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 Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to the communication filed on 02/16/2026. Claims 1, 13 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 02/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objections to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 13 result in these claims no longer containing contingent limitations.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections of the claims.
Applicant’s arguments provided for the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 1-16 and 20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
(A) Applicant argues, “Claims 1-16 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly obvious in view of Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B)/ADS-B Rebroadcast (ADS-R) Critical Services Specification, FAA-E-3011, Revision A (“FAA-E-3011”), US 20220094710 (“Manesh”), and US 20120041620 (“Staytyon”). Claim 1 represents the Applicant’s remaining independent claim and has been amended to address the contingent limitation issue identified by the Examiner and to better align with allowable Claim 17. Applicant believes these amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections and, therefore, respectfully requests that all pending claims be placed in condition for allowance,” (from remarks page 2).
As to point (A), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has successfully addressed the contingent limitation issue of claim 1. However, Applicant does not appear to have addressed the prior art rejections for independent claims 1 and 20. Because claims 1 and 20 require the use of only a single discriminator, rather than the detailed process for using at least 3 discriminators as detailed in claim 17, they are much more closely aligned with the prior art. Examiner therefore maintains the assessment that claims 1 and 20 are unpatentable over the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the phrase “designating the ADS-B messages that were subject to the at least one discriminator as being discriminated messages as associated with one of the at least two targets…” in lines 12-13, it appears that the second “as”, shown in bold, is not needed. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) / ADS-B Rebroadcast (ADS-R) Critical Services Specification, FAA-E-3011, Revision A. (hereinafter FAA-E-3011).
Regarding claim 1, FAA-E-3011 discloses [Note: what FAA-E-3011 fails to disclose is strike-through]
A method of enhanced processing used to discriminate between Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (“ADS-B”) messages with a duplicate announced address (see at least page 35, section 3.2.2.1.1.1.4; “The requirements below apply to multiple tracks with the same 24 bit address seen from the same Radio Station Receiver. These are known as Type 1 duplicates.”), the method comprising:
receiving ADS-B messages on a receiver, wherein the ADS-B messages are from at least two targets and comprise information for display by a display of traffic information;
identifying, from among the received ADS-B messages, ADS-B messages having a duplicate announced address (see at least page 35, section 3.2.2.1.1.1.4; “Multiple ADS-B Messages will be received from a particular aircraft/vehicle on the 1090ES link to ascertain complete information for that aircraft/vehicle. It is vital that each individual Message is associated with the transmitting aircraft/vehicle and not another aircraft/vehicle, as incorrect association could result in the reporting of inaccurate information for both aircraft/vehicles. The 24-bit address transmitted in each ADS-B Message can be used to identify and associate the Messages for a particular aircraft/vehicle. Though each aircraft/vehicle should have a unique 24-bit address, there will be occasions on which duplicate target addresses exist within a Service Volume.”) as associated with one of the at least two targets using at least one discriminator (see at least page 35, section 3.2.2.1.1.1.4; “A candidate Duplicate Address is initiated when a Position Message is received for a 24 bit address that is identified as a Position Outlier. Assuming no Duplicate Address condition exists for a particular 24 bit address, the receipt of a Position Message that fails the Position Outlier test is stored as a separate track record that records the receipt of the even or odd Position Message. The existing track is the Primary track for this 24 bit address and the second track record is a candidate Duplicate track. Association of subsequent Position Messages with this 24 bit address is first attempted on the Primary track for this 24 bit address. If the Position Outlier test fails on the Primary track, this Position Message is used to update the candidate Duplicate Address record.”);
determining a score (see at least page 37, paragraph ‘e’; “The ADS-B Service shall [3703] identify an ADS-B Message as a Position Outlier when the reported position in the ADS-B Airborne Position Message differs from the last reported position by more than 6 NM for an airborne aircraft when the last reported position was received less than 30 seconds before.” Examiner maps the position difference between reported positions to a ‘score’ and the 6 NM figure to the ‘threshold’.);
designating the ADS-B messages that were subject to the at least one discriminator as being discriminated messages associated with one of the at least two targets (see at least page 35, last paragraph; “A candidate Duplicate Address is initiated when a Position Message is received for a 24 bit address that is identified as a Position Outlier. Assuming no Duplicate Address condition exists for a particular 24 bit address, the receipt of a Position Message that fails the Position Outlier test is stored as a separate track record that records the receipt of the even or odd Position Message.”) based on the score exceeding the predetermined threshold (see again page 37, paragraph ‘e’; “The ADS-B Service shall [3703] identify an ADS-B Message as a Position Outlier when the reported position in the ADS-B Airborne Position Message differs from the last reported position by more than 6 NM for an airborne aircraft when the last reported position was received less than 30 seconds before.”); and
displaying information provided by the discriminated messages on a display of traffic information as if the discriminated messages had been initially associated with only one of the at least two targets (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “Once declared a Duplicate Address, output of an ADS-B Report for either track record is designated as a Duplicate Address. Receipt of all Extended Squitter Messages, other than Position Messages, are not to be associated with any track since there is no foolproof way to associate these messages with the correct aircraft. Position Messages are associated with the record that results in the Position Outlier test being satisfied. The output of an ADS-B Report based on receipt of a Position Message is performed for the track record for which the Position Outlier test is satisfied.”).
However, FAA-E-3011 does not explicitly teach applying a weighting factor to the at least one discriminator.
FAA-E-3011 does teach applying a weighting factor in order to determine the threshold to which the at least one discriminator is compared (see at least page 36, paragraph ‘e’, note 2; “The Position Outlier threshold value is based on the assumption of a maximum aircraft speed of 600 knots over a maximum extrapolation time of 30 seconds. This yields a maximum positional difference of approximately 5 nautical miles. An additional nautical mile is added to the Position Outlier threshold to account for additional ADS-B positional measurement uncertainty.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention that a weighting factor to account for the maximum speed of the aircraft could be applied either to a threshold value or to the discriminator before comparison with a threshold.
Regarding claim 6, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 1. FAA-E-3011 further teaches:
wherein the at least one discriminator is a sequence analysis (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “In order for this 24 bit address to be declared a Duplicate Address, first a Global CPR decode would need to be completed by the receipt of both an even and odd Position Message within 10 seconds for the candidate Duplicate track. If the candidate Duplicate Address track Global CPR decode is completed and passes the global CPR reasonableness test, the 24 bit address is declared a Duplicate Address.”).
Regarding claim 7, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 6. FAA-E-3011 further teaches:
wherein the sequence analysis comprises pairing messages such that they comply with an expected periodicity (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “In order for this 24 bit address to be declared a Duplicate Address, first a Global CPR decode would need to be completed by the receipt of both an even and odd Position Message within 10 seconds for the candidate Duplicate track.”), with paired messages that do not fit a compliant message period or pattern being assumed to belong to a separate, but concurrent, source (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “If the candidate Duplicate Address track Global CPR decode is completed and passes the global CPR reasonableness test, the 24 bit address is declared a Duplicate Address.” Because messages that do not fit the pattern are not assumed to belong to the source under investigation, they may be assumed to come from a separate source.).
Regarding claim 8, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 1. FAA-E-3011 further teaches:
wherein the at least one discriminator is parameter heuristics for slow varying parameters (see at least page 36, paragraph ‘e’, note 2, where the position of the aircraft is taught to vary within well-understood limits: “The Position Outlier threshold value is based on the assumption of a maximum aircraft speed of 600 knots over a maximum extrapolation time of 30 seconds. This yields a maximum positional difference of approximately 5 nautical miles. An additional nautical mile is added to the Position Outlier threshold to account for additional ADS-B positional measurement uncertainty.”).
Regarding claim 9, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 8. FAA-E-3011 further teaches:
wherein the parameter heuristics for slow varying parameters comprises treating any change to slow varying data received for an announced address currently being tracked as increasing a likelihood that an announced address is a duplicate announced address (see at least page 36, paragraph ‘a’; “The ADS-B Service shall [3707] identify a 24-bit address as a Duplicate Address when an airborne aircraft and another airborne aircraft transmitting the same 24-bit address are detected as a result of a track initiated by a Position Outlier (§3.2.2.1.1.1.4.e) and subsequently passing the global CPR reasonableness test (§3.2.2.1.1.1.2.b).”).
Regarding claim 10, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 1. FAA-E-3011 further teaches:
wherein the at least one discriminator comprises the comparison of established track fields to historical messages having a duplicate Announced Address (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “Once declared a Duplicate Address, output of an ADS-B Report for either track record is designated as a Duplicate Address. Receipt of all Extended Squitter Messages, other than Position Messages, are not to be associated with any track since there is no foolproof way to associate these messages with the correct aircraft. Position Messages are associated with the record that results in the Position Outlier test being satisfied. The output of an ADS-B Report based on receipt of a Position Message is performed for the track record for which the Position Outlier test is satisfied.”).
Regarding claim 15, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 1. FAA-E-3011 further teaches:
wherein the display of traffic information is configured to display full symbology for the targets sharing the same announced address if all parameters could be differentiated or to display limited symbology corresponding to those parameters of the targets sharing the same announced address that could be differentiated (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “Once declared a Duplicate Address, output of an ADS-B Report for either track record is designated as a Duplicate Address. Receipt of all Extended Squitter Messages, other than Position Messages, are not to be associated with any track since there is no foolproof way to associate these messages with the correct aircraft. Position Messages are associated with the record that results in the Position Outlier test being satisfied. The output of an ADS-B Report based on receipt of a Position Message is performed for the track record for which the Position Outlier test is satisfied.”).
Claims 2-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAA-E-3011 in view of Manesh et al. (US-20220094710-A1; hereinafter Manesh).
Regarding claim 2, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 1. However, FAA-E-3011 does not teach:
wherein the at least one discriminator comprises comparing received power levels between ADS-B messages and correlating relative received power levels to target ranges.
FAA-E-3011 discloses specifications for ADS-B messages, and Manesh is directed to detecting spoofing in ADS-B messages. Manesh teaches:
wherein the at least one discriminator comprises comparing received power levels between ADS-B messages and correlating relative received power levels to target ranges (see at least [0015]; “Received signal strength (RSS): This parameter has a correlation with the great circle distance, which is calculated from the coordinates of the ownship and the transmitter. RSS is given by the Friis transmission equation as follows…”. Examiner notes that Equation 1 defines RSS as equivalent to the received power at the ownship. See also [0028]; “The ADS-B attack detection signal parameters shown in Table 1 may be grouped to provide improved detection for specific attacks…a group of injection attack parameters 124 may include ownship latitude (LatR), ownship longitude (LonR), transmitter latitude (LatT), transmitter longitude (Lon T), velocity difference (Δv), doppler shift (Δf), and received signal strength (RSS).”).
FAA-E-3011 teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages with a duplicate announced address. Manesh teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages likely to be falsified or spoofed. Because both duplicate addresses and spoofing create anomalies in the received ADS-B messages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try techniques known in identifying spoofing the in the context of identifying duplicate addresses.
Regarding claim 3, FAA-E-3011 in view of Manesh discloses the method of claim 2. Manesh further teaches:
wherein the received power levels are obtained from a front end of a receiver (see at least [0013]; “In operation, Subsystem A receives input ADS-B signals 110 and extract and calculate various parameters from the received ADS-B signals. In an embodiment, these parameters may be classified into two broad categories as (1) information taken from the content of the message (e.g., transmitter latitude, longitude, heading, velocity), and (2) information extracted from the ADS-B physical signal itself (e.g., received signal strength (RSS), frequency of the received signal).”).
It would have been obvious to combine FAA-E-3011 and Manesh for the reasons given regarding claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 1. However, FAA-E-3011 does not teach:
wherein identifying the ADS-B messages having the duplicate announced address with one of the at least two targets comprises the use of artificial intelligence, a rules-based expert system, frequency profiling, Fourier analysis, fingerprinting, or pattern matching.
Manesh teaches:
wherein identifying the ADS-B messages having anomalies comprises the use of artificial intelligence (see at least [0046]; “The ADS-B cyber-attack classification may include an artificial intelligence (AI) analysis of ADS-B cyber-attack data characteristics. As used herein, AI analysis is a field concerned with developing decision-making systems to perform cognitive tasks that have traditionally required a living actor, such as a person. The AI analysis of ADS-B cyber-attack detection may be performed by an artificial neural network (ANN) algorithm using specific ADS-B cyber-attack classifiers described herein.”), a rules-based expert system, frequency profiling, Fourier analysis, fingerprinting, or pattern matching.
FAA-E-3011 teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages with a duplicate announced address. Manesh teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages likely to be falsified or spoofed. Manesh further teaches that AI can be used to automate the detection of anomalous messages. Because both duplicate addresses and spoofing create anomalies in the received ADS-B messages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try techniques known in identifying spoofing the in the context of identifying duplicate addresses.
Claims 4-7, 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAA-E-3011 in view of Stayton et al. (US-20120041620-A1; hereinafter Stayton).
Regarding claim 4, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 1. However, FAA-E-3011 does not teach:
wherein the at least one discriminator comprises a diversity discrimination metric.
FAA-E-3011 discloses specifications for ADS-B messages, and Stayton is directed to detecting spoofing in ADS-B messages. Stayton teaches:
wherein the at least one discriminator comprises a diversity discrimination metric (see at least [0060]; “RF power level can be used with respect to a comparison of the signal strength received by a top antenna and a bottom antenna. If an aircraft is above own aircraft, the top antenna is expected to have a higher signal strength then the bottom antenna, for example, particularly when the aircraft is reported to be close (for example, within one mile) to own aircraft.”).
FAA-E-3011 teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages with a duplicate announced address. Stayton teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages likely to be falsified or spoofed. Because both duplicate addresses and spoofing create anomalies in the received ADS-B messages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try techniques known in identifying spoofing the in the context of identifying duplicate addresses.
Regarding claim 5, FAA-E-3011 in view of Stayton discloses the method of claim 4. Stayton further teaches:
wherein the receiver is in operative communication with at least two spaced apart antennas, each of which is spaced apart from the other, and wherein diversity discrimination comprises a comparison of signal strength received at the two antennas to information contained in the ADS-B message(s) to determine a likelihood that a target is the source of the message (see at least [0060]; “RF power level can be used with respect to a comparison of the signal strength received by a top antenna and a bottom antenna. If an aircraft is above own aircraft, the top antenna is expected to have a higher signal strength then the bottom antenna, for example, particularly when the aircraft is reported to be close (for example, within one mile) to own aircraft.”).
It would have been obvious to combine FAA-E-3011 and Stayton for the reasons given regarding claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, FAA-E-3011 discloses the method of claim 1. However, FAA-E-3011 does not teach:
wherein the at least one discriminator is a Doppler offset.
Stayton teaches:
wherein the at least one discriminator is a Doppler offset (see at least [0031]; “Injection attack detection 134 may receive the group of injection attack parameters 124, including ownship latitude (LatR), ownship longitude (LonR), transmitter latitude (LatT), transmitter longitude (LonT), velocity difference (Δv), doppler shift (Δf), and received signal strength (RSS). Injection attack detection 134 uses its received parameters to provide Subsystem C 140 with a binary decision about presence or absence of the attack.”).
FAA-E-3011 teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages with a duplicate announced address. Stayton teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages likely to be falsified or spoofed. Because both duplicate addresses and spoofing create anomalies in the received ADS-B messages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try techniques known in identifying spoofing the in the context of identifying duplicate addresses.
Regarding claim 12, FAA-E-3011 in view of Stayton discloses the method of claim 11. Stayton further teaches:
wherein the Doppler offset is estimated from baseband waveform samples over a duration of a pulse train corresponding to the ADS-B message (see at least [0049]; “The Doppler measurement can be made by synchronizing to the frequency and phase of the ADS-B 1090 MHz waveform using the four preamble pulses and a number of the first set of data pulses (such as the first four data pulses) to measure the phase drift correction required to maintain synchronization. Then, any change in the phase drift correction amount between successive ADS-B reply updates from that aircraft can be identified.”).
It would have been obvious to combine FAA-E-3011 and Stayton for the reasons given regarding claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, FAA-E-3011 in view of Stayton discloses the method of claim 11. Stayton further teaches:
wherein the Doppler offset of a target moving away from or towards a reference location is used as a discriminator; and wherein significant changes to the Doppler offset without an analogous change to relative velocity is indicative of anomalous announced address traffic (see at least [0049]; “A change in the Doppler shift measurement of the spoofing transmitter can be detected when flying towards or away from the spoofing transmitter that would not be the expected result for an aircraft flight path, as shown in FIG. 6. This measurement can be used to determine that the aircraft is a false, or spoof, aircraft sent from spoofing transmitter.”).
FAA-E-3011 teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages with a duplicate announced address. Stayton teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages likely to be falsified or spoofed. Because both duplicate addresses and spoofing create anomalies in the received ADS-B messages, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try techniques known in identifying spoofing the in the context of identifying duplicate addresses.
Regarding claim 14, FAA-E-3011 in view of Stayton discloses the method of claim 11. Stayton further teaches:
wherein the Doppler offset is used to detect spoofing by associating a target generating a track that is advertising position and velocity changes relative to a reference location, without expected Doppler changes, with spoofing (see at least [0049]; “A change in the Doppler shift measurement of the spoofing transmitter can be detected when flying towards or away from the spoofing transmitter that would not be the expected result for an aircraft flight path, as shown in FIG. 6. This measurement can be used to determine that the aircraft is a false, or spoof, aircraft sent from spoofing transmitter.”).
FAA-E-3011 teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages with a duplicate announced address. Stayton teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages likely to be falsified or spoofed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention to use the spoof-detection of Stayton in conjunction with the duplicate address detection of FAA-E-3011 because both techniques detect anomalies in ADS-B messages.
Regarding claim 20, FAA-E-3011 discloses [Note: what FAA-E-3011 fails to disclose is strike-through]
(see at least page 35, section 3.2.2.1.1.1.4; “The requirements below apply to multiple tracks with the same 24 bit address seen from the same Radio Station Receiver. These are known as Type 1 duplicates.”), the process comprising:
receiving ADS-B messages on a receiver, wherein messages from at least two targets share an announced address (see at least page 35, section 3.2.2.1.1.1.4; “Multiple ADS-B Messages will be received from a particular aircraft/vehicle on the 1090ES link to ascertain complete information for that aircraft/vehicle. It is vital that each individual Message is associated with the transmitting aircraft/vehicle and not another aircraft/vehicle, as incorrect association could result in the reporting of inaccurate information for both aircraft/vehicles. The 24-bit address transmitted in each ADS-B Message can be used to identify and associate the Messages for a particular aircraft/vehicle. Though each aircraft/vehicle should have a unique 24-bit address, there will be occasions on which duplicate target addresses exist within a Service Volume.”);
attempting to associate messages having the same announced address with one of the at least two targets (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “Once declared a Duplicate Address, output of an ADS-B Report for either track record is designated as a Duplicate Address. Receipt of all Extended Squitter Messages, other than Position Messages, are not to be associated with any track since there is no foolproof way to associate these messages with the correct aircraft.”) using at least a first method of discrimination (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “Position Messages are associated with the record that results in the Position Outlier test being satisfied. The output of an ADS-B Report based on receipt of a Position Message is performed for the track record for which the Position Outlier test is satisfied.”);
assigning a score to a result of the at least first method of discrimination; and
where the score exceeds a predetermined threshold value (see at least page 37, paragraph ‘e’; “The ADS-B Service shall [3703] identify an ADS-B Message as a Position Outlier when the reported position in the ADS-B Airborne Position Message differs from the last reported position by more than 6 NM for an airborne aircraft when the last reported position was received less than 30 seconds before.”), considering the ADS-B messages that were subject to the at least first method of discrimination as being discriminated messages associated with a single target (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “Once declared a Duplicate Address, output of an ADS-B Report for either track record is designated as a Duplicate Address. Receipt of all Extended Squitter Messages, other than Position Messages, are not to be associated with any track since there is no foolproof way to associate these messages with the correct aircraft.”); and
displaying data provided by the discriminated messages on a display of traffic information module as if they had been initially associated with only one of the at least two targets (see at least page 36, first paragraph; “Once declared a Duplicate Address, output of an ADS-B Report for either track record is designated as a Duplicate Address. Receipt of all Extended Squitter Messages, other than Position Messages, are not to be associated with any track since there is no foolproof way to associate these messages with the correct aircraft. Position Messages are associated with the record that results in the Position Outlier test being satisfied. The output of an ADS-B Report based on receipt of a Position Message is performed for the track record for which the Position Outlier test is satisfied.”).
However, FAA-E-3011 does not explicitly teach a computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums encoded with instructions executed by one or more processors.
FAA-E-3011 discloses specifications for ADS-B messages, and Stayton is directed to detecting spoofing in ADS-B messages. Stayton teaches:
a computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums encoded with instructions executed by one or more processors (see at least [0009]; “In certain embodiments, a system includes at least one processor and at least one memory including computer program instructions. The at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to receive a signal providing a report for an aircraft. The at least one memory and the computer program instructions are also configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to determine a first parameter for the aircraft from information in the report. The at least one memory and the computer program instructions are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to determine a second parameter for the aircraft from at least one signal characteristic of the signal. The at least one memory and the computer program instructions are additionally configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the system at least to determine a validity status of the report based on comparing the first parameter and the second parameter.”).
FAA-E-3011 teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages with a duplicate announced address. Stayton teaches testing for anomalies among ADS-B messages to identify messages likely to be falsified or spoofed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention to use a computer program product as taught by Stayton in in the context of the duplicate address detection of FAA-E-3011 because both techniques detect anomalies in received ADS-B messages.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-19 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art is the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) / ADS-B Rebroadcast (ADS-R) Critical Services Specification, FAA-E-3011, Revision A. This ADS-B specification teaches:
A method of processing to discriminate between ADS-B messages, the method comprising:
receiving ADS-B messages on a receiver, wherein messages from at least two targets share the same announced address (see at least page 35, section 3.2.2.1.1.1.4; “The requirements below apply to multiple tracks with the same 24 bit address seen from the same Radio Station Receiver. These are known as Type 1 duplicates.”);
attempting to associate messages having the same announced address with one of the at least two targets using at least a first method of discrimination (see at least page 35, section 3.2.2.1.1.1.4; “A candidate Duplicate Address is initiated when a Position Message is received for a 24 bit address that is identified as a Position Outlier. Assuming no Duplicate Address condition exists for a particular 24 bit address, the receipt of a Position Message that fails the Position Outlier test is stored as a separate track record that records the receipt of the even or odd Position Message. The existing track is the Primary track for this 24 bit address and the second track record is a candidate Duplicate track. Association of subsequent Position Messages with this 24 bit address is first attempted on the Primary track for this 24 bit address. If the Position Outlier test fails on the Primary track, this Position Message is used to update the candidate Duplicate Address record.”).
However, the ADS-B specification does not teach:
attempting to associate messages having the same announced address with one of the at least two targets using at least a first method of discrimination, a second method of discrimination, and an Nth method of discrimination, where N is an integer;
generating a scoring system for each method of discrimination;
applying a weighting factor to each method of discrimination;
summing the weighted scores; and
when the summed, weighted scores exceed a threshold value, associating the messages with a particular target and displaying data conveyed by the ADS-B messages now associated with the particular target on a display of traffic information.
Modification would require significant redesign, and therefore it would not be reasonable to modify.
Claims 18-19 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 17.
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 Ashley B. Raynal whose telephone number is (703)756-4546. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 4 PM.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/ASHLEY BROWN RAYNAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648