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 November 4, 2025. Claims 1 (lines 4 and 16-18), 2 (line 3), and 5 (line 4) have been amended. No claims have been newly added or cancelled. Thus, Claims 1-11 are presently pending.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Examiner notes that 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been added for claims 1-11.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on November 4, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are partly persuasive. Regarding claim 1, the examiner notes that elements in lines 22-23 still lack antecedent basis. Therefore, while the previous rejections for claims 2 and 5 have been withdrawn, the rejection for claim 1 is still pending.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks, filed on November 4, 2025, with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been withdrawn (see Allowable Subject Matter further below).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites “…each said verifier is selected from all the aircraft or the ground stations in the corresponding zone” (lines 22-23). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these elements. Examiner respectfully recommends amending to “…each said verifier is selected from all a corresponding zone”.
Regarding Claims 2-11, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent on a previously rejected independent claim, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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, called TCAS; the TCAS system 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 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;
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;
and selectively validating or not validating said suspicious aircraft or said suspicious radio station as false traffic, based on results of the analyzing;
wherein each said verifier is selected from all the aircraft or the ground stations in the corresponding zone depending on a 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 “forming an interrogation to each said verifier…” and “receiving a response to each said interrogation…”, the examiner submits that these limitations are considered insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use communication devices to perform the process. These steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to data outputting/gathering, which are considered forms of insignificant extra-solution activity by the office (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
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 “forming an interrogation to each said verifier…” and “receiving a response to each said interrogation…”, these are well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities because transmitting (“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)).
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
Claims 1-11 would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 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
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 9:00 AM - 5:00 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