DETAILED ACTION
1. This is communication is responsive to the amendment filed 11/27/25. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
3. Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A. As per claim 1, at line 6 “the turbulence message format code” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of a turbulence message format code.
B. As per claim 4, at line 3 “the flight plan map” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of a flight plan map.
C. As per claim 14, at line 14 the claim is unclear whether the terminology in parenthesis is intended to limit the scope of the claim. At line 17, “the real-time turbulence data” lacks antecedence (note strike-out at line 11). At line 20 “the FMS processor” lacks antecedence since there is no previous recitation of an FMS processor.
D. As per claim 16, at line 3, “the real-time turbulence data” lacks antecedence (note strike-out in base claim 14, line 11). At line 4 the scope of the claim is indefinite because it recites both a broad limitation (“raw data”) and a narrower limitation (“aircraft accelerations and velocities”). It is unclear which limitation governs the scope of the claim. The claim further recites both a broad limitation (“more human meaningful form”) and a narrower limitation (“turbulence level”). It is unclear which limitation governs the scope of the claim.
E. As per claim 18, at lines 5-6 the scope of the claim is indefinite because it recites both a broad limitation (“more human meaningful form”) and a narrower limitation (“turbulence level”). It is unclear which limitation governs the scope of the claim.
F. All claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected for the same reasons.
4. Claims 1-20, as best interpreted given the deficiencies noted above, are deemed distinguishable over the prior art. The claims include comparable subject matter found in the claims of the allowed parent applications (now US Patents Nos. 11,450,218 and 11,869,346) with the focus on the receiving of the broadcasted ADS-B message containing the turbulence data, decoding the received message according to a redefined turbulence format type code, and displaying the turbulence data in a turbulence display message in a viewable form for the aircraft flight crew.
5. REMARKS
A. Applicant’s comments regarding the 112b rejections set forth in the previous Office action have been considered. However, the deficiencies noted above are maintained and applicant is referred to the following applicable sections of the MPEP with regards to antecedent basis in the claims and indefiniteness of claim scope.
B. 2173.05(e) Lack of Antecedent Basis [R-01.2024]
A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1314, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1789 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The lack of clarity could arise where a claim refers to "said lever" or "the lever," where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a lever and where it would be unclear as to what element the limitation was making reference.
C. 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language ("for example," "such as") [R-07.2015]
Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made.
6. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P. Burgess who can be reached at 571-272-6011
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.
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.
/MICHAEL J ZANELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661