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 .
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 1/30/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application claims priority to foreign application with application number IN202311008094 dated 2/8/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 10/4/2024 that have been previously considered remain placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant Arguments
In regards to Argument 1, applicant states amendments overcome issued rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claim recites a concrete closed-loop aircraft-cabin control system that integrates real-world sensor data into a closed-loop architecture producing a tangible result (automatic localized lighting adjustment without crew intervention, suppressed or delayed based on aircraft operational status) (See Remarks, page 10-11 under Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101).
In regards to Argument 2, applicant states Dowty is directed to predicting passenger needs primarily for the purpose of notifying or assisting cabin crew and optimizing service workflows. While Dowty may describe sensing passenger conditions and inferring potential needs, Dowty does not disclose or suggest automatic control of passenger-area lighting elements at the seat or area level without crew intervention. More importantly, Dowty does not teach analyzing changes in physical sensor signals over time to infer a sleep-related passenger state, nor does Dowty disclose suppressing or delaying an environmental control action based on an operational state of the aircraft. Dowty's system operates independently of aircraft operational phases and does not arbitrate between passenger-state inference and aircraft operational constraints (See Remarks, page 14).
In regards to Argument 3, applicant states Johnson is directed to passenger compliance monitoring, such as seatbelt status and seat occupancy, with outputs provided to crew-facing displays and, in some cases, to higher-level cabin policy adjustments. Johnson does not disclose temporal behavioral analysis of sensor data to identify sleep-related passenger states, nor does Johnson disclose automatic, localized control of lighting elements associated with an individual passenger seat or passenger area. Johnson's discussion of aircraft operational phases relates to compliance signaling and policy decisions (e.g., seatbelt sign status), not to suppressing or delaying localized environmental control actions derived from passenger-state inference. (See Remarks, page 14).
In regards to Argument 4, applicant states Neither Dowty nor Johnson teaches or suggests the recited limitation requiring suppression or delay of the lighting adjustment based on an aircraft operational state. The cited art does not disclose or suggest multi-input coordination logic, nor does it provide any motivation to modify the disclosed systems to include conditional suppression or delay of localized environmental controls based on aircraft operational phases. Incorporating such logic would require hindsight reconstruction using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap (See Remarks, page 14).
In regards to Argument 5, applicant states when viewed as an ordered combination, Claim 1 defines a system that integrates temporal passenger-state inference, localized automatic lighting control, and aircraft-operational-state gating into a unified control architecture. The cited references address different problems (crew notification and compliance monitoring) and do not contemplate the claimed solution of autonomously managing passenger-area lighting in a manner that is both passenger-responsive and operationally constrained. (See Remarks, page 15).
In regards to Argument 6, applicant states for the reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, Claims 7 and 15 are also allowable (See Remarks, page 15-17).
Examiner’s Response
In response to Argument 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant suggests that the amendments overcome the §101 rejection because the independent claims now recite a specific closed-loop aircraft environmental control system in which passenger-facing sensors provide physical signals that are analyzed over time using one or more signal-processing or classification routines to identify a sleep-related passenger state, the processor automatically sends lighting control parameters to an environmental system to adjust light levels without crew intervention, and suppresses or delays such adjustment based on at least one operational state of the aircraft, thereby integrating the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that produces a tangible result.
The claims recite a judicial exception. The core of the claimed invention is the mental processes of (1) observing a passenger behavior through physical sensor signals, (2) analyzing changes in those signals over time using signal-processing or classification routines to determine a sleep-related passenger state, and (3) judging whether and when to adjust cabin lighting. This is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, i.e., observation, evaluation, judgment. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Adding generic sensors, a processor, and an environmental system does not change the fundamental nature of the claim. The “closed-loop” and operational-state gating limitations are merely abstract rules for when to apply that judgment.
The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The passenger-facing sensors perform only data-gathering (insignificant extra-solution activity), the processor performs generic computer functions, and the lighting adjustment is the direct output of the abstract idea. The “automatically and without crew intervention” language and the suppression/delay based on aircraft operational state are field-of-use limitations that merely restrict the abstract idea to the aircraft environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h). There is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, no improvement to any other technology or technical field, no particular machine, and no meaningful transformation. The “tangible result” of changing light levels is simply the predictable consequence of applying the abstract idea, not a technical solution to a technical problem.
The claim does not provide significantly more, i.e., an inventive concept. The additional elements, like the conventional passenger-facing sensors, generic processors executing routine signal-processing routines, and standard aircraft environmental lighting systems, are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the aircraft cabin-management field. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the elements are not sufficient in transforming the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The Examiner interprets the claims to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101.
In response to Argument 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant suggests Dowty is directed to predicting passenger needs primarily for notifying or assisting cabin crew and does not teach automatic lighting control without crew intervention, temporal analysis for a sleep-related state, or suppression based on aircraft operational state.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Dowty is not required to teach every limitation of the claim. Johnson in ¶8, 46-48 discloses the automatic lighting control without crew intervention and the suppression/delay based on aircraft operational state (see detailed mapping below). Dowty is relied upon only to supply the explicit “sleep-related passenger state” label via its time-based posture analysis as outlined in ¶10-11, 47-48.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach amended Claim 1.
In response to Argument 3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant suggests that Johnson is limited to passenger compliance monitoring with outputs to crew displays and does not disclose temporal behavioral analysis for sleep-related states or automatic localized lighting control.
It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123. Johnson in ¶7, 12, 41 discloses temporal behavioral analysis of sensor data to identify passenger states that encompass sleep-related conditions (time-stamped vectors processed by neural networks and autoencoders to produce comfort index and activity patterns based on low movement and reclined posture). Johnson in ¶8, 39-40, 48 also discloses automatic, localized control of lighting elements associated with individual passenger seats/areas and uses aircraft operational phases (turbulence, flight status) to gate/suppress environmental adjustments. The Examiner finds that the applicant’s argument mischaracterizes the reference.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach amended Claim 1.
In response to Argument 4, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant suggests that neither Dowty nor Johnson suggest suppression or delay of the lighting adjustment based on an operational state or any multi-input coordination logic.
The opinion in In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998) stated "...the name of the game is the claim. See Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims--American Perspectives , 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop.& Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990) (“The U.S. is strictly an examination country and the main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. To coin a phrase, the name of the game is the claim.”)." The limitation does not require a “multi-input coordination logic”. Johnson in ¶39-40, 48 teaches the recited limitation requiring suppression or delay of the lighting adjustment based on an aircraft operational state (receives flight status including turbulence and dynamically adapts/gates the policy before actuation). No hindsight is required as the motivation to combine arises from the shared field of real-time sensor-driven cabin optimization and the predictable improvement in precision when Dowty’s sleep inference is added to Johnson’s already-gated lighting control, as outlined in the previous Office Action.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach amended Claim 1.
In response to Argument 5, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant suggests that, when viewed as an ordered combination, Claim 1 addresses different problems and do not contemplate the claimed solution.
Pursuant to KSR, the Supreme Court has discouraged rigid use of the Teaching, Suggestion, Motivation (TSM) test, and has said that obviousness rejections must be based on an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the rejection, as articulated, is not based upon a rational underpinning or how the provided rationales and item-to-item matching are insufficient articulation pursuant to In re Jung. When viewed as an ordered combination, the claimed invention is obvious over Johnson in view of Dowty. Johnson in ¶7, 12, 39-40, 48 already integrates temporal passenger-state inference, localized automatic lighting control, and aircraft-operational-state gating into a single control architecture. Dowty refines the inference step to explicitly include sleep. The references solve the same problem of sensor-driven passenger comfort and cabin management, and the combination yields the predictable result of more accurate automatic lighting control while preserving operational safety constraints.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach amended Claim 1.
In response to Argument 6, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant suggests that for the reasons set forth with respect to Claim 1, independent Claims 7 and 14 are also allowable.
For the reasons set forth above, with respect to Claim 1, independent Claims 7 and 14 are disclosed by the combination of Johnson in view of Dowty.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach amended Claims 1, 7, and 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-20 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claim/s 7 and 14. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a machine since the claim is directed to an apparatus to do automated cabin light management.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of “one or more passenger-facing sensors configured to generate physical sensor signals indicative of passenger posture, movement, or physiological proxies; and at least one processor in data communication with the one or more passenger-facing sensors and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to: receive a data stream from the one or more passenger-facing sensors; process the data stream by analyzing changes in the physical sensor signals over time using one or more signal-processing or classification routines to identify a sleep-related passenger state represented by the physical sensor signals; and send a signal, including one or more lighting control parameters, to an environmental system associated with a passenger seat or passenger area that controls one or more physical lighting elements of an aircraft passenger environment to adjust a light level automatically and without crew intervention in accordance with the identified sleep-related passenger state, wherein the processor is further configured to suppress or delay the adjustment of the light level based on at least one operational state of the aircraft” is/are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to a mental process / certain methods of organizing human activity by collecting passenger data, analyzing for states, and outputting signals/notifications. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim/s is/are insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) / generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim/s is/state:
“one or more passenger-facing sensors configured to generate physical sensor signals indicative of passenger posture, movement, or physiological proxies; and at least one processor in data communication with the one or more passenger-facing sensors and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to: receive a data stream from the one or more passenger-facing sensors; process the data stream by analyzing changes in the physical sensor signals over time using one or more signal-processing or classification routines to identify a sleep-related passenger state represented by the physical sensor signals; and send a signal, including one or more lighting control parameters, to an environmental system associated with a passenger seat or passenger area that controls one or more physical lighting elements of an aircraft passenger environment to adjust a light level automatically and without crew intervention in accordance with the identified sleep-related passenger state, wherein the processor is further configured to suppress or delay the adjustment of the light level based on at least one operational state of the aircraft..” The examiner interprets the claim, in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation, to be drawn to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the memory, processor, and sensors recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim.
The Examiner finds that Claim 2 involves determining if a device is being used and sending a control system. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mental process and organizing human activity. The claim describes generic computer components in their ordinary capacity (data analysis and signaling) without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 3 involves determining a passenger state and notifying others. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mental process and organizing human activity. The claim describes generic display signaling without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 4 involves observing meal activity and notifying crew. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mental process and organizing human activity. The claim describes generic display signaling without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 5 involves observing seatbelt status and notifying crew. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mental process and organizing human activity. The claim describes generic display signaling without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 6 involves collecting data and updating model. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mathematical concept. The claim is adding the words of “applying it” with more instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
The Examiner finds that Claim 13 involves observing a passenger state and adjusting a seat. This is seen as an abstract idea related to a mental process and organizing human activity. The claim describes generic display signaling without specifying a novel application or technical improvement, meaning it fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Johnson et al (US 20210253255 A1) in view of Dowty et al (US 20210031924 A1, hereafter referred to as Dowty).
Claim 1
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson teaches A computer apparatus comprising:
one or more passenger-facing sensors configured to generate physical sensor signals indicative of passenger posture, movement, or physiological proxies (Johnson in ¶7, 12, 25, 36-37 discloses passenger-facing sensor and “The computer system can use the time-based record to adapt cabin operations policy, including cabin temperature, cabin lighting, illumination of seatbelt signs, scheduling of meal or drink service, timing of inflight announcements, or the availability of in-flight entertainment”; includes seatbelt detectors, occupancy detectors, environmental/operating condition sensors, and additional sensors for passenger posture, movement, and activity); and
process the data stream by analyzing changes in the physical sensor signals over time using one or more signal-processing or classification routines to identify a sleep-related passenger state represented by the physical sensor signals (Johnson in ¶12, 41-46 and FIGS. 4A-4B discloses time-stamped vectors are encoded, transformed via neural networks and autoencoders, and processed to determine passenger activity patterns, comfort index, and low-movement/reclined posture states indicative of sleep); and
send a signal, including one or more lighting control parameters, to an environmental system associated with a passenger seat or passenger area that controls one or more physical lighting elements of an aircraft passenger environment to adjust a light level automatically and without crew intervention in accordance with the identified sleep-related passenger state (Johnson in ¶8, 41, 48 discloses processor automatically adapts cabin operations, including cabin lighting associated with individual passenger seats/areas, based on the analyzed time-based passenger data and comfort index without requiring crew action),
wherein the processor is further configured to suppress or delay the adjustment of the light level based on at least one operational state of the aircraft (Johnson in ¶13, 39-40, 48 discloses dynamic policy engine receives aircraft system inputs flight status, turbulence, takeoff, landing, fasten-seatbelt sign status, and other operational states and gates/suppresses or delays environmental adjustments including lighting accordingly).
Johnson does not explicitly teach all of at least one processor in data communication with the one or more passenger-facing sensors and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
receive a data stream from the one or more passenger-facing sensors;
However, Dowty teaches at least one processor in data communication with the one or more passenger-facing sensors and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
receive a data stream from the one or more passenger-facing sensors (Dowty in ¶5, 47-48 discloses receiving sensor data and determining a sleep state based on data from a passenger-facing sensor);
(Dowty in ¶5, 47-48 discloses receiving sensor data and determining a sleep state based on data from a passenger-facing sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson by incorporating the sensor-based state determination and signal transmission features that is taught by Dowty, since both reference are analogous art in the field of aircraft cabin management systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Johnson’s neural-network-based temporal analysis of passenger activity patterns with Dowty’s explicit sleep detection yields the predictable result of automated environmental adjustments that reduce crew workload and enhance sleep quality during flights.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 2
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The computer apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that the passenger is using a personal entertainment device based on the data stream (Dowty in ¶48 discloses determining if passenger is using in-flight entertainment system); and
send a control signal to an in-flight entertainment system (Dowty in ¶43, 48 discloses determining if passenger is using in-flight entertainment system and “Electronic equipment such as in-flight entertainment equipment (IFE) may also be equipped with sensors and incorporate software that reacts to inputs.”).
Claim 3
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The computer apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to send a signal to a crew-facing display to indicate the sleep state of the passenger (Dowty in ¶43, 47 discloses signals to crew displays for sleep state).
Claim 4
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The computer apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a meal status based on the data stream (Dowty in ¶2 discloses determining meal status); and
send a signal to the crew-facing display to indicate the meal status (Dowty in ¶2, 43, 47 discloses signaling meal status to crew display).
Claim 5
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The computer apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a seatbelt status based on the data stream (Johnson in ¶7 discloses determining a seatbelt status); and
send a signal to the crew-facing display to indicate the seatbelt status (Johnson in ¶7 discloses determining a seatbelt status and displaying the status).
Claim 6
Regarding Claim 6, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The computer apparatus of Claim 1,
further comprising a data storage element, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
periodically record passenger states (Johnson in ¶37 discloses monitoring passenger information); and
update a machine learning algorithm based on the recorded passenger states (Johnson in ¶37 discloses “Various types of artificial neural networks may be employed, such as deep learning neural networks, convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks, or others.”).
Claim 7
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson teaches An aircraft passenger pod comprising:
one or more passenger-facing sensors configured to generate physical sensor signals indicative of passenger posture, movement, or physiological proxies (Johnson in ¶7, 12, 25, 36-37 discloses passenger-facing sensor and “The computer system can use the time-based record to adapt cabin operations policy, including cabin temperature, cabin lighting, illumination of seatbelt signs, scheduling of meal or drink service, timing of inflight announcements, or the availability of in-flight entertainment”; includes seatbelt detectors, occupancy detectors, environmental/operating condition sensors, and additional sensors for passenger posture, movement, and activity); and
process the data stream by analyzing changes in the physical sensor signals over time using one or more signal-processing or classification routines to identify a sleep-related passenger state represented by the physical sensor signals (Johnson in ¶12, 41-46 and FIGS. 4A-4B discloses time-stamped vectors are encoded, transformed via neural networks and autoencoders, and processed to determine passenger activity patterns, comfort index, and low-movement/reclined posture states indicative of sleep); and
send a signal, including one or more lighting control parameters, to an environmental system associated with a passenger seat or passenger area that controls one or more physical lighting elements of an aircraft passenger environment to adjust a light level automatically and without crew intervention in accordance with the identified sleep-related passenger state (Johnson in ¶8, 41, 48 discloses processor automatically adapts cabin operations, including cabin lighting associated with individual passenger seats/areas, based on the analyzed time-based passenger data and comfort index without requiring crew action),
wherein the processor is further configured to suppress or delay the adjustment of the light level based on at least one operational state of the aircraft (Johnson in ¶13, 39-40, 48 discloses dynamic policy engine receives aircraft system inputs flight status, turbulence, takeoff, landing, fasten-seatbelt sign status, and other operational states and gates/suppresses or delays environmental adjustments including lighting accordingly).
Johnson does not explicitly teach all of at least one processor in data communication with the one or more passenger-facing sensors and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
receive a data stream from the one or more passenger-facing sensors.
However, Dowty teaches at least one processor in data communication with the one or more passenger-facing sensors and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
receive a data stream from the one or more passenger-facing sensors (Dowty in ¶5, 47-48 discloses receiving sensor data and determining a sleep state based on data from a passenger-facing sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson by incorporating the sensor-based state determination and signal transmission features that is taught by Dowty, since both reference are analogous art in the field of aircraft cabin management systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Johnson’s neural-network-based temporal analysis of passenger activity patterns with Dowty’s explicit sleep detection yields the predictable result of automated environmental adjustments that reduce crew workload and enhance sleep quality during flights.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The aircraft passenger pod of Claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that the passenger is using a personal entertainment device based on the data stream (Dowty in ¶48 discloses determining if passenger is using in-flight entertainment system); and
send a control signal to an in-flight entertainment system (Dowty in ¶43, 48 discloses determining if passenger is using in-flight entertainment system and “Electronic equipment such as in-flight entertainment equipment (IFE) may also be equipped with sensors and incorporate software that reacts to inputs.”).
Claim 9
Regarding Claim 9, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The aircraft passenger pod of Claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to send a signal to a crew-facing display to indicate the sleep state of the passenger (Dowty in ¶43, 47 discloses signals to crew displays for sleep state).
Claim 10
Regarding Claim 10, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The aircraft passenger pod of Claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a meal status based on the data stream (Dowty in ¶2 discloses determining meal status); and
send a signal to the crew-facing display to indicate the meal status (Dowty in ¶2, 43, 47 discloses signaling meal status to crew display).
Claim 11
Regarding Claim 11, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The aircraft passenger pod of Claim 9, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a seatbelt status based on the data stream (Johnson in ¶7 discloses determining a seatbelt status) and
send a signal to the crew-facing display to indicate the seatbelt status (Johnson in ¶7 discloses determining a seatbelt status and displaying the status).
Claim 12
Regarding Claim 12, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The aircraft passenger pod of Claim 7, further comprising a data storage element, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
periodically record passenger states (Johnson in ¶37 discloses monitoring passenger information); and
update a machine learning algorithm based on the recorded passenger states (Johnson in ¶37 discloses “Various types of artificial neural networks may be employed, such as deep learning neural networks, convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks, or others.”).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The aircraft passenger pod of Claim 7, further comprising a passenger seat reclining element, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to automatically actuate the passenger seat reclining element based on the sleep state of the passenger (Dowty in ¶16, 29, 31-34, 47-48 discloses determining a sleep state based on data from a passenger-facing sensor, control units, adjustable passenger seats, and sensors associated with seat actuation; Johnson in ¶8, 41, 48 discloses processor automatically adapts cabin operations, including cabin lighting associated with individual passenger seats/areas, based on the analyzed time-based passenger data and comfort index without requiring crew action).
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Johnson teaches A passenger monitoring system comprising:
one or more passenger-facing sensors configured to generate physical sensor signals indicative of passenger posture, movement, or physiological proxies (Johnson in ¶7, 12, 25, 36-37 discloses passenger-facing sensor and “The computer system can use the time-based record to adapt cabin operations policy, including cabin temperature, cabin lighting, illumination of seatbelt signs, scheduling of meal or drink service, timing of inflight announcements, or the availability of in-flight entertainment”; includes seatbelt detectors, occupancy detectors, environmental/operating condition sensors, and additional sensors for passenger posture, movement, and activity); and
process the data stream by analyzing changes in the physical sensor signals over time using one or more signal-processing or classification routines to identify a sleep-related passenger state represented by the physical sensor signals (Johnson in ¶12, 41-46 and FIGS. 4A-4B discloses time-stamped vectors are encoded, transformed via neural networks and autoencoders, and processed to determine passenger activity patterns, comfort index, and low-movement/reclined posture states indicative of sleep); and
send a signal, including one or more lighting control parameters, to an environmental system associated with a passenger seat or passenger area that controls one or more physical lighting elements of an aircraft passenger environment to adjust a light level automatically and without crew intervention in accordance with the identified sleep-related passenger state (Johnson in ¶8, 41, 48 discloses processor automatically adapts cabin operations, including cabin lighting associated with individual passenger seats/areas, based on the analyzed time-based passenger data and comfort index without requiring crew action),
wherein the processor is further configured to suppress or delay the adjustment of the light level based on at least one operational state of the aircraft (Johnson in ¶13, 39-40, 48 discloses dynamic policy engine receives aircraft system inputs flight status, turbulence, takeoff, landing, fasten-seatbelt sign status, and other operational states and gates/suppresses or delays environmental adjustments including lighting accordingly).
Johnson does not explicitly teach all of at least one processor in data communication with the one or more passenger-facing sensors and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
receive a data stream from the one or more passenger-facing sensors.
However, Dowty teaches at least one processor in data communication with the one or more passenger-facing sensors and a memory storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
receive a data stream from the one or more passenger-facing sensors (Dowty in ¶5, 47-48 discloses receiving sensor data and determining a sleep state based on data from a passenger-facing sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johnson by incorporating the sensor-based state determination and signal transmission features that is taught by Dowty, since both reference are analogous art in the field of aircraft cabin management systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Johnson’s neural-network-based temporal analysis of passenger activity patterns with Dowty’s explicit sleep detection yields the predictable result of automated environmental adjustments that reduce crew workload and enhance sleep quality during flights.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The passenger monitoring system of Claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that the passenger is using a personal entertainment device based on the data stream (Dowty in ¶48 discloses determining if passenger is using in-flight entertainment system); and
send a control signal to an in-flight entertainment system (Dowty in ¶43, 48 discloses determining if passenger is using in-flight entertainment system and “Electronic equipment such as in-flight entertainment equipment (IFE) may also be equipped with sensors and incorporate software that reacts to inputs.”).
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The passenger monitoring system of Claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to send a signal to a crew-facing display to indicate the sleep state of the passenger (Dowty in ¶43, 47 discloses signals to crew displays for sleep state).
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The passenger monitoring system of Claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a meal status based on the data stream (Dowty in ¶2 discloses determining meal status); and
send a signal to the crew-facing display to indicate the meal status (Dowty in ¶2, 43, 47 discloses signaling meal status to crew display).
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The passenger monitoring system of Claim 16, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine a seatbelt status based on the data stream (Johnson in ¶7 discloses determining a seatbelt status); and
send a signal to the crew-facing display to indicate the seatbelt status (Johnson in ¶7 discloses determining a seatbelt status and displaying the status).
Claim 19
Regarding Claim 19, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The passenger monitoring system of Claim 14, further comprising a data storage element, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
periodically record passenger states (Johnson in ¶37 discloses monitoring passenger information); and
update a machine learning algorithm based on the recorded passenger states (Johnson in ¶37 discloses “Various types of artificial neural networks may be employed, such as deep learning neural networks, convolutional neural networks, recurrent neural networks, or others.”).
Claim 20
Regarding Claim 20, Johnson in view of Dowty teaches The passenger monitoring system of Claim 14, further comprising a passenger seat reclining element, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to automatically actuate the passenger seat reclining element based on the sleep state of the passenger (Dowty in ¶16, 29, 31-34, 47-48 discloses determining a sleep state based on data from a passenger-facing sensor, control units, adjustable passenger seats, and sensors associated with seat actuation; Johnson in ¶8, 41, 48 discloses processor automatically adapts cabin operations, including cabin lighting associated with individual passenger seats/areas, based on the analyzed time-based passenger data and comfort index without requiring crew action).
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 JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O’Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 3/3/2026