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 .
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.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on May 26, 2026. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 have been amended. No claims have been newly added or cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on May 26, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on May 26, 2026, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered and are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Remarks, Page 9): Regarding the statement that claim 1 as amended is not directed to a mental process, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claim still recites limitations (e.g. “analyzing…”) that can encompass a person analyzing provided data to determine whether a signal is authentic. If a claim recites a limitation that can be practically performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim is considered to recite an abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Remarks, Pages 9-11): Regarding the statement that claim 1 as amended recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements are directed towards outputting (e.g. transmitting data) and receiving data which are considered extra-solution activities by the office (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Additionally, while the amended limitation further clarifies the inclusion of TCAS, the examiner respectfully notes that the TCAS is generically claimed, as it only provides details about its location on the aircraft. The office considers the general usage of a computer system (such as to transmit data) as mere instructions for applying the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)… does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”). Furthermore, regarding the statement that the claimed steps (e.g. dividing surrounding airspace, analyzing responses, etc.) provides an improvement to the operation of a TCAS, the examiner respectfully notes that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (MPEP § 2106.05(a)). With respect to the additional elements, the limitations for transmitting from the TCAS and receiving data, the courts have previously indicated that mere automation of manual processes are not sufficient for showing significant improvement (e.g. pilots could manually communicate via radio information about a suspicious signal).
Step 2B (Remarks, Pages 11-12): Regarding the statement that claim 1 as amended recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception based on setting meaningful limits beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps for transmitting and receiving data are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities because transmitting data (“formed interrogation”) or receiving data (“receiving a response”) over a network are recognized WURC functions when claimed as insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Furthermore, when WURC activities are recited at a high-level generality, they are not considered to meaningfully limit the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is being maintained for claims 1-11, and has been updated for clarity in light of the amendments, as seen below.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites:
A method for detecting decoying in a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS); the TCAS being carried on-board an aircraft targeted by decoying originating from a suspicious aircraft or a suspicious radio station, the method comprising:
establishing a trusted network, including:
dividing a surrounding space of the targeted aircraft into a plurality of zones,
in at least certain ones of the plurality of zones, selecting a verifier, each said verifier corresponding to another aircraft or to a ground station able to implement the trusted network; and validating said suspicious aircraft or said suspicious radio station, including:
forming an interrogation to each said verifier, each said interrogation containing data relating to said suspicious aircraft or said suspicious radio station,
transmitting the formed interrogation from the TCAS carried on-board the targeted aircraft, to each said verifier,
receiving a response to each said interrogation and checking each said received response,
associating each said received response with an associated degree of confidence,
analyzing all the received responses and the associated degrees of confidence to either validate or not validate said suspicious aircraft or said suspicious radio station as false traffic, wherein each said verifier is selected from all aircraft or ground stations in a corresponding zone depending on the relative distance to the targeted aircraft.
Step 1: Independent claim 1 is directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The recited limitations (represented by bolded font) constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the bolded limitations in the context of claim 1 under broadest reasonable interpretation may encompass a co-pilot determining whether a suspicious signal is authentic based on analyzing information from nearby aircraft or ground stations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The independent claims recite additional elements (represented by underlined font) that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmitting the formed interrogation…” and “receiving a response to each said interrogation…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activities as they amount to sending and receiving data, which are considered forms of insignificant extra-solution activity by the office (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional limitation of “TCAS carried on-board the targeted aircraft” is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception with a generic computer system (MPEP § 2106.05(f), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)… does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) do not add anything that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The independent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “transmitting the formed interrogation…” and “receiving a response to each said interrogation…”, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities because transmitting data (“interrogation”) or receiving data (“receiving a response”) over a network are recognized as WURC functions when claimed as insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The additional limitation of “TCAS carried on-board the targeted aircraft” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because King (US20050156777A1) teaches that it is well-known for aircraft to use TCAS (Paragraph 0011, “TCAS is a well-known active collision avoidance system that relies upon reply signals from airborne transponders in response to interrogation signals from an aircraft equipped with a ATCRBS Mode-A/Mode-C or Mode-S transponder”).
Therefore, independent claim 1 is not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-11, the claims do not recite any further limitations that cause the corresponding independent claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well‐understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
Claims 2-3 further describe how verifiers are chosen, which is directed to the previously discussed mental process (“…selecting a verifier…”).
Claim 4 describes a condition for initiating the validation process, which is directed to an additional mental process (e.g. the co-pilot decides to perform the validation process when a suspicious signal is near the aircraft).
Claim 5 describes equipping the TCAS system with an S mode of communication for sending interrogations, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The mode of communication describes the TCAS, not the process itself.
Claims 6 and 8 describes the information being transmitted/received, which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7 further describes how data is checked (“checking consistency” between values), which is directed to the previously discussed mental process (“…checking each said received response”).
Claim 9 further describe how the received data is analyzed, which is directed to the previously discussed mental process (“…analyzing all the received responses…”).
Claim 10 describes receiving a warning, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11 describes modules for implementing the method of claim 1, which are recited at a high-level of generality such that these elements are considered mere generic computer components which allow the abstract idea to be applied.
Therefore, dependent claims 2-11 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided in the rejection of independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
As previously indicated (see O.A. mailed 02/23/2026, recited again for clarity of record), claims 1-11 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Previously, independent claim 1 was rejected by Schwindt (US20200166632A1) which discloses the claimed features for dividing the surrounding area of an aircraft into zones, in view of Miller (US20190043369A1) which teaches the claimed features for selecting a subset of aircrafts for sharing information, and Rodriguez-Montejano (US20160309291A1) which teaches validating an aircraft based on analyzing information received from other aircraft.
The amendments added “associating each said received response with an associated degree of confidence” (lines 16-17) and “analyzing all the received responses” (line 18). The examiner agrees that Rodriguez-Montejano does not teach associating responses with a degree of confidence, as Rodriguez-Montejano does not appear to suggest varying weights to represent responses from different aircraft. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
Upon further search and consideration, the new closest prior art found describe gaining consensus on a suspicious signal (e.g. Sampigethaya - US20110057830A1 and Subramanian - US20190280871A1), but they do not teach associating a level of confidence with responses from other aircraft during the verification process. While additional art has been found that teaches associating a confidence level with other aircraft (e.g. Hauswald - US20180172797A1, Paragraphs 0096-0097), it is limited to a verification process performed by a fixed base station. Therefore, the prior art of record does not appear to explicitly disclose or teach features that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the Schwindt invention to teach claim 1 as amended.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EISEN YIM whose telephone number is (703)756-5976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/EISEN YIM/Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights