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 .
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are pending. Claims 6 and 7 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn as the resource allocation device is determined to utilize use cases to allocate resources for the carrying out of processes by the control unit.
Regarding: Prior Art Rejections:
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are moot due to new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
“a user interface configured to receive user input and generate control commands based thereon”,
“a control unit, the control unit being configured to activate, based on the control commands, one of a plurality of possible use cases for a resource allocation to one or more processes”, and
“the control unit is configured to carry out the one or more processes and to access a one or more peripheral devices of the aircraft when carrying out the one or more processes”.
Claim 5:
“the control unit is configured to dynamically and optionally access one or more of the one or more peripheral devices when carrying out the one or more processes based on a current load on the one or more peripheral devices”.
Claim 8:
“the control unit is configured to assign a priority to the one or more processes” and “the control unit is configured to operate the one or more processes with resources according to respective priorities of the one or more processes when the totality of the available resources is insufficient to operate all processes with the resources allocated to them as planned”.
Claim 9:
“the control unit is configured to automatically allocate more resources to the one or more processes when a condition defined in the use case occurs”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s specification describes:The user interface:
“The user interface may be designed as a human-machine interface in an
aircraft, for example as a display together with input elements (for example buttons or switches or other known input elements suitable for a combat aircraft) in a cockpit of the aircraft. By the user interface, an operator can make entries and information can be displayed to that operator.”
The control unit:
“The control unit 40 contains a system status database 42, an object tracking database 44 and a sensor manager 50. The sensor manager 50 includes a control demand unit 52 and a request generation unit 54. The control unit 40 may be designed as a computer/calculator or as a processor, controller, microcontroller or the like. The control unit 40 is designed to execute machine-readable commands and thereby to implement predetermined functions. The control unit 40 may also contain a memory for this purpose (not shown separately), in which the instructions to be executed are stored”.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. US 9511729 B1 in view of Hammack et al. US 9032319 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Barnes teaches the invention substantially as claimed including:
An aircraft with a flight control computer, the flight control computer implementing a resource allocation device (systems and methods for dynamic allocation of computing resources, Col 1 40-41). the resource allocation device comprising:
a processor including a control unit, the control unit being configured to activates based on the control commands one of a plurality of possible use cases for a resource allocation to one or more processes (Fig 2 System 100 containing resource manager 104 and avionics applications 114; The resource manager 104 determines the aircraft condition by taking in inputs 106 and referring to the condition table 108. Based on the information stored in the condition table 108, the resource manager correlates the current aircraft condition to a set of resource allocations for each of the avionics applications 114, as stored in the allocation table 108; Examiner notes: the resource manager responding to a change in condition by performing dynamic resource allocation for avionics represents activating a use case);
wherein the control unit is configured to carry out the one or more processes and to access one or more peripheral devices of the aircraft when carrying out the one or more processes (Exemplary systems include the navigation systems, flight control systems, emergency systems, data recording and reporting systems, climate control systems, entertainment systems, etc., Col 3 11-14; the resource manager determines the aircraft condition by first monitoring inputs from one or more state machines that give the present state of the various computing systems on the aircraft and/or inputs from one or more sensors on the aircraft. The resource manager does not control any of the aircraft systems; those are controlled by the various applications. Rather, the resource manager sets the amount of computing resources each application is allowed to utilize in carrying out its responsibilities, Col 4 20-28); Examiner notes: the system carries out the applications for the avionics systems by utilizing the resource manager to provide the application the resources required to execute in response to various inputs from sensors around the aircraft. Additionally, the various systems within the aircraft are understood to interact with peripheral devices (i.e., state machines, sensors) necessary to collect inputs and perform their functions);
wherein a use case defines which process of the one or more processes receives which proportion of a totality of available resources of the aircraft (the resource manager determines the proper resource allocation for the aircraft condition by looking up a set of computing resource allocations that correspond to the previously identified aircraft condition, Col 5 33-37);
wherein the control unit is configured to contain a plurality of use cases (In addition to these situations that describe the current state of the aircraft, other situations may also be used to describe the current state of the aircraft. Moreover, the aircraft condition is likely to be made up of a combination of these conditions. Each of these situations also may have a gradation of severity; rain is treated differently from freezing rain, which is treated differently from snow, such that each of these results in a different aircraft condition, Col 3 35-42);
wherein each use case in the plurality of use cases differs from other use cases in the plurality of use cases, in that each of the plurality of use cases allocates different proportions of a totality of the available resources to the one or more processes (the resource manager correlates the current aircraft condition to a set of resource allocations for each of the avionics applications 114, as stored in the allocation table 108, Col 4 3-6);
wherein the control unit is configured to activate a particular use case from the plurality of use cases based on the control commands during operating time of the aircraft (As part of overall management, the resource manager determines the aircraft condition by first monitoring inputs from one or more state machines that give the present state of the various computing systems on the aircraft and/or inputs from one or more sensors on the aircraft, Col 4 19-24);
wherein the control unit comprises a sensor management unit with a control demand unit and a request generation unit (Fig 2 System 100 contains Condition Table 108 and Resource Manager 104 requesting allocation from Allocation Table 110);
wherein the control demand unit contains at least one active use case, which specifies the resource allocation to the one or more processes (the resource manager assigns or looks up the aircraft condition in the condition table. Essentially, the condition table stores information or rules that identify the aircraft condition given the set of received inputs, Col 4 32-36);
wherein the control demand unit contains multiple other predefined use cases (Fig 2 Condition Table 108 contains multiple condition-rule entries) and wherein only one use case is active at a time (the current aircraft condition, Col 4 39-40).
Though Barnes suggests “a user interface configured to receive user input and generate control commands based thereon” seen in display fields, Col 3 5; a plurality of inputs 106, Col 3 64-65; and the navigation systems, flight control systems, emergency systems, data recording and reporting systems, climate control systems, entertainment systems, Col 3 11-14, it does not explicitly teach it.
However, Hammack teaches a user interface configured to receive user input and generate control commands based thereon; wherein the control unit is configured to: convert the user input received at the user interface into control commands and transmit the control commands to both the control demand unit and the request generation unit; (With respect to flight guidance, pilots may utilize both the FMS 14 and the Mode Control Panel (MCP) 94, shown in FIG. 4, to manage aspects such as the lateral path, the vertical profile, and the speed profile of the aircraft's flight. Input for managing these aspects may be made, for example among others, via the CDU 96, the MCP 94, or other interactive means such as touch-screen or cursor-control devices. The flight guidance input may be used to control the autopilot and related systems such as flight director systems, flight control computers, and autothrottle system that may in turn send commands to other airplane systems such as the engines and flight control systems to direct and control the airplane consistent with the pilots' commands, Col 4 25-38).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Hammack’s pilot interface system with the system of Barnes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Barnes’ system with the capability of pilot/aircraft interfacing (see Hammack Pilots (flight crew) of modern commercial aircraft aviate, navigate, and communicate utilizing computer systems and associated cockpit interfaces used for managing, organizing, and simplifying the pilots' workload. Generally, the management of information related to the flight entails utilizing a number of means for acquiring, utilizing, and redirecting graphical, aural, and textual information to and from the airplane's systems. For example, such means may include a number of cockpit (flight deck) displays, control panels, keyboard devices, cursor control devices, touch screen devices, and voice/audio systems. However, as many of these devices are used for multiple and sometimes coupled or associated functions, optimizing each user interface for each cockpit function poses a manifold challenge, Col 4 50-64).
Regarding claim 8, Barnes and Hammack teach the aircraft of claim 1.
Barnes further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to assign a priority to the one or more processes (Application priority refers to a ranking of the importance of each of the avionics applications on the aircraft. For example, the navigation system and its application probably will always be more important than the in-flight entertainment system, Col 3 41-45); wherein the control unit is configured to operate the one or more processes with resources according to respective priorities of the one or more processes when the totality of the available resources is insufficient to operate all processes with the resources allocated to them as planned (static allocation results in overcapacity because all applications do not use all of their allocated resources all of the time, Col 1 29-31; The aircraft condition takes into account at least one of the following situations that occur on an aircraft … application priority, Col 3 19-22).
Regarding claim 9, Barnes and Hammack teach the aircraft of claim 1.
Barnes further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to automatically allocate more resources to the one or more processes when a condition defined in the use case occurs (The aircraft condition takes into account at least one of the following situations that occur on an aircraft: flight stage, flight conditions, maintenance activities, application priority, crew status, the occurrence of an emergency, aircraft configuration, system failures or faults, and the occurrence of an incident, plus a default fallback state for an undefined condition. Flight stage refers to pre-flight, takeoff, in-flight, landing and post-flight, where it is desirable to allocated computing resources differently base on the flight stage. Flight conditions refer to the current weather conditions (e.g. precipitation, temperature, wind direction, visibility, ceiling, etc.), time of day, existence of turbulence, etc. Maintenance activities refer to completed or scheduled maintenance activities, as well as any error codes or problems issued by hardware or software on the aircraft, Col 3 19-33; Examiner notes: different conditions will require the resource manager to allocate more resources to different applications. Ex. When the plane senses more turbulence, more resources are allocated to applications responsible for flight control).
Regarding claim 10, Barnes and Hammack teach the aircraft of claim 1.
Barnes further teaches wherein the aircraft is a military aircraft (Barnes: aircraft encompasses all … military aircraft, Col 5 41-42).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. US 9511729 B1 in view of Hammack et al. US 9032319 B1 in further view of Retting et al. US 20200326915 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Barnes and Hammack teach the aircraft of claim 1.
While Barnes teaches sensors on an aircraft, Barnes and Hammack do not explicitly teach, wherein the one or more peripheral devices comprise an element from the group consisting of an infrared sensor, an optical camera, a radar system, a laser sensor, an active or passive sensor for electronic warfare, and a communication system.
However, Retting teaches wherein the one or more peripheral devices comprise an element from the group consisting of an infrared sensor, an optical camera, a radar system, a laser sensor, an active or passive sensor for electronic warfare, and a communication system ([0002] Sensors span a wide range of devices, such as, for example, devices for radars, electro-optical and infrared (EOIR) detectors, communications (comms), electronic warfare (EW), infrared (IR), accelerometers, motion detectors, and microphones).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Retting’s allocating of various sensors on an aircraft with the system of Barnes and Hammack. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Barnes and Hammack’s system with the advantage of selectively utilizing sensors required by specific applications of an aircraft (see Retting [0023] multi-function sensors are increasing in usage, and thus, programs based on these sensors would ideally able to operate over multiple sensor domains. Common capability requirements, such as those involved in anti-access/aerial denial (A2/AD) applications in various domains, are driving convergence of radio frequency (RF) and optical systems. Next-generation air dominance systems require persistent, passive intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance (ISR) and integrated fire control systems to meet next-generation threats).
Regarding claim 4, Barnes and Hammack teach the aircraft of claim 1.
Barnes and Kumar do not explicitly teach wherein each of the one or more processes is a function selected from the group of functions consisting of searching for an object, observing an object of interest, identifying an object, controlling a guided missile, tracking an object, mapping an area of terrain with or without objects on it, and exchanging data for communication purposes with a remote station.
However, Retting teaches wherein each of the one or more processes is a function selected from the group of functions consisting of searching for an object, observing an object of interest, identifying an object, controlling a guided missile, tracking an object, mapping an area of terrain with or without objects on it, and exchanging data for communication purposes with a remote station ([0045] Generally, a program 230 may be designed to search, locate, verify, track, identify, or perform other tasks based on the sensors 220 available).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Retting’s ISR programs onboard military aircraft with the system of Barnes and Hammack. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Barnes and Hammack’s system with the capability of utilizing onboard sensors for strategic tasks (see Retting [0023 Next-generation air dominance systems require persistent, passive intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance (ISR) and integrated fire control systems to meet next-generation threats).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. US 9511729 B1 in view of Hammack et al. US 9032319 B1 in view of Kumar et al. US 20080313639 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Barnes and Hammack teach aircraft of claim 1.
Barnes and Hammack do not explicitly teach wherein the control unit is configured to dynamically and optionally access one or more of the one or more peripheral devices when carrying out the one or more processes based on a current load on the one or more peripheral devices.
Kumar teaches wherein the control unit is configured to dynamically and optionally access one or more of the one or more peripheral devices when carrying out the one or more processes based on a current load on the one or more peripheral devices ([0015] A scheduler 106 monitors to collect information to determine the state, as well as application resource usage. The scheduler 106 controls the resource usage of the applications 102, based on the policies 104; [0027] the policies 104 in Table I for the indexing engine dictate that if there is user activity within the last 60 seconds, then the state is "USER_BUSY". In this state, CPU usage is limited to no more than 5% and resident memory is limited to no more than 5%; Examiner notes: shared peripheral devices will be accessed by applications according to how busy it is).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Kumar’s policy-based allocation of shared resources with the system of Barnes and Hammack. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Barnes’ system with the advantage of improving control over shared resource usage (see Pan [0002] Scheduling software to run in a computer system involves determining when to allow each process or thread to have access to the processor or other resource).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. US 9511729 B1 in view of Hammack et al. US 9032319 B1 in view of Retting et al. US 20200326915 A1 in view of Kumar et al. US 20080313639 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Barnes, Hammack, and Retting teach the aircraft of claim 2.
Kumar teaches wherein an available resource of a peripheral device of the one or more peripheral devices is usage time of the peripheral device by the one or more processes ([0002] One scheduling scheme is to divide processor usage into relatively small time increments that are sometimes referred to as "time slices" … Another technique is to allocate more processor time to processes that have a higher priority).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Kumar’s time scheduling of shared resources with the system of Barnes, Hammack, and Retting. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Barnes, Hammack, and Retting’s system with the advantage of improving avionics resource sharing (see Kumar [0002] Scheduling software to run in a computer system involves determining when to allow each process or thread to have access to the processor or other resource).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to HARRISON LI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1469. The
examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm ET.
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, Aimee Li can be reached on (571) 272-4169. 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.
/H.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195