condon; e.g., see fig. 5A illustrating received telemetry (504) and telemetry joiner (506), which is communicatively coupled to the Aerial Vehicle Fleet (501); see also fig. 1B illustrating system (150); construed as a system under test, comprising balloon (101b) and payload (108b) which is illustrating of payload (108a) with modifications; see also para. [0031] disclosing that payload (108a) may include various sensors, housed within avionics chassis (110a) or otherwise coupled to connection (104a) or balloon (101a), which may include GPS, wind speed and direction sensors, temperature sensors, speed of sound sensors, acoustic sensors, pressure sensors, IMUs, etc.; examiner notes that figs. 1A-1B and 5A necessarily depict a communicative coupling between at least one sensor and the telemetry joiner).
one or more processors; and a computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the operations comprising: (Condon, e.g., see figs. 1a, 1b, 2, and 3, wherein fig. 3 specifically discloses processor (304), memory (304), and Application (316); see also paras. [0037]-[0040]).
receiving data from the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test; (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically to figs. 1B and 5A, as well as para. [0031] disclosing the use of various sensors; see also fig. 5A illustrating received telemetry (504), which is acquired from receivers (502) of the aerial vehicle fleet (501); see also para. [0022] disclosing the invention provides a computing system operable to receive and process telemetry data from multiple aerial vehicles in a fleet through various sources,… to generate new commands that are then sent out to the fleet, either automatically or by presenting issues to operators to address; see also para. [0050] disclosing other backends (532) may include an estimator configured to incrementally consume telemetry data to produce an estimated state (i.e., state estimation) about the flight. To do so, an estimator may be configured to track various aspects of the flight (e.g., pressure sensor readings, temperature sensor readings, amount of lift gas remaining, functioning of various components of aerial vehicles (120a-b), wind speed sensor readings, turbulence and more); see also paras. [0042]-[0043] disclosing a telemetry message in received telemetry data (504) may be received through more than one of receivers (502a-n) for redundancy. Receiver units (502) may receive and pass received telemetry data (504) to telemetry joiner (506)).
using the data signal, generating by the telemetry joiner , a measurand associated with the system under test,; (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 5A illustrating joined telemetry (508), telemetry backend (511), and flight aggregator (510); see also para. [0043] disclosing joined telemetry data (508) may be passed onto flight aggregator (510), as well as other components of system (500), including backend modules (e.g., telemetry backend (511), for generating updated flight data, storing and further processing of telemetry data; construed as using the data signal, generating by the telemetry joiner; see rejection as applied to para. [0050] above disclosing the sensors producing a measurement/measurand of pressure, temperature, etc.; construed as a measurand associated with the system under test).
binding the measurand to two or more outbound data streams from a subscription list, the two or more outbound data streams comprising a first outbound data stream associated with a persistent storage device and a second outbound data stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation; (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also fig. 5A illustrating telemetry joiner (506), jointed telemetry (508), telemetry backend (511), flight aggregator (510), flight data (512), fleet automation response system (514), user command tool (516), and issued commands repository (522); see also paras. [0043]-[0046] disclosing telemetry joiner (506) also may join received telemetry data (504) with previously received and stored pieces of telemetry (e.g., as provided by telemetry backend (511)). Joined telemetry data (508) may comprise both reconciled telemetry data and other telemetry data. Joined telemetry data (508) may be passed onto flight aggregator (510), as well as other components of system (500), including backend modules (e.g., telemetry backend (511), for generating updated flight data, storing and further processing of telemetry data. Flight aggregator (510) may be configured to look up a flight associated with joined telemetry data (508) and gather data associated with the flight from various sources. Flight aggregator (510) may query telemetry backend (511) for other flight data associated with the flight. Flight aggregator (510) may be configured to aggregate joined telemetry data (508) with other telemetry data for the same flight, flight simulations indicating expected flight actions for the flight for a predetermined time forecast, and other flight data queried for the flight. Based on said aggregation, flight aggregator (510) may generate an update message comprising update flight data (512) and may publish the update message to one or more command generation modules of system (500), such as fleet automation response system (514), user command tool (516)Fleet automation response system (514) generates automated responses to updated telemetry in flight data (512) as necessary. For example, fleet automation response system may use some or all of the updated flight data (512) in the update message to automatically generate commands, communication, (e.g., emails, webpages, checklists, or other documents and messages) to flight engineers or vehicles. In some examples, user command tool (516) also may use some or all of the updated flight data (512) in the update message to present flight issues in a user interface (e.g., interfaces (600), (630), and (650) in figs. 6A-C, using a checklist, dashboard, or other format) for flight engineer handling. User command tool (516) may enable flight engineers to issue flight commands to one or more vehicles in a fleet. Fleet automation response system (514) and user command tool (516) also may receive steering and other operational data (e.g., real-time, briefly delayed, or historical) for a flight from other system components not shown in fig. 5A (e.g., a flight controller); examiner notes that flight aggregator (510) aggregates/binds the cited telemetry data/measurand and publishes an update message; construed as a subscription list, which is pushed to/associated with a user command tool (516); construed as a responsible engineering workstation, and is also pushed to/associated with an issued commands repository; construed as a persistent storage device).
wherein binding the measuring to the two or more outbound data streams causes the communication hub computing system to perform parallel routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand using shared memory, (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with reference to fig. 5A illustrating an issued commands repository (522), a command router (520), and parallel routing between a fleet automation response system (514), user command tool (516), and software defined network (518); see also para. [0045] disclosing based on said aggregation, flight aggregator (510) may generate an update message comprising updated flight data (512) and may publish the update message to one or more command generation modules of system (500), such as fleet automation response system (514), user command tool (516); see also paras. [0067]-[0068] disclosing the methods or flow charts provided may be implemented in a computer program, software, or firmware tangibly embodied in a computer-readable storage medium for execution by a general-purpose computer or processor, wherein examples of a computer-readable storage medium include a read only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), a register, cache memory, etc.; examiner notes that a computer performing program operations with a single storage medium is necessarily shared).
the parallel routing being configured for automatic delivery of the measurand to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation; (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically with regard to fig. 5A illustrating a closed flowchart wherein the flight aggregator (510) aggregates the data and passes the day through the parallel fleet automation response system (514) and user command tool (516), through a router, and into an issued commands repository (522); see also para. [0024] disclosing a fleet automation response system may automatically generate commands and communications (e.g., emails, webpages, checklists, or other documents and messages) to flight engineers or vehicles based on updated flight data. A fleet automation response system may also be configured to perform other correlated functions, such as filing bugs in a software development bug tracking framework or otherwise generating alerts based on updated flight data; see also para. [0046]; see also para. [0048] disclosing new commands issued from fleet automation response system (514), user command tool (516), and SDN (518) may be routed by command router (520) to sender units (524) and issued command repository (522)).
generating, by the communication hub computing system, the plurality of copies of the measurand, wherein a first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of distributed computer system memories, and (Condon, e.g., see fig. 3 illustrating an exemplary computing device (301) of computing system (300); see also fig. 4 illustrating a plurality of computing systems (301a-n) of fig. 3 as distributed computing system (400); see also paras. [0037]-[0038] disclosing fig. 3 is a simplified block diagram of an exemplary computing system forming part of the systems of figs. 1a-2. Computing system (320) may comprise a plurality of repositories and/or other forms of data storage, and it also may be in communication with computing device (301). Storage system (320), which may comprise a plurality of repositories, may be housed in one or more of computing device (301). Storage system (320) may store learned flight policies and other various types of information. In addition, storage system (320) may include a distributed storage system where data is stored on a plurality of different storage devices, which may be physically located at the same or different geographic locations (e.g., in a distributed computing system such as system (400) in fig. 4). Storage system (320) may be networked to computing device (301) directly using wired connections and/or wireless connections. Computing device (301) also may include a memory (302). Memory (302) may comprise a storage system configured to store a database (314) and an application (316). Database (314) may store various algorithms and/or data, including neural networks (e.g., encoding flight policies) and data regarding wind patterns, weather forecasts, past and present locations of aerial vehicles (e.g., aerial vehicles (20a-b), (201a-b), (211a-c)), sensor data, map information, air traffic information, among other types; see also paras. [0040]-[0041] disclosing computing device (301) may be located remote from an aerial vehicle, or its control infrastructure as may be housed in avionics chassis (110a-b), via a network; examiner notes that computing device (301) is construed as the communication hub computing system. Various configurations of system (300) are envisioned, and various steps and/or functions of the processes described below may be shared among the various devices of system (300), or may be assigned to specific devices. Each of (301a-n) may comprise one or more of processors (404a-n), respectively, and one or more of memory (402a-n), respectively. Processors (404a-n) may function similarly to processor (304) in fig.3, as described above. Memory (402a-n) may function similarly to memory (302) in fig. 3; examiner notes shared sensor measurements/measurands across a distributed network of computers, each computer comprising a memory (402), are construed as a generated plurality of copies of the measurand corresponding to their respective database).
for each of the two or more outbound data streams, transmitting, by the transmitter of the communication hub computing system, a copy of the measurand to a destination module associated with a respective outbound data stream. (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied above, specifically to fig. 5A indicating three separate outbound data streams to the fleet automation response system (514), user command tool (516), and software defined network (518); see also para. [0045] disclosing based on said aggregation, flight aggregator (510) may generate an update message comprising updated flight data (512) and may publish the update message to one or more command generation modules of system (500), such as fleet automation response system (514), user command tool (516)).
Condon is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing causing the at least one sensor to generate data
a telemetry decoder;
concurrent routing;
based on an identifier of the measurand
a second number of outbound data streams
wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, and
wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand; and
a destination computing device.
However, Gvillo further discloses: causing the at least one sensor to generate data (Gvillo, e.g., see fig. 7B and para. [0077] disclosing at step (758), the telemetry parameter value; e.g., construed as the telemetry sensor value, actually written by the operational flight program (e.g., of method (500)) to the simulated data stream may be compared to the value (from canned values report file (630)) expected to be written; examiner notes that a telemetry parameter is disclosed as necessarily being caused to generate data which is then later compared to a canned data produced in simulation; see also para. [0058] disclosing the operational flight software of method (50)) may be given an input which causes step (512) to branch to step (514), wherein method (500) may get software variable values for the telemetry parameters from the flight software of the vehicle which may be interfaced, for example, to vehicle hardware such as sensors, controllers, resolvers and servo-mechanisms).
telemetry decoder; (Gvillo, e.g., see para. [0037] disclosing a telemetry flight software generation system, according to one embodiment, may automatically create: (1) a complete set of documentation that defines the telemetry stream, (2) a complete set of necessary source code files that make up the flight software and generate the telemetry stream, (3) a complete set of necessary telemetry stream “tabular definition” files for ground-based computers running decoding software that will decode the telemetry stream according to the defined format of the telemetry stream).
based on an identifier of the measurand; (Gvillo, e.g., see figs. 6A-6B illustrating fin actuator (1 & 2) current as rated at 20 amperes; construed as a measurand; wherein fin actuator current (1 & 2) current is identified with identifier (C004); see also para. [0049] disclosing definition block (236) may specify that telemetry stream data named “20 Hz_Info”, including the telemetry parameters (A005), a spare parameter “Spare_B02”, and telemetry parameters (C003) and (C004) is to appear in the telemetry data stream (300) at a frequency of 20 Hz beginning at frame number one and positioned within each from in which the data occurs to end at byte number (180) of the frame. In other words, telemetry parameters belonging to the 20 Hz_Info block are periodically repeated in the data stream (300) with updated values twenty times per second; see also paras. [0043] and [0069]; examiner notes fig. 6A illustrates an outbound data stream which is formatted in a subscription list).
a second number of outbound data streams; (Gvillo, e.g., see para. [0052] disclosing modify the “telemetry definition” data file and have a fellow engineer review the change for accuracy at step (201) of method (100) illustrated in fig. 1; run auto-generation program for telemetry flight software, telemetry data stream format, and documentation (e.g., perform method (400)) to generate flight software, documentation, and tabular telemetry decoding definitions of the telemetry stream for ground computers, as at step (104); run the automated tests to verify correct behavior of the auto-generated flight software, as at step (106); publish the new telemetry stream format, as at step (108); and load new definition files into ground telemetry-decoding computers, as at step (110); examiner notes tabular telemetry decoding definitions of the telemetry stream loaded into their respective computers is construed as copies of the measurand corresponds to a number of outbound (second number of) data streams, as each copy must necessarily have its own data stream to push to the respective computer devices).
wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, and (Gvillo, e.g., see para. [0039] disclosing that master telemetry definition data file (200) may be shared int that it may be uploaded to by human input, the telemetry data stream, as well as a computer program; construed as shared; see also para. [0044] disclosing for example, column (204) – labeled “Field in Record” – may provide information as to the variable location in the flight software for use by a GET function to retrieve the value of each variables (A001) through (A006) shown in the same row of column (202a); construed by the examiner as a pointer to a memory location; see also para. [0047] disclosing the master telemetry definition data file (200) may also specify other requisite information. Such information may include, for example, information about how to get telemetry stream data from the flight software and information about where to put the telemetry stream data into the telemetry stream. As an example of where to get telemetry stream data, for example, data file (200) may specify the name (222) of the variable in the flight software that contains the parameters. For example, the variable AP named by name (222) contains the telemetry parameters (A001) through (A006); see also para. [0051] disclosing master telemetry definition data file (200) may be configured, as shown in figs. 2A and 2B, so as to be easily human readable and understandable (e.g., user-friendly), yet contain all necessary information needed to be parsed by a telemetry flight software generation program – such as a program that embodies method (400); see also para. [0054] disclosing at step (410), a computer or other p4rocessor executing method (400) (in brief, method (400)) may begin by reading, for example, reading into a computer memory, a master telemetry definition data file such as file (200) described above. Method (400) may then use the information contained in the master telemetry definition file (200) to ascertain, for example, all the flight software variables that must be gathered and where they are to be gathered from; the attributes – such as specified representation (e.g., columns (210), (212)), sizing (e.g., columns (208)), and scaling (e.g., column (214)) – of each software variable and telemetry parameter; and where all these variables and telemetry parameters are to be placed in the telemetry stream. At this point, it may check for many possible errors that could be present in the master telemetry definition file (200)).
wherein the pointer enables the routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand; and (Gvillo, e.g., see rejection as applied above; see also para. [0055] disclosing creating new canned values ore re-using previous canned values of telemetry parameters, which may be used for example, for verification and testing. If method (400) has been initiated at step (402), then step (402) may be performed to simply read in, for example, read into computer memory; construed as a distinct target system, canned values for all parameters for which canned values have previously been created. Thus, step (412) may save resources by not re-creating; construed as not duplicating, previously created canned values and only creating canned values for parameters for which canned values have not yet been created; canned values are described in para. [0037] disclosing “canned data” test values that are embedded within the flight software and used for test and verification; see also paras. [0040]-[0041]; see also paras. [0047]-[0051] disclosing the use of the points to parsing all necessary information by a telemetry flight software generation program, wherein the info may be further directed towards engineers in guidance, flight controls, and navigation; construed as distinct target systems).
a destination computing device (Gvillo, e.g., see para. [0052] disclosing modify the “telemetry definition” data file and have a fellow engineer review the change for accuracy at step (201) of method (100) illustrated in fig. 1; run auto-generation program for telemetry flight software, telemetry data stream format, and documentation (e.g., perform method (400)) to generate flight software, documentation, and tabular telemetry decoding definitions of the telemetry stream for ground computers, as at step (104); run the automated tests to verify correct behavior of the auto-generated flight software, as at step (106); publish the new telemetry stream format, as at step (108); and load new definition files into ground telemetry-decoding computers, as at step (110); examiner notes the individual telemetry data stream copies are transmitted a destination computing device).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Condon with Gvillo’s causing the at least one sensor to generate data, telemetry decoder, based on an identifier of the measurand, a second number of outbound data streams, wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, and, wherein the pointer enables the routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand; and a destination computing device for at least the reasons that automatically created telemetry flight software and documentation may provide the specific benefits such as reduced labor requirements, shortened project schedules, much quicker project-wide turnaround of telemetry stream changes, and significantly fewer errors in the telemetry stream, as taught by Gvillo; e.g., see para. [0052].
Condon in view of Gvillo is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing a concurrent routing.
However, Nallamothu further discloses a concurrent routing. (Nallamothu, e.g., see col. 5, lines 44-62 disclosing addresses (116) are configured such that native routing stack (110) and controller routing stack (118) appear to other routers as they are two separate routers in network (100). This facilitates integrating router (104) and controller (108) that operate concurrent routing stacks into network (100)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Condon in view of Gvillo with Nallamothu’s concurrent routing for at least the reasons that concurrent routing facilitates continuity of routing table management if the connection between the network controller and the network device is lost, as taught by Nallamothu; e.g., see col. 2, lines 6-9.
Regarding claim 2, Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu discloses The communication hub computing system of claim 1, wherein an outbound data stream maps to a display device, the operations further comprising rendering a visual representation of the measurand on the display device. (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1; see also para. [0039] disclosing computing device (301) may further include a display (306). Display (306) may be any display device by means of which computing device (301) may output and/or display data; see also paras. [0053]-[0054] disclosing user interface (600) may display dashboard (601) comprising a first dashboard environment configured for displaying map (610) showing a plurality of icons representing aerial vehicles in a fleet of aerial vehicles. In some examples, an icon may indicate a location of the aerial vehicle based on the placement of the icon on the map; construed as a GPS measurand value rendered as a visual representation).
Regarding claim 6, Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu discloses The communication hub computing system of claim 1, wherein the measurand comprises a bundle of sensor readings. (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically to para. [0031] disclosing a bundle of sensors, and para. [0050] disclosing the measurands produced by the bundle of sensors).
Regarding claim 7, Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The communication hub computing system of claim 1, wherein the measurand comprises an attribute field indicative of an order of a related sensor reading relative to other sensor readings.
However, Gvillo further discloses: wherein the measurand comprises an attribute field indicative of an order of a related sensor reading relative to other sensor readings. (Gvillo, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically to parameters; construed as an attribute; see also fig. 6E illustrating a byte/frame, wherein a frame is indicative of an order, wherein a parameter of A00x and C00x readings are performed in order; see also para. [0073 disclosing an order of related sensor readings of fig. 6E]).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu’s system with Gvillo’s measurand comprises an attribute field indicative of an order of a related sensor reading relative to other sensor readings for at least the reasons that an attribute may facilitate a method of efficiently allocating new data to telemetry stream by matching the frequency at which the data is desired to be telemetered, as taught by Gvillo; e.g., see para. [0073].
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 recites A computer-implemented method performed by a communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test, a transmitter, the computer-implemented method comprising: causing the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test; using the data signal, generating, by the telemetry decoder, a measurand associated with the system under test,; binding the measurand to two or more outbound data streams from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand, the two or more outbound data streams comprising a first outbound data stream associated with a persistent storage device and a second outbound data stream associated with a responsible engineer workstation, wherein binding the measurand to the two or more outbound data streams comprises concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand for automatic delivery of the measurand to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation; generating, by the communication hub computing system, the plurality of copies of the measurand, wherein a first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of outbound data streams, and wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, and wherein the pointer enables the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand; and for each of the two or more outbound data streams, transmitting, by the transmitter of the communication hub computing system, a copy of the measurand to a destination computing device associated with a respective outbound data stream., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 recites: The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein an outbound data stream maps to a display device, the computer-implemented method further comprising rendering a visual representation of the measurand on the display device., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 13 recites The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the measurand comprises a bundle of sensor readings., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, Claim 14 recites: The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the measurand comprises an attribute field indicative of an order of a related sensor reading relative to other sensor readings., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 recites One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a communication hub computing system comprising a telemetry decoder communicatively coupled to at least one sensor associated with a system under test and a transmitter, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: causing the at least one sensor associated with a system under test to generate a data signal relating to operation of the system under test; using the data signal, generating by the telemetry decoder, a measurand associated with the system under test; binding the measurand to two or more outbound data streams from a subscription list based on an identifier of the measurand, the two or more outbound data streams comprising first outbound data stream associated with a persistent storage device and second outbound data stream associated with are sponsible engineer workstation; wherein binding the measurand to the two or more outbound data streams comprises concurrent routing of a plurality of copies of the measurand, the concurrent routing being configured for automatic delivery of the measurand to the persistent storage device and the responsible engineer workstation; generating, by the communication hub computing system, the plurality of copies of the measurand, wherein a first number of copies of the measurand corresponds to a second number of outbound data streams, and wherein each of the plurality of copies of the measurand comprises a pointer to a memory location in a shared memory on a source computing device, the pointer configured for the concurrent routing of the plurality of copies of the measurand to distinct target systems without duplicating the measurand; and for each of the two or more outbound data streams, transmitting, by a transmitter of the communication hub computing system, a copy of the measurand to a destination computing device associated with a respective outbound data stream., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Claim 16 recites The one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 15, wherein an outbound data stream maps to a display device, the operations further comprising rendering a visual representation of the measurand on the display device., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, Claim 20 recites The one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 15, wherein the measurand comprises a bundle of sensor readings., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 6.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu, in further view of Seema et al. (JP 2019/108117 A), hereinafter Seema.
Regarding claim 3, Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu discloses The communication hub computing system of claim 2, wherein the measurand is included in a measurand set, the operations further comprising:
determining measurands in the measurand set that are not required for human engineer consumption; and (Condon, e.g., see rejection as applied to claim 1, specifically para. [0050] disclosing measurands produced by payload sensors; see also fig. 5A illustrating Software Defined Network (SDN) (518); see also paras. [0047]-[0048] disclosing other systems (e.g., control systems such as software defined network (518), an LTE management system, controls for sensors on vehicle payloads, or the like) also may benefit from update flight data (512) published by flight aggregator (510), for example to send out band messages, to configure a RAN, or to determine and provide other control messages (i.e., to send over indirect control channels). For example, SDN (518) may use portions of updated flight data (512), including an estimated state of the flight and a simulation, to generate commands to one or more vehicles in aerial vehicle fleet (501) regarding their participation in a mesh network, as described herein, or flight controllers (e.g., steering controllers), which may use a different subset of updated flight data (512) to control flight of one or more vehicles in aerial vehicle fleet (501); examiner notes measurands produced for automation through a software network are necessarily measurands of a measurand set not required for human engineer consumption).
Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: segregating a portion of the measurand set corresponding to the determined measurand for parallel processing.
However, Seema further discloses: segregating a portion of the measurand set corresponding to the determined measurand for parallel processing. (Seema, e.g., see pg. 5, para. [0002] disclosing the HDFS (Hadoop Distributed File System) (126) may organize the converted data streams received from the third translation module (120) into parallel file systems that process the data in parallel rather than sequentially; see also pg. 7, para. [0004] disclosing the stream processing module (210) converts the data file into a data stream, and is configured to realize parallel processing of the data stream by other modules communicating with the module. For example, multiple computing units may process the data stream without managing assignments, synchronization, or communication among these units; see also pg. 7, para. [0007] disclosing stream processing is indicated by block (212). In one example, each data stream represents corresponding parameters (e.g., temperature, velocity, flow rate, etc.) and may be processed separately initially; see also pg. 15, para. [0002] disclosing the method (500) selects at least one data stream from the plurality of data streams that corresponds to at least one parameter of the plurality of parameters. For example, the computing device may select data streams for processing that represent particular parameters (e.g., the flow rate of certain valves)).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu’s system with Seema’s segregating a portion of the measurand set corresponding to the determined measurand for parallel processing for at least the reasons that parallel processing allows the data to be processed in real time or near real time, allowing the condition of the aircraft to be assessed in a timely manner, as taught by Seema; e.g., see pg. 5, para. [0002].
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the measurand is included in a measurand set, the computer-implemented method further comprising: determining measurands in the measurand set that are not required for human engineer consumption; and segregating a portion of the measurand set corresponding to the determined measurand for parallel processing., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu, in further view of Seema for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Claim 17 recites The one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 16, wherein the measurand is included in a measurand set, the operations further comprising: determining measurands in the measurand set that are not required for human engineer consumption; and segregating a portion of the measurand set corresponding to the determined measurand for parallel processing., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu, in further view of Seema for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu, in further view of Seema, in further view of Kalhan et al. (US 2020/0374889 A1), hereinafter Kalhan.
Regarding claim 4, Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu, in further view of Seema is not relied upon as explicitly disclosing: The communication hub computing system of claim 3, further comprising forgoing rendering the visual representation of the determined measurand segregated for parallel processing.
However, Kalhan further discloses further comprising forgoing rendering the visual representation of the determined measurand segregated for parallel processing. (Kalhan, e.g., see paras. [0050]-[0051] disclosing measured uplink and downlink measurements; construed as a measurand; see also para. [0079] disclosing the UAV (106) monitors/reads the SIB messages, and the neighboring base station (108) measures the uplink transmissions before transmitting the uplink interference indicator. Both of these tasks are performed in parallel and can be done as on-going background processes; examiner notes that an on-going background process is necessarily a process performed without a rendered visual representation).
Accordingly, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have modified Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu, in further view of Seema’s system with Kalhan’s forgoing rendering the visual representation of the determined measurand segregated for parallel processing for at least the reasons that less processing for, e.g., visualization, requires less computing and therefore saves on resources.
Regarding claim 11, Claim 11 recites The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising forgoing rendering the visual representation of the determined measurand segregated for parallel processing., and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu, in further view of Seema, in further view of Kalhan for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 4.
Regarding claim 18, Claim 18 recites The one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media of claim 17, further comprising forgoing rendering the visual representation of the determined measurand segregated for parallel processing. , and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Condon in view of Gvillo, in further view of Nallamothu, in further view of Seema, in further view of Kalhan for reasons analogous to those set forth in connection with claim 4.
Conclusion
Claims 5, 12, and 19 do not stand rejected on the ground(s) of prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2009/0276106 A1 to Doan relates to multiple telemetry stream parsing and reconstruction system.
US 2016/0234087 A1 to Nyerges et al. relates to techniques for managing telemetry data for content delivery and/or data transfer networks.
US 2018/0176663 A1 to Damaggio relates to configurable IoT device data collection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC S. VON WALD whose telephone number is (571)272-7116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:30.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at 5712700349. 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.
/E.S.V./Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights