DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claims 1-8 and 11-15 rejections under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations not addressed in the prior Office Action of record. However, Metcalf (20040056770) does disclose of a sensor arrangement in the aircraft and making determinations based thereon, as shown below:
“The surface mounted transmitter(s) can alternatively have a direct communication link, vie electrical or optical conduit, to the onboard vehicle-guidance computer(s). One or more transmitters can also be equipped with receiver components to function as a transceiver, and one or more receivers can be equipped with transmitter components to function as a transceiver” ¶ 40,
“transmitter(s) and/or receiver(s) can be equipped to capture live video, or display live video, or both, and can be equipped with video imaging, display and transmission means to image, display and transmit live video signal, or receive live video signal, or both” ¶ 41,
“The vehicle computer(s) are equipped to be programmed, or receive secure transmitted signal, having vehicle-directing/control data including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following: navigational routes, flight vectors, destinations, railroad routes, vehicle speeds, altitude settings, attitude settings, vehicle thrust, vehicle engine speed, vehicle flap or other moving surface(s) settings, landing or flight configurations, vehicle braking, vehicle or vessel rudder settings, vehicle engine on or off settings, any or all of which are programmable in, or can be received by, and are executable by, a vehicle computer(s) as needed. The computer(s) can also be programmed to fly an aircraft at a safe altitude and along one or more safe courses in the event of a depressurization of the aircraft cabin” ¶ 51
“Vehicle computer(s) are optionally equipped to be programmed to automatically set a vehicle into an automated mode if the vehicle is diverted from a expected path for longer than a predetermined threshold time period ... if the vehicle is not sending transponder signal for longer than a predetermined threshold time period and when no communication from the vehicle has been made during the time period the computer(s) can set the aircraft in an automated flight mode and disable in-cockpit human flight control” ¶ 53
Wherein it can be seen that Metcalf teaches of making the claimed determinations utilizing the transmitter data and then provides immobilisation instructions to the aircraft. In regards to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to Roques et al. (20060245620; hereinafter Roques, already of record), Roques is used to modify the status system outlined by Metcalf to include a heartbeat signal and not used to teach of the aircraft sensor arrangement.
A detailed rejection follows below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“processor unit is configured ...” in claim 1
The processor unit is described in paragraph 53 as comprising a processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metcalf (20040056770; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Metcalf teaches a stolen aircraft shutdown system (Metcalf: Abstract), comprising:
a processor unit (Metcalf: “The present invention is a system for preventing the hijacking, or suicide-bombing, of a transportation vehicle equipped with one or more onboard vehicle-guidance computers” ¶ 39);
a communications unit (Metcalf: “The vehicle's computer(s) are preferably equipped to handle the reception of signals sent from a plurality of transmitters” ¶ 48) configured to receive information relating to a status indicator of an aircraft, the status indicator corresponding to one of a safe value or a stolen value and configured to provide a status input relating to the value of the status indicator to the processor unit (Metcalf: “the system will automatically revert to the former automated mode or accept a signal from one or more of the facilities to place the computer into an automated mode” ¶ 48); and,
a ground determination unit configured to receive aircraft operational data from an aircraft relating to a location indicator corresponding to one of a grounded value or an airborne value and configured to provide a location input relating to a value of the location indicator and configured to provide a location input relating to a value of the location indicator to the processor unit (Metcalf: “if the plane is in flight: the initiation of automated flight control and an automated landing ... If the flight has yet to depart and hostile control of the plane is attempted, the AFCS is programmed to either A.) remain grounded” ¶ 20), wherein the ground determination unit is configured to be in communication with an aircraft sensor arrangement to receive the aircraft operational data, the aircraft sensor arrangement selected from a group consisting of: a motion sensor, an optical sensor, a pressure sensor, and any combination thereof (Metcalf: “The vehicle computer(s) are equipped to be programmed, or receive secure transmitted signal, having vehicle-directing/control data including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following: navigational routes, flight vectors, destinations, railroad routes, vehicle speeds, altitude settings, attitude settings, vehicle thrust, vehicle engine speed, vehicle flap or other moving surface(s) settings, landing or flight configurations, vehicle braking, vehicle or vessel rudder settings, vehicle engine on or off settings, any or all of which are programmable in, or can be received by, and are executable by, a vehicle computer(s) as needed. The computer(s) can also be programmed to fly an aircraft at a safe altitude and along one or more safe courses in the event of a depressurization of the aircraft cabin” ¶ 51, “transmitter(s) and/or receiver(s) can be equipped to capture live video, or display live video, or both, and can be equipped with video imaging, display and transmission means to image, display and transmit live video signal, or receive live video signal, or both” ¶ 41, see also ¶ 40);
wherein the processor unit is configured:
to determine the value of the status indicator based on the status input (Metcalf: “the system will automatically revert to the former automated mode or accept a signal from one or more of the facilities to place the computer into an automated mode” ¶ 48, “the computer(s) such that the computer(s) is configured to be responsive to at least one secure signal when initiated by at least vehicle personnel-user and sent from at least one signal transmitter to the signal receiver(s)” ¶ 58),
to determine the value of the location indicator based on the location input (Metcalf: “if the plane is in flight: the initiation of automated flight control and an automated landing ... If the flight has yet to depart and hostile control of the plane is attempted, the AFCS is programmed to either A.) remain grounded” ¶ 20) utilizing the aircraft operational data (Metcalf: “Vehicle computer(s) are optionally equipped to be programmed to automatically set a vehicle into an automated mode if the vehicle is diverted from a expected path for longer than a predetermined threshold time period ... if the vehicle is not sending transponder signal for longer than a predetermined threshold time period and when no communication from the vehicle has been made during the time period the computer(s) can set the aircraft in an automated flight mode and disable in-cockpit human flight control” ¶ 53),
to be in communication with a control system of the aircraft (Metcalf: “a transportation vehicle equipped with at least one onboard computer capable of operating the vehicle in an automated transportational mode along at least one path” ¶ 56), and
to provide immobilisation instructions to the control system of the aircraft to disable at least one aircraft function when the value of the status indicator is determined to be stolen and the value of the location indicator is determined to be grounded (Metcalf: “After stopping, the vehicle will remain disabled and cannot be moved until authorized” ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 3, Metcalf teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 1, wherein the value of the location indicator is determined to be airborne when the aircraft operational data is outside an expected range of values (Metcalf: “if an aircraft is diverted significantly off course, or is significantly changing its altitude, for more than a preset number of minutes and no communication from the aircraft flight crew explaining its actions is received, the computer(s) can set the aircraft in an automated flight mode and disable in-cockpit human flight control” ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 4, Metcalf teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 1, wherein the received aircraft operational data relates to at least one of a landing gear configuration, a pressure applied to landing gear, a rotational speed of engine fans (Metcalf: “the vehicle computer(s) are equipped to be programmed, or receive secure transmitted signal, having vehicle-directing/control data including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following: ... vehicle engine speed” ¶ 51), and an aircraft ground speed.
Regarding claim 5, Metcalf teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 1, wherein the ground determination unit is configured to be in communication with, and receive aircraft operational data from, an onboard computer system (Metcalf: “a transportation vehicle equipped with at least one onboard computer capable of operating the vehicle in an automated transportational mode, the method comprising the steps of: ...” ¶ 56“After stopping, the vehicle will remain disabled and cannot be moved until authorized security personnel board the vehicle, remove any security threat, remove everyone from the vehicle, and after the vehicle is emptied, manually reset the vehicle computer” ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 6, Metcalf teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 5, wherein the onboard computer system is a flight warning computer system and the aircraft operational data comprises flight phase information (Metcalf: “The vehicle computer(s) when the vehicle is an aircraft, can include one or more flight management computer "FMC", and/or one or more flight management system ... any one or more of the following: navigational routes, flight vectors ” ¶ 51).
Regarding claim 7, Metcalf teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 6, wherein the value of the location indicator is determined to be airborne when the flight phase information indicates a non-ground operation flight phase (Metcalf: “if an aircraft is diverted significantly off course, or is significantly changing its altitude, for more than a preset number of minutes and no communication from the aircraft flight crew explaining its actions is received, the computer(s) can set the aircraft in an automated flight mode and disable in-cockpit human flight control. Similarly, if the vehicle is not sending transponder signal for longer than a predetermined threshold time period and when no communication from the vehicle has been made during the time period the computer(s) can set the aircraft in an automated flight mode and disable in-cockpit human flight control” ¶ 53).
Regarding claim 8, Metcalf teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 6, wherein the value of the location indicator is determined to be grounded when the aircraft operational data is within an expected range of values and when the flight phase information indicates a ground operation flight phase (Metcalf: “go to at a pre-determined destination. After stopping, the vehicle will remain disabled and cannot be moved” ¶ 65).
Regarding claim 11, Metcalf teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 1, wherein the communications unit comprises a transceiver and is configured to request information relating to a status indicator (Metcalf: “the transmitters have at least one uni-directional, or bidirectional, control signal transmission means such as any one or more of a variety of transmitter types, or transceiver types” ¶ 70).
Regarding claim 12, Metcalf teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one aircraft function comprises use of cockpit controls (Metcalf: “the computer(s) can set the aircraft in an automated flight mode and disable in-cockpit human flight control” ¶ 53), use of aircraft wing slats, use of aircraft wing flaps (Metcalf: “vehicle-directing/control data including, but not limited to, any one or more of the following: navigational routes, flight vectors, destinations, railroad routes, vehicle speeds, altitude settings, attitude settings, vehicle thrust, vehicle engine speed, vehicle flap or other moving surface(s) settings” ¶ 51), use of aircraft engine steering, use of aircraft fly-by-wire systems, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Metcalf teaches an aircraft comprising: the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 1 (Metcalf: Fig. 1, “FIG. 1 is a diagrammatical flow chart of the hijack disabling system. The dashed rectangle encloses components of the system that are onboard an aircraft” ¶ 35).
Regarding claim 14¸Metcalf teaches a method for shutting down a stolen aircraft, the method comprising:
transmitting information relating to an aircraft status indicator to an aircraft, the status indicator corresponding to one of a safe value or a stolen value (Metcalf: “the system will automatically revert to the former automated mode or accept a signal from one or more of the facilities to place the computer into an automated mode” ¶ 48, “one or more secure-signal facility-transmitter for transmitting secure signal to the vehicle” ¶ 49);
...
In regards to the remainder of claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, Metcalf teaches the method according to claim 14, further comprising:
storing a most recently determined status indicator value as a current status indicator value (Metcalf: “accept a signal from one or more of the facilities to place the computer into an automated mode” ¶ 48, “the computer(s) such that the computer(s) is configured to be responsive to at least one secure signal when initiated by at least vehicle personnel-user and sent from at least one signal transmitter to the signal receiver(s)” ¶ 58), and a most recently determined location indicator value as a current location indicator value (Metcalf: “if the plane is in flight: the initiation of automated flight control and an automated landing ... If the flight has yet to depart and hostile control of the plane is attempted, the AFCS is programmed to either A.) remain grounded” ¶ 20), and
communicating the immobilisation instructions to the control system of the aircraft when the current status indicator value is stolen and the current location indicator value is grounded (Metcalf: “After stopping, the vehicle will remain disabled and cannot be moved until authorized” ¶ 65).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf in view of Roques et al. (20060245620; hereinafter Roques, already of record).
Regarding claim 9, Metcalf fails to teach the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 1, wherein the communications unit is configured to receive a heartbeat signal comprising the status indicator.
While Metcalf remains silent regarding the communications unit is configured to receive a heartbeat signal comprising the status indicator, in a similar field of endeavor, Roques teaches the claim limitation of a heartbeat signal (Roques: “Any type of biometric authentication that could fulfill the conditions of authentication described until now can be used by the device for verification of identity such as that of the invention ... by heartbeats” ¶ 41). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the status system of Metcalf so that it also includes the element of a heartbeat signal, as taught by Roques, in order to improve authorized user verification (Roques: ¶ 41, 43, 47).
Regarding claim 10, Metcalf in view of Roques teaches the stolen aircraft shutdown system according to claim 9, wherein the communications unit is configured to receive information comprising a status indicator only during a certain time interval (Metcalf: “transmitter(s) and the user-interface thereof, are configured to provide an easy-to-use signaling means during an emergency condition wherein a large button of the interface can easily be tactilely felt, discerned and pushed a plurality of times within a predetermined limited amount of time to send a secure signal to the electronic signal receiver(s)” ¶ 46, Note: The Examiner notes that Metcalf teaches of the status indicator and the time period in which it is received and that Roques modifies the signal to be that of a heartbeat).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Conner (20090179114) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of an aircraft shutdown system.
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 CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663