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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-3 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2021/0335135) in view of Lu et al. (US 2018/0241463).
Regarding claim 1, Lauer teaches a device for passengers of an aircraft, comprising a set of computer terminals used by the passengers and an electronic commerce website itself comprising in particular servers (Fig. 1A, central server 160)
hosted by a computer infrastructure located on the ground (Fig. 1A, central server 160 located on the ground) and capable of being interrogated from the aircraft (Fig. 1A, item 105) by way of a limited-bandwidth direct communication link between the aircraft and the ground infrastructure without going through a communication network with other aircraft (Paragraphs 0024……..The ATG communication link 147 may be between the vehicle 105 and a terrestrial base station 145 connected to a public switched telephone network (PTSN) 148)), but does not specifically teach wherein the electronic commerce website consists of a semi-embedded electronic commerce server (denoted "SeeS" for short) consisting of two parts, namely, on the one hand, a component located on the ground and, on the other hand, a component embedded in the aircraft and configured to optimize communication with said ground component depending on the various phases of a flight.
However, in related art, Lu teaches wherein the electronic commerce website consists of a semi-embedded electronic commerce server (denoted "SeeS" for short) consisting of two parts, namely, on the one hand, a component (Paragraph [0100]…transceivers) located on the ground (Paragraph [0100]….ground cell towers) and, on the other hand, a component (Paragraph [0100]….transceivers) embedded in the aircraft and configured to optimize communication with said ground component depending on the various phases of a flight (Paragraphs [0099]- [0103]….. FIG. 1 describes the Open Wireless Architecture (OWA) Unified Airborne and Terrestrial Networking Infrastructure. The airborne connections have two different ways:… The moving aircrafts, equipped with OWA.Air Transceivers, connect to the Ground Cell towers with OWA.Ground Transceivers through the Airborne Mobile Handover protocol. Since the aircraft navigation routes are predictable and pre-loaded in the airborne system, and the ground cells' information is also known in advance, this airborne mobile handover is actually well planned when in flight…. OWA technology allows open radio transmission technologies between the ground cells and the aircrafts so that the Up-Link (from ground to aircraft) and Down-Link (from aircraft to ground) connections are always optimized). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Lu’s teaching about wherein the electronic commerce website consists of a semi-embedded electronic commerce server (denoted "SeeS" for short) consisting of two parts, namely, on the one hand, a component located on the ground and, on the other hand, a component embedded in the aircraft and configured to optimize communication with said ground component depending on the various phases of a flight with Lauer’s invention in order to maximize the transmission throughput.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lauer and Lu teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lu teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said computer terminals use communication protocols that are local network protocols, in particular Wi-Fi and Ethernet protocols (Paragraphs [0115, 0129, 0179]. Also, see Lauer, paragraph [0027]…… Generally speaking, the user devices 110 may send and receive data over the on-board communication link 137 via the on-board wireless access points 135).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lauer and Lu teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lauer teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said limited-bandwidth direct communication link is a satellite communication link or a direct radiofrequency connection from the ground (Paragraphs 0024……..The ATG communication link 147 may be between the vehicle 105 and a terrestrial base station 145 connected (direct communication) to a public switched telephone network (PTSN) 148)).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lauer and Lu teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lu teaches the device according to claim 1,wherein said two components of the SeeS are configured to implement copying, "caching", "prefetching", replication, cloning, synchronization (Paragraphs 0023-0028, 0110, 0134-0138), API and load distribution operations, so as to optimize the use of the Internet connection available between them in real time (Paragraph 0023, 0046, 0103, 0117, 0122, and 0159).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lauer and Lu teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lauer teaches the device according to claim 1,wherein said computer terminals of the users comprise personal computer terminals such as smartphones, touchscreen tablets or laptops (Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lauer and Lu teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lauer teaches the device according to claim 1,wherein said computer terminals of the users comprise terminals integrated into the entertainment system on board the aircraft (Paragraphs 0003, 0020, 0022.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lauer and Lu teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lauer teaches the device according to claim 1,wherein said embedded component and the ground component of the semi-embedded electronic commerce server are configured to encrypt the communication between them (Paragraphs 0026…. The network controller 120 supports communications external to the vehicle 105 via the communication links 147, 157 and manages an on-board network provided by the on-board communication link 137…. The base station 145 and the satellite ground station 150 may be connected to a network backbone 180, which may include a terrestrial cellular or radio network, for example. The network backbone 180 may communicatively connect the base station 145 and the satellite ground station 150 to a central server 160. The network backbone 180 may also connect a media server 170. The media server 170 stores content that users on-board the vehicle 105 may access via the on-board network. The central server 160 may be associated with a provider of communication services to vehicles and/or mobile devices on-board vehicles. So vehicle or aircraft 105 inherently has a server configured to encrypt the communication with central server 160 via base station 145 or ground station 150).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lauer and Lu teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Lauer teaches the device according to claim 1,wherein said electronic commerce website is designed in the form of a single-page web application running on the portable terminal of the user or on a terminal integrated into the airliner (Paragraphs 0020 and 0044).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2021/0335135) in view of Lu et al. (US 2018/0241463), and further in view of Schwindt (US 2020/0148381).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lauer and Lu fail to teach the device according to claim 1, wherein said embedded component is configured to retrieve, automatically and in real time, information about the current flight phase.
However, in related art, Schwindt teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said embedded component is configured to retrieve, automatically and in real time, information about the current flight phase (Paragraphs 0005 and 0052……. a method of updating flight calculations, the method comprising: flying an aircraft along a current flight path; automatically collecting aircraft traffic information including at least one of aircraft position, type, mass, or mass category from at least one of a network of aircraft operating in a nearby region or a ground station; automatically collecting real-time weather data; predicting at least one vortex with a vortex magnitude to be encountered by the current flight path). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Schwindt teaching about wherein said embedded component is configured to retrieve, automatically and in real time, information about the current flight phase with Lauer’s and Lu’s invention in order to assist the pilot with landing.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2021/0335135) in view of Lu et al. (US 2018/0241463), and further in view of Pandit et al. (US 2010/0087190).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lauer and Lu fail to teach the device according to claim 1,wherein the data exchanges between the two components of the SeeS are differentiated according to flight phases, taken from among parked in the closed flight state, parked with flight open, passenger boarding, taxiing, take-off and climbing to cruising altitude, cruising phase, descent and landing, passenger disembarkation.
However, in related art, Pandit teaches the device according to claim 1,wherein the data exchanges between the two components of the SeeS are differentiated according to flight phases, taken from among parked in the closed flight state, parked with flight open, passenger boarding, taxiing, take-off and climbing to cruising altitude, cruising phase, descent and landing, passenger disembarkation (Paragraph 0026). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Pandit’s teaching about wherein the data exchanges between the two components of the SeeS are differentiated according to flight phases, taken from among parked in the closed flight state, parked with flight open, passenger boarding, taxiing, take-off and climbing to cruising altitude, cruising phase, descent and landing, passenger disembarkation with Lauer’s and Lu’s invention in order to exchange safety related data such as traffic, surveillance, and video data between aircraft.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2021/0335135) in view of Lu et al. (US 2018/0241463) in view of Heimerikx (US Patent #11,167,851), and further in view of Barclay (US Patent #6,158,658).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lauer and Lu fail to teach the device according to claim 1,wherein said embedded component is configured to automatically retrieve information regarding the airliner, the flight and the passengers, taken from among the following elements: unique identifier of the airliner ("tail number"), flight number, flight characteristic data (such as departure and arrival airports, departure time and scheduled arrival time), flight parameters, and, for each passenger: confidential personal data such as identifier, segments of the trip, connecting airports, return flights, next trips, next places of residence, loyalty card number.
However, in related art, Heimerikx teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said embedded component is configured to automatically retrieve information regarding the airliner, the flight and the passengers, taken from among the following elements: unique identifier of the airliner ("tail number"), flight number, flight characteristic data (such as departure and arrival airports, departure time and scheduled arrival time), flight parameters (Claim 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Heimerikx’s teaching about wherein said embedded component is configured to automatically retrieve information regarding the airliner, the flight and the passengers, taken from among the following elements: unique identifier of the airliner ("tail number"), flight number, flight characteristic data (such as departure and arrival airports, departure time and scheduled arrival time), flight parameters with Lauer’s and Lu’s invention for navigation of the flight that has been entered into a computer system.
The combination of Lauer, Lu, and Heimerikx fail to teach for each passenger: confidential personal data such as identifier, segments of the trip, connecting airports, return flights, next trips, next places of residence, loyalty card number.
However, in related art, Barclay teaches each passenger: confidential personal data such as identifier, segments of the trip, connecting airports, return flights, next trips, next places of residence, loyalty card number (Col 5, lines 24-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Barclay’s teaching about each passenger: confidential personal data such as identifier, segments of the trip, connecting airports, return flights, next trips, next places of residence, loyalty card number with Lauer’s, Lu’s, and Heimerikx’s invention in order to depart for airlines that have included the passenger safety system in their minimum operating equipment list.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2021/0335135) in view of Lu et al. (US 2018/0241463), and further in view of Dondoneau et al. (US 2021/0160781).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lauer and Lu fail to teach the device according to claim 1,wherein said embedded component is configured, when the aircraft is on the ground, to download, from the ground component, high-volume data such as product catalogs, or updates to functions or the software of the embedded device, using said high- bandwidth direct Internet connection between the aircraft and the ground infrastructure.
However, in related art, Dondoneau teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said embedded component is configured, when the aircraft is on the ground, to download, from the ground component, high-volume data such as product catalogs, or updates to functions or the software of the embedded device, using said high- bandwidth direct Internet connection between the aircraft and the ground infrastructure (Paragraphs 0013-0121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Dondoneau’s teaching about wherein said embedded component is configured, when the aircraft is on the ground, to download, from the ground component, high-volume data such as product catalogs, or updates to functions or the software of the embedded device, using said high- bandwidth direct Internet connection between the aircraft and the ground infrastructure with Lauer’s and Lu’s invention in order to obtain large amount of content through high speed internet connection when the aircraft is in ground state.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lauer (US 2021/0335135) in view of Lu et al. (US 2018/0241463), and further in view of Bastian et al. (US Patent #6,757,712).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lauer and Lu fail to teach the device according to claim 1,wherein said embedded component is configured, when the aircraft is in flight, to communicate with the ground component using said limited-bandwidth direct communication link to exchange low-volume data with said ground component.
However, in related art, Bastian teaches the device according to claim 1, wherein said embedded component is configured, when the aircraft is in flight, to communicate with the ground component using said limited-bandwidth direct communication link to exchange low-volume data with said ground component (Col 4, lines 39-63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Bastian’s teaching about wherein said embedded component is configured, when the aircraft is in flight, to communicate with the ground component using said limited-bandwidth direct communication link to exchange low-volume data with said ground component with Lauer’s and Lu’s invention so that more efficient and highly reliable communication can be realized.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lauer, Lu, and Bastian teach all the claimed elements in claim 8. In addition, Bastian teaches the device according to claim 8, wherein said low- volume data comprise personal and confidential information related to the creation of user accounts, user authentication, real-time stock of products available on the electronic commerce site, validation of shopping carts or finalization of payment transactions (Col 6, lines 37-45), and information on differential updates to the data of the electronic commerce website (Col 4, lines 39-63).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art of record fails to teach the device according to claim 1,wherein said embedded component is configured to test the availability of a direct connection between the computer network of the airliner and the ground component, allowing the computer network of the airliner to access the ground component immediately and without delay and, in the event of unavailability, to save the transactions of the users in a buffer memory so as to complete them when the connection is available again or via a ground communication link once the aircraft has landed.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record fails to teach method for implementing the device according to claim 1, including steps of: - interacting with the computer system of the airliner to check whether direct and immediate radiofrequency communication with the ground infrastructure is permitted; - if so, for the embedded component of the device, checking, using the computer system of the aircraft, the status, in flight or on the ground, of the aircraft; - if the aircraft is on the ground, launching a complete data synchronization phase between the ground component and the embedded component using a high-bandwidth terrestrial communication link; - if the aircraft is in flight and a limited-bandwidth satellite communication link is available, launching a partial data synchronization phase between the ground component and the embedded component.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Siegmeth et al. (US 2021/0189977), Alcorn (US 2021/0075499), Mohr et al. (US 2021/0075871), Gomez et al. (US Patent #10,476,582), Hochwarth et al. (US 2019/0304314), Hamilton et al. (US Patent #10,102,755), Canale (US 2018/0218621), Bazile et al. (US 2018/0074515), Perin et al. (US Patent #9,776,733), Clark et al. (US 2016/0363929), Di Costanzo et al. (US 2016/0352412), Mitchell et al. (US Patent #9,509,394), Walter (US 2016/0272345), Bailey et al. (US 2016/0093219), Howe-Ryberg et al. (US 2016/0095150), Kollakowski (US Patent #9,221,549), Scherenberger et al. (US 2013/0158700), Oh et al. (US 2013/0113636), Frost et al. (US 2012/0290436), White et al. (US 2012/0221233), Mclnitire et al. (US Patent #8,130,680), Petrisor (US 2011/0115286), Benco et al. (US 2010/0281100), Small et al. (US 2008/0010005), Burch (US Patent #6,868,320), and Barclay (US Patent #6,158,658).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132