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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 10, and 19 have been amended.
No new claims have been introduced.
No claims have been canceled.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The official correspondence below is an after non-final.
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.
CLAIM 10 (claims 1 parallel in scope in spirit) IS REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 10 is directed to a method of comparing vehicle data (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 10 Recites:
A method comprising:
comparing, by a control unit, first QNH data received from a first QNH data source,
second QNH data received from a second QNH data source that differs from the first QNH data source, and
a QNH input entered into an avionics system of an aircraft; and
outputting, by the control unit at a user interface, an alert signal in response to the QNH input differing from one or both of the first QNH data or the second QNH data.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “comparing” in the context of this claim encompasses a person (crew member, ground crew, ATC) observing first and second data collected from sensors generic sensors or other source, and forming a simple judgement as to whether the data is matching a user input. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea that is well with the limitations of the human mind.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 10 Recites:
A method comprising:
comparing, by a control unit, first QNH data received from a first QNH data source,
second QNH data received from a second QNH data source that differs from the first QNH data source, and
a QNH input entered into an avionics system of an aircraft; and
outputting, by the control unit at a user interface, an alert signal in response to the QNH input differing from one or both of the first QNH data or the second QNH data.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of display/notify/alert the examiner submits that this limitation is post-solution activity that use a vehicle controller to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps, from sensors or other sources, are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering aircraft altitude data for use in the evaluating step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activity. The displaying results step on a display console is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to post solution displaying, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “controller” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a general purpose vehicle control environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the evaluating step. 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) add nothing 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, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 10 does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a vehicle controller to perform the evaluating amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitation of displaying, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities of an indication or displaying. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “displaying” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 11-16 and 18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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. Therefore, dependent claims 11-16 and 18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 10. Further, claims 1 and 19 are parallel in scope and spirit and are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 10. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9, and 20 are also ineligible under the same rationale.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-7, 9-16, and 18 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatwa (US 20090189787 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Khatwa discloses, a control unit (Khatwa: [FIG. 1(12)]) having a user interface (Khatwa: [0003] Current aircraft display systems comprise multiple cockpit displays, including a primary flight display (PFD). A graphical display is generated on the PFD that visually expresses the status of various flight parameters, including airspeed, heading, attitude, vertical speed, roll, altitude, and the like. The PFD thus serves to increase a pilot's situational awareness by visually expressing a relatively large amount of information on a single composite display. One of the various graphical elements produced on the PFD is an altimeter graphic, which visually expresses the aircraft's altitude as estimated by the barometric altimeter. The altimeter graphic may assume the form of, for example, a metered altitude tape graphic that appears to scroll vertically upward or downward as the aircraft's altitude decreases or increases, respectively. The visual display generated on the PFD may also include a graphic (e.g., textual readout) indicating the current value of the reference pressure setting; [0013] A barometric altimeter 14 is operatively coupled to a first input of controller 12. Barometric altimeter 14 estimates the flight altitude of the aircraft on which PFD system 10 is deployed as a function of external air pressure calibrated to a reference pressure. To permit a pilot to adjust the reference pressure), the control unit configured to: compare (Khatwa: [0006] comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude) first QNHI data received from a first QNHI data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude), second QNHI data received from a second QNHI data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude) that differs from the first QNHI data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude), and a QNHI input entered into an avionics system of an aircraft (Khatwa: [0002] A pilot or other crew member is able to set the value of the reference pressure utilizing a rotatable knob or other such input device. When the aircraft is located beneath the transition altitude (e.g., 18,000 feet above sea level within the United States), the pilot enters a reference pressure setting corresponding to the aircraft's true height above mean sea level. This pressure setting may be provided by an Air Traffic Control Center, a Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility, a Flight Service Station, a control tower, or other such ground-based navigational facility as a QNH or QFE code. When the aircraft ascends above the transition altitude, the pilot adjusts the reference pressure setting to the globally-fixed pressure datum of 1013.25 mbar or 29.921 inches Hg. This practice ensures that flight systems deployed on aircraft flying above the transition altitude are calibrated to a universal reference pressure setting; [0013] To permit a pilot to adjust the reference pressure, barometric altimeter 14 is equipped with a reference pressure setting input 16, which may assume the form of, for example, a rotatable knob), and output, at the user interface, an alert signal in response to the QNH input differing from one or both of the first QNHI data or the second QNHI data (Khatwa: [0006] A method is also provided for alerting a pilot of an aircraft to the mis-setting of a reference pressure setting associated with a barometric altimeter deployed on the aircraft, which includes a secondary altitude-determining device and a primary flight display (PFD)).
Khatwa does not explicitly recite the terminology first and second “QNH”. However, Khatwa discloses a first and second altitude determining devices. Which, the examiner respectfully submits, is parallel in service and result for determining aircraft altitude.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second altitude determining device disclosed by Khatwa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a visual alert when a difference between the first estimated altitude and the second estimated altitude exceeds a predetermined error threshold.
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the user interface has a display within the aircraft (Khatwa: [0014] A Primary Flight Display (PFD)), wherein the control unit is further configured to show information regarding the alert signal on the display of the user interface (Khatwa: [0016] During flight, EICAS display 20 provides a centralized display area for the generation of various flight deck alerts).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 3, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the information includes the first QNH data (Khatwa: [0013] A barometric altimeter 14 is operatively coupled to a first input of controller 12. Barometric altimeter 14 estimates the flight altitude of the aircraft on which PFD system), the second QNH data (Khatwa: [0017] PFD system 10 further includes a secondary altitude-determining device 22. Secondary altitude-determining device 22 can comprise any device capable of providing controller 12 with a second, independent estimation of aircraft altitude), and the QNH input (Khatwa: [0013] To permit a pilot to adjust the reference pressure, barometric altimeter 14 is equipped with a reference pressure setting input).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 3, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the information includes a prompt to review and re-enter the QNH input into the avionics system (Khatwa: [0013] a pilot utilizes reference pressure setting input 16 to adjust the reference pressure setting at various intervals during flight (e.g., when the host aircraft ascends above or descends below the transition altitude); [0004] It is thus desirable to provide an aircraft display system that is capable of detecting and alerting a pilot to a potential altimeter mis-set. In particular, it would be desirable for such a display system to produce a visual alert on the aircraft's PFD, preferably proximate the altimeter graphics, so as to provide the pilot with an effective and intuitive notification of the altimeter mis-set).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the aircraft includes the control unit (Khatwa: [FIG. 1(12)]).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the first QNH data source is an Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) (Khatwa: [0013] A barometric altimeter 14 is operatively coupled to a first input of controller 12), and wherein the second QNH data source is air traffic control (ATC) (Khatwa: [0002] the pilot enters a reference pressure setting corresponding to the aircraft's true height above mean sea level. This pressure setting may be provided by an Air Traffic Control Center, a Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility, a Flight Service Station, a control tower, or other such ground-based navigational facility as a QNH or QFE code; [0017] altitude-determining device 22 may comprise a wireless receiver configured to estimate aircraft altitude utilizing data provided from a remote (e.g., ground-based) source, such as an Air Traffic Control Center, a Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility, a Flight Service Station, or a control tower).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Khatwa discloses, comparing, by a control unit, first QNH data received from a first QNH data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude), second QNH data received from a second QNH data source that differs from the first QNH data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude), and a QNH input entered into an avionics system of an aircraft (Khatwa: [0002] A pilot or other crew member is able to set the value of the reference pressure utilizing a rotatable knob or other such input device. When the aircraft is located beneath the transition altitude (e.g., 18,000 feet above sea level within the United States), the pilot enters a reference pressure setting corresponding to the aircraft's true height above mean sea level. This pressure setting may be provided by an Air Traffic Control Center, a Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility, a Flight Service Station, a control tower, or other such ground-based navigational facility as a QNH or QFE code. When the aircraft ascends above the transition altitude, the pilot adjusts the reference pressure setting to the globally-fixed pressure datum of 1013.25 mbar or 29.921 inches Hg. This practice ensures that flight systems deployed on aircraft flying above the transition altitude are calibrated to a universal reference pressure setting; [0013] To permit a pilot to adjust the reference pressure, barometric altimeter 14 is equipped with a reference pressure setting input 16, which may assume the form of, for example, a rotatable knob); and outputting, by the control unit at a user interface, an alert signal in response to the QNH input differing from one or both of the first QNH data or the second QNH data (Khatwa: [ABS] a visual alert on the PFD when the difference between the first estimated altitude and the second estimated altitude exceeds a predetermined error threshold; [0020] The visual alert may be produced in a graphical format and/or a textual format. In a basic embodiment, controller 12 identifies the occurrence of a reference pressure mis-set by determining if the difference between the estimated altitude provided by barometric altimeter 14 and that provided by secondary altitude-determining device 22 exceeds a predetermined error threshold).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 10, and further, Khatwa also discloses, showing, by the control unit on a display of a user interface within the aircraft, information regarding the alert signal (Khatwa: [0014]; [0016]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 12, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the information includes the first QNH data, the second QNH data, and the QNH input (Khatwa: [0013]; [0017]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 12, and further, Khatwa also discloses, said showing comprises prompting a review and re-entry of the QNH input into the avionics system (Khatwa: [0013]; [0004]).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 10, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the aircraft includes the control unit (Khatwa: [FIG. 1(12)]).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 10, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the first QNH data source is an Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS), and wherein the second QNH data source is air traffic control (ATC) (Khatwa: [0002]; [0013]; [0017]).
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatwa (US 20090189787 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bell (US 8410975 B1).
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Khatwa does not explicitly disclose, output a confirmation signal in response to the QNH input matching both the first QNH data and the second QNH data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bell discloses, output a confirmation signal in response to the QNH input matching both the first QNH data and the second QNH data (Bell: [ABS] a first measurement of aircraft altitude is generated. Then, the processor receives second altitude data representative of a second measurement of aircraft altitude from another source. Validity of the second altitude data may be determined by comparing it with the first data, after which validity advisory data may be generated that, is responsive to the validity determination. Then, the processor may provide the validity advisory data to a presentation system, whereby validity information of the second altitude data is presented to the pilot), for the benefit of validating control data.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Khatwa to include data validation taught by Bell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to validate control data.
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 10, and further, Khatwa does not explicitly disclose, output a confirmation signal in response to the QNH input matching both the first QNH data and the second QNH data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bell discloses, output a confirmation signal in response to the QNH input matching both the first QNH data and the second QNH data (Bell: [ABS]), for the benefit of validating control data.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Khatwa to include data validation taught by Bell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to validate control data.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatwa (US 20090189787 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Conroy (US 20070271009 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Khatwa discloses first data, second data, pilot entered altitude data, comparing, and notifying. Khatwa does not explicitly disclose, automatically operate the aircraft altitude.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Conroy discloses, automatically operate the aircraft altitude (Conroy: [0069] automatically receive and calculate flight parameters, including recognition of oxygen dispensing systems installed in the using aircraft to automatically incorporate the appropriate dispensing system; [0092] a decrease in aircraft altitude, necessitating a connection with the aircraft autopilot; [0107] specifically the aircraft autopilot, such that the aircraft altitude may be reduced to a predetermined level), for the benefit of a logic device calculating a value of further flight parameter and provides the value of the further flight parameter and adjusting aircraft altitude.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Khatwa to include automatic controls taught by Conroy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to calculate a value of further flight parameter and provides the value of the further flight parameter and adjusting aircraft altitude.
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 10, and further, Khatwa does not explicitly disclose, automatically operating, by the control unit, the aircraft based on said comparing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Conroy discloses, automatically operating, by the control unit, the aircraft based on said comparing (Conroy: [0069]; [0092]; [0107]), for the benefit of a logic device calculating a value of further flight parameter and provides the value of the further flight parameter and adjusting aircraft altitude.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Khatwa to include automatic controls taught by Conroy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to calculate a value of further flight parameter and provides the value of the further flight parameter and adjusting aircraft altitude.
Claim(s) 9 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khatwa (US 20090189787 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Bosworth (US 20180364707 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 1, and further, Khatwa does not explicitly disclose, the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bosworth discloses, the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (Bosworth: [0074] The anomaly detection application 218 employs machine learning techniques to monitor aircraft state, cluster, and classify sensor inputs in order to detect the presence of non-normal situations), for the benefit of performing an auto-descent procedure and, once at a predetermined altitude and location, perform an auto-land procedure.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Khatwa to include software/firmware for monitoring an aircraft state taught by Bosworth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to perform an auto-descent procedure and, once at a predetermined altitude and location, perform an auto-land procedure.
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Khatwa remains as applied above to claim 10, and further, Khatwa does not explicitly disclose, the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bosworth discloses, the control unit is an artificial intelligence or machine learning system (Bosworth: [0074]), for the benefit of performing an auto-descent procedure and, once at a predetermined altitude and location, perform an auto-land procedure.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Khatwa to include software/firmware for monitoring an aircraft state taught by Bosworth. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to perform an auto-descent procedure and, once at a predetermined altitude and location, perform an auto-land procedure.
REGARDING CLAIM 19, Khatwa discloses, comparing first QNH data received from a first QNH data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude), second QNH data received from a second QNH data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude) that differs from the first QNH data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude), and a QNH input entered into an avionics system of an aircraft (Khatwa: [0002] A pilot or other crew member is able to set the value of the reference pressure utilizing a rotatable knob or other such input device. When the aircraft is located beneath the transition altitude (e.g., 18,000 feet above sea level within the United States), the pilot enters a reference pressure setting corresponding to the aircraft's true height above mean sea level. This pressure setting may be provided by an Air Traffic Control Center, a Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility, a Flight Service Station, a control tower, or other such ground-based navigational facility as a QNH or QFE code. When the aircraft ascends above the transition altitude, the pilot adjusts the reference pressure setting to the globally-fixed pressure datum of 1013.25 mbar or 29.921 inches Hg. This practice ensures that flight systems deployed on aircraft flying above the transition altitude are calibrated to a universal reference pressure setting; [0013] To permit a pilot to adjust the reference pressure, barometric altimeter 14 is equipped with a reference pressure setting input 16, which may assume the form of, for example, a rotatable knob); outputting an alert signal in response to the QNH input differing from one or both of the first QNH data or the second QNH data (Khatwa: [ABS] a visual alert on the PFD when the difference between the first estimated altitude and the second estimated altitude exceeds a predetermined error threshold; [0020] The visual alert may be produced in a graphical format and/or a textual format. In a basic embodiment, controller 12 identifies the occurrence of a reference pressure mis-set by determining if the difference between the estimated altitude provided by barometric altimeter 14 and that provided by secondary altitude-determining device 22 exceeds a predetermined error threshold).
Khatwa does not explicitly disclose, automatically operating the aircraft based on said comparing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bosworth discloses, automatically operating the aircraft based on said comparing (Bosworth: [ABS] An aircrew automation system that provides a pilot with high-fidelity knowledge of the aircraft's physical state, and notifies that pilot of any deviations in expected state based on predictive models. The aircrew automation may be provided as a non-invasive ride-along aircrew automation system that perceives the state of the aircraft through visual techniques, derives the aircraft state vector and other aircraft information, and communicates any deviations from expected aircraft state to the pilot. The aircrew automation may also monitor pilot health and, when needed, function as a robotic co-pilot to perform emergency descent and landing operations; [0005] In view of the forgoing, the subject disclosure provides an aircrew automation system functioning as a robotic co-pilot configured to, inter alia, automatically perform an emergency descent and landing), for the benefit of performing a safety or corrective action.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Khatwa to x taught by x. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to performing a safety or corrective action.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Khatwa, as modified, remains as applied above to claim 19, and further, Khatwa also discloses, the first QNH data source is an Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS), and wherein the second QNH data source is air traffic control (ATC) (Khatwa: [0002]; [0013]; [0017]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC §101, abstract idea non-eligible subject matter, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC §101, abstract idea non-eligible subject matter has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
To the examiner’s best understanding, the applicant has contended that Khatwa (US 20090189787 A1) fails to disclose, “Khatwa does not disclose verifying the pilot adjusted reference pressure setting comparing the pilot input to two different data sources to prevent human error. Instead, Khatwa discloses identifying an occurrence of a reference pressure mis-set by determining a difference between an estimated altitude provided by barometric altimeter 14 and that provided by secondary altitude-determining device 22 exceeds a predetermined error threshold”. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As cited above, Khatwa (US 20090189787 A1) discloses:
a control unit (Khatwa: [FIG. 1(12)])
having a user interface (Khatwa: [0003] Current aircraft display systems comprise multiple cockpit displays, including a primary flight display (PFD). A graphical display is generated on the PFD that visually expresses the status of various flight parameters, including airspeed, heading, attitude, vertical speed, roll, altitude, and the like. The PFD thus serves to increase a pilot's situational awareness by visually expressing a relatively large amount of information on a single composite display. One of the various graphical elements produced on the PFD is an altimeter graphic, which visually expresses the aircraft's altitude as estimated by the barometric altimeter. The altimeter graphic may assume the form of, for example, a metered altitude tape graphic that appears to scroll vertically upward or downward as the aircraft's altitude decreases or increases, respectively. The visual display generated on the PFD may also include a graphic (e.g., textual readout) indicating the current value of the reference pressure setting; [0013] A barometric altimeter 14 is operatively coupled to a first input of controller 12. Barometric altimeter 14 estimates the flight altitude of the aircraft on which PFD system 10 is deployed as a function of external air pressure calibrated to a reference pressure. To permit a pilot to adjust the reference pressure),
the control unit configured to: compare (Khatwa: [0006] comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude)
first QNHI data received from a first QNHI data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude),
second QNHI data received from a second QNHI data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude)
that differs from the first QNHI data source (Khatwa: [0006] The method includes the steps of providing a first estimated altitude utilizing the barometric altimeter device, providing a second estimated altitude utilizing the secondary altitude-determining device, and comparing the first estimated altitude to the second estimated altitude),
and a QNHI input entered into an avionics system of an aircraft (Khatwa: [0002] A pilot or other crew member is able to set the value of the reference pressure utilizing a rotatable knob or other such input device. When the aircraft is located beneath the transition altitude (e.g., 18,000 feet above sea level within the United States), the pilot enters a reference pressure setting corresponding to the aircraft's true height above mean sea level. This pressure setting may be provided by an Air Traffic Control Center, a Terminal Radar Approach Control Facility, a Flight Service Station, a control tower, or other such ground-based navigational facility as a QNH or QFE code. When the aircraft ascends above the transition altitude, the pilot adjusts the reference pressure setting to the globally-fixed pressure datum of 1013.25 mbar or 29.921 inches Hg. This practice ensures that flight systems deployed on aircraft flying above the transition altitude are calibrated to a universal reference pressure setting; [0013] To permit a pilot to adjust the reference pressure, barometric altimeter 14 is equipped with a reference pressure setting input 16, which may assume the form of, for example, a rotatable knob),
and output, at the user interface, an alert signal in response to the QNH input differing from one or both of the first QNHI data or the second QNHI data (Khatwa: [0006] A method is also provided for alerting a pilot of an aircraft to the mis-setting of a reference pressure setting associated with a barometric altimeter deployed on the aircraft, which includes a secondary altitude-determining device and a primary flight display (PFD)).
The examiner respectfully submits, Khatwa ¶0020 (see all of 0020-0024) implies or suggests that the readings on elements 14 and 22 are too far apart and do not match the reference setting (examiner: resulting in a "mis-setting" determination of the reference setting). The examiner respectfully submits, to the examiner's best understanding, there is no motivation to notify a user of a "mis-setting" if it isn't being compared to anything. In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. To the examiner's best understanding, the prior art is being considered based upon a general failure to extract information to understand content or context, and merely extracting keywords or superficial data. The respectfully submits, Khatwa (US 20090189787 A1) discloses sensor readings from a first and second sensor regarding aircraft altitude. When variance is considered too significant based upon a predetermined threshold (also a user input), a user is notified to update or check the user input for a “mis-setting”. Which, suggests or implies that the user setting is being compared to sensor readings. Because Khatwa (US 20090189787 A1) discloses that which is claimed, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of the independent claims under 35 USC §103, obviousness.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ben-David (US 4355294 A)
Bell (US 8410975 B1)
Hedrick (US 8364328 B2)
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 AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. 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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights