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 Amendments
The amendment and response filed on December 16, 2025, to the Non-Final Office Action dated June 18, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 20 are amended; Claims 6 & 8 have been cancelled; and Claims 21-22 have been added. Claims 1 – 5, 7, and 9-22 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 9-11, filed December 16, 2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection based on Barraci et al (US-20120283897-A1) have been considered and are persuasive; the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based on Barraci et al (US-20120283897-A1), Gribble et al (US- 9,002,571-B1), and Miller et al (US-20080223926-A1) have been considered and are persuasive; the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based on Mahipal Reddy (US-20170291723-A1), Degani et al (“Human Factors of Flight-Deck Checklists: The Normal Checklist - Nasa Technical Reports Server (Ntrs).”), and Arthur Udler (US-20050010877-A1)have been considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 & § 103 rejection of claims 1 – 5, 7, and 9-22 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of further limiting amendments made, changing the scope of the claimed invention.
Applicant’ central argument is that the applied prior art fails to “disclose, suggest or teach a computing device independently performing a task that was previously completed, let alone a computing device independently performing the task based on sensor data associated with the task.” Under broadest reasonable interpretation the action of “independently performing a task that was previously completed” to validate a precheck procedure is well known, see newly cited patent to Anthony (US-20220119126-A1) which teaches cross checking of pilot’s input data such as when performing a precheck, and when combined with the applied prior art meets the limitation of the invention as claimed.
Claim Rejections -- 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-12 and 14-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barraci et al (US-20120283897-A1)(“Barraci”), provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 5/14/2024, and Anthony et al (US- 20220119126-A1)(“Anthony”).
As per claim 1, BARRACI discloses a computer implemented method comprising: generating a user interface for display on a screen of a computing device (para [0103], [01521), the user interface including a data field identifying a specified aircraft to be piloted by a user (GUI section displaying identified tasks for a particular one aircraft; para [0028-0029], (0098], [0103-0104], [0159); retrieving sensor data generated by one or more sensors of the specified aircraft (para (0042]); updating a preflight checklist graphical user interface "GUI" based in part on the sensor data and the specified aircraft such that the preflight checklist GUI is a customized preflight checklist GUI specific to the specified aircraft (progressively displaying a different (customized) pre-flight checklist GUI with tasks groups rules identifying the sensor data states for the aircraft; para [0028-0029], (0041-0043], [0105], [0159]); providing for display on the computing device at least a portion of the customized preflight checklist GUI, the customized preflight checklist GUI including a plurality of preflight checks for completion and the portion of the customized preflight checklist GUI includes information derived from the sensor data and a first preflight check indicating a first task for completion (a task group (portion) .of pre-flight check task groups for completion selected from the sensor related check task (first preflight check); para [0005], [0029-0031], (0041-0046]); responsive to receiving an input via the customized preflight checklist GUI confirming completion of the first preflight check, validating completion of the first preflight check (user input updating a state for confirming task completion for verifying (validating) completion of the first check; para [0080-0081], [0127-0129]), ; and
subsequent to determining that a set of the plurality of preflight checks are completed and validated, transmitting an authorization to the specified aircraft that authorizes the specified aircraft for flight (dispatching authorized tasked completions and receiving authorized flight/operation clearances; para [0070], [0080-0086], [0128-0130]).
BARRACI does not explicitly discloses a process to wherein validating completion of the first preflight check comprises the computing device or another computing device automatically and independently performing the first task based on second sensor data associated with the first preflight check.
While BARRACI does not disclose, Anthony discloses a process to wherein validating completion of the first preflight check comprises the computing device or another computing device automatically and independently performing the first task based on second sensor data associated with the first preflight check (Anthony at Figure 3, flowchart for generating an electronic checklist 300, and Para. [0043] disclosing after the pilot performs a checklist a computer is used to validate the one or more entries based sensor data:” “cross checking” system only monitors the pilots step confirmation actions and provides notification in cases where the confirmation is not backed up with the current state of the sub-system as detected by the sensor.”).
Anthony is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which generates and monitors a checklist for a vehicle such as an aircraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BARRACI further in view of Anthony to allow for finding mismatches, accuracy, and incomplete responses in a preflight planning and flight operations checklist. Motivation to do so would be to confirm accuracy of the checklist and would provide evidence that safety requirements have been adhered to as required by a regulatory agency for flight operations(Anthony at Para. [0003]).
As per claim 2, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the customized preflight checklist GUI includes an image of the specified aircraft (visualization of checklist tasks; para [0048-0052]).
As per claim 3, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the sensor data includes a fuel level of the specified aircraft, and the information of the customized preflight checklist GUI includes the fuel level of the specified aircraft (para [0005],[0065]). '
As per claim 5, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the sensor data includes an oil level of the specified aircraft, and the information of the customized preflight checklist GUI includes the oil level of the specified aircraft (para [0005-0006], [0065], [0080]); or further comprising retrieving a maintenance record of the specified aircraft, and wherein a second preflight check of the customized preflight checklist GUI instructs the user to review the maintenance record and confirm the specified aircraft is capable of flying (BARRACI at paras. ([0080-0082], [0088-0098], [0110-0113]) discloses the capability of the aircraft which using broadest reasonable interpretation would include capability of flying.).
As per claim 9, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the customized preflight checklist GUI includes a preflight check associated with an exterior of the specified aircraft and a preflight check associated with an interior of the specified aircraft (para [0039-0043], [0079]).
As per claim 10, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 9. BARRACI further discloses, further comprising, subsequent to determining the preflight checks associated with the exterior of the specified aircraft are completed, transmitting a second authorization to the specified aircraft that authorizes the user to access the interior of the specified aircraft (dispatching authorized permissions to perform operations (access) for controlling additional pilot and aircraft function/operation system (interior) operational tasks/actions; para [0076-0083], (0112], [0129-0131], (0160]).
As per claim 11, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the user cannot pilot the aircraft until the authorization is transmitted (required task/needed pilot clearance permissions have to be dispatched for operations; para [0070], [0094], [0112-0113], [0159]).
As per claim 12, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACI further discloses, wherein receiving a list of aircraft available to be piloted, wherein the specified aircraft is on the list (managing database data of a selectable range (list) of airline (piloted) aircraft; para [0045-0046], {0051], [00751); and .displaying images of the available aircraft on the list (displaying visual views the list information searched; para [0048], {0051-0053], [0067]).
As per claim 14, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACJ further discloses, further comprising transmitting an operational instruction to the aircraft (para [0083], (0152], (0158-0159]).
As per claim 15, BARRACI discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising stored instructions, the instructions when executed by a client device (para {0103], [0152]), causing the client device to: render a generated user interface for display on a screen of a computing device (para (0103], [0152]), the user interface including a data field identifying a specified aircraft to be piloted by a user {GUI section displaying identified tasks for a particular one aircraft; para (0028-0029], [0098], [0103-0104], [0159);
retrieve sensor data generated by one or more sensors of the specified aircraft (para [00421); update a preflight checklist graphical user interface "GUI" .,based in part on the sensor data and the specified aircraft such that the preflight checklist GUI is a customized preflight checklist GUI specific to the specified aircraft (progressively displaying a different {customized) pre-flight checklist GUI with tasks groups rules identifying the sensor data states for the aircraft; para [0028-0029], [0041-0043], (0105], [O 1591); providing for display at least a portion of the customized preflight checklist GUI, the customized preflight checklist GUI including a plurality of preflight checks for completion and the portion of the customized preflight checklist GUI Includes information derived from the sensor data and a first preflight check associated with the sensor data (a task group (portion).of pre-flight check task groups for completion selected from the sensor related check task (first preflight check); para [0005], (0029-0031], [0041-0046]); subsequent to receiving an input via the customized preflight checklist GUI confirming completion of the first preflight check, validate completion of the first preflight check (user input updating a state for confirming task completion for verifying (validating) completion of the first check; para [0080-0081], [0127-01291), ; and subsequent to determining that a set of the plurality of preflight checks are completed and validated, transmit an authorization to the specified aircraft that authorizes the specified aircraft for flight (dispatching authorized tasked completions and receiving authorized flight/operation clearances; para [0070], [0080-0086], (0128-01301).
BARRACI does not explicitly discloses a process to wherein validating completion of the first preflight check comprises the computing device or another computing device automatically and independently performing the first task based on second sensor data associated with the first preflight check.
While BARRACI does not disclose, Anthony discloses a process to wherein validating completion of the first preflight check comprises the computing device or another computing device automatically and independently performing the first task based on second sensor data associated with the first preflight check (Anthony at Figure 3, flowchart for generating an electronic checklist 300, and Para. [0043] disclosing after the pilot performs a checklist a computer is used to validate the one or more entries based sensor data:” “cross checking” system only monitors the pilots step confirmation actions and provides notification in cases where the confirmation is not backed up with the current state of the sub-system as detected by the sensor.”).
Anthony is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which generates and monitors a checklist for a vehicle such as an aircraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BARRACI further in view of Anthony to allow for finding mismatches, accuracy, and incomplete responses in a preflight planning and flight operations checklist. Motivation to do so would be to confirm accuracy of the checklist and would provide evidence that safety requirements have been adhered to as required by a regulatory agency for flight operations(Anthony at Para. [0003]).
As per claim 16, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the customized preflight checklist GUI includes an image of the specified aircraft (visualization of checklist tasks; para (0048-0052]).
As per claim 17, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of. claim 15. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the sensor data includes a fuel level of the specified aircraft, and the information of the customized preflight checklist GUI includes the fuel level of the specified aircraft (para [0005], (00651).
As per claim 19, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the sensor data includes an oil level of the specified aircraft, and the information of the customized preflight checklist GUI includes the oil level of the specified aircraft (para [0005], [0065], [0080]).
As per claim 20, BARRACI discloses a system comprising: a processor system (par a[0151-01521); and a computer-readable storage medium comprising stored instructions, the instructions when executed by the processor system, causing the set of one or more processors to: render a generated user interface for display on a screen of a computing device (para (0103], (0152]), the user interface including a data field identifying a specified aircraft to be piloted by a user (GUI section displaying identified tasks for a particular one aircraft; para (0028-0029], [0098], (0103-0104], [0159); retrieve sensor data generated by one or more sensors of the specified aircraft (para [0042]); update a preflight checklist graphical user interface "GUI" based in part on the sensor data and the specified aircraft such that the preflight checklist GUI is a customized preflight checklist GUI specific to the specified aircraft (progressively displaying a different (customized) pre-flight checklist GUI with tasks groups rules identifying the sensor data states for the aircraft; para [0028-0029], (0041-0043], [O 105], [0159]); provide for display at least a portion of the customized preflight checklist GU I, the customized preflight checklist GUI including a plurality of preflight checks for completion and the portion of the customized preflight checklist GUI includes information derived from· the sensor data and a first preflight check associated with the sensor data (a task group (portion) of preflight check task groups for completion selected from the sensor related check task (first preflight check); para (0005], [0029-0031], (0041-0046]),
subsequent to receiving an input via the customized preflight checklist GUI confirming completion of the first preflight check, validate completion of the first preflight check (user input updating a state for confirming task completion for verifying (validating) completion of the first check; para1[0080-0081], [0127-01291); and subsequent to determining that a set of the plurality of preflight checks are completed and validated, transmitting an authorization to the specified aircraft that authorizes the specified aircraft for flight (dispatching authorized tasked completions and receiving authorized flight/operation clearances; para [0070], [0080-0086], [0128-0130]).
BARRACI does not explicitly discloses a process to wherein validating completion of the first preflight check comprises the computing device or another computing device automatically and independently performing the first task based on second sensor data associated with the first preflight check.
While BARRACI does not disclose, Anthony discloses a process to wherein validating completion of the first preflight check comprises the computing device or another computing device automatically and independently performing the first task based on second sensor data associated with the first preflight check (Anthony at Figure 3, flowchart for generating an electronic checklist 300, and Para. [0043] disclosing after the pilot performs a checklist a computer is used to validate the one or more entries based sensor data:” “cross checking” system only monitors the pilots step confirmation actions and provides notification in cases where the confirmation is not backed up with the current state of the sub-system as detected by the sensor.”).
Anthony is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which generates and monitors a checklist for a vehicle such as an aircraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BARRACI further in view of Anthony to allow for finding mismatches, accuracy, and incomplete responses in a preflight planning and flight operations checklist. Motivation to do so would be to confirm accuracy of the checklist and would provide evidence that safety requirements have been adhered to as required by a regulatory agency for flight operations(Anthony at Para. [0003]).
As per claim 21, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first preflight check relates to inspecting a component of the aircraft (See BARRACI at Para. [0005] the checklist includes various components:” these tasks may include checking the overall aircraft structure, checking air vents and pitot tubes for obstructions, looking at tires for wear, checking fuel for the aircraft, and other related tasks for preparing to fly an aircraft. When the aircraft is on a taxiway, an additional group of tasks may be performed for traveling to the runway and for takeoff from the runaway.”), wherein validating completion of the first preflight check comprises confirming the computing device is within a threshold distance of the aircraft (Anthony at Para. [0040] discloses that the checklist device is within a certain distance from the aircraft as determined by the length of an ethernet cable:” the multifunction computing module 208 could be realized as an electronic flight bag (EFB) or other mobile or portable electronic device. In such embodiments, an EFB capable of supporting an FMS 230 application may be connected to an onboard FMC 202 using an Ethernet cable 229 to support flight management functionality from the EFB in an equivalent manner as described herein in the context of the MCDU.”)
Anthony is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of systems which generates and monitors a checklist for a vehicle such as an aircraft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified BARRACI further in view of Anthony to allow for finding mismatches, accuracy, and incomplete responses in a preflight planning and flight operations checklist. Motivation to do so would be to confirm accuracy of the checklist and would provide evidence that safety requirements have been adhered to as required by a regulatory agency for flight operations(Anthony at Para. [0003]).
As per claim 22, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the first preflight check relates to inspecting a fuel level of the aircraft and confirming the fuel level is sufficient for a flight to a destination and validating completion of the first preflight check comprises the computing device or the other computing device automatically and independently determining the fuel level based on sensor date from a fuel level sensor and confirming the fuel level is sufficient based on a fuel consumption rate estimate of the aircraft and a distance to the destination (BARRACI at Para. [0065] discloses reporting on the fuel level and the like:” Engine indicating and crew alerting system 206 provides information about various parameters in aircraft 102. For example, engine indicating and crew alerting system 206 may provide information, such as temperature, fuel flow, amount of fuel, oil pressure, and/or other suitable information from different systems. These systems may include, for example, a hydraulic system, a pneumatic system, an electrical system, an environmental system, a control surface system, and other suitable types of systems.”).
Claims 4 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barraci (citation above), provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 5/14/2024, and Anthony (see citation above).
As per claims 4 and 18, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 3 and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17.
BARRACI further discloses checking for amount of fuel (provide information such as amount of fuel; para (00651) and confirming tasks (confirming airline tasks and reporting them to the airline operation center; para [0080]), however, BARRACI does not specifically disclose wherein the first preflight check instructs the user to confirm the fuel level is above a threshold level. BARRACJ does disclose in the Background Information wherein the first preflight check includes the fuel level (prior to takeoff, FAA regulations require aircrafts to perform a checklist, including checking for fuel for the aircraft; para [0004]-[00051). Since BARRACI discloses a method of aircraft operators confirming checklist task items and also providing a status of tasks such as fuel levels, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in art that, prior to the relevant date, that the preflight check instructs the user to confirm the fuel level is above a threshold level because the Background Information implies that a fuel check is manually required prior to the flight. Any level of fuel would be above a minimum threshold of zero or an empty tank, and it would it would have further been obvious to one or ordinary skill that the amount of fuel checked is sufficient for a particular flight route or reroute (see para [01621). Thus, instructing the user to confirm that the fuel level is above a threshold ensures the accuracy of the checklist tasks and would adhere to safety requirements.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barraci and Anthony as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gribble et al (US- 9,002,571-B1)(“Gribble”), provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 5/14/2024.
As per claim 7, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACI further discloses, wherein a second preflight check of the customized preflight checklist GUI instructs the user to log a portion of the specified aircraft that includes damage (additional preflight check tasks the user with logging maintenance/out of service wear and tear events; abstract; para [0005], [0083], [0089], [0097], [01601]), or wherein a second preflight check of the customized preflight checklist GUI instructs the user to inspect an exterior portion of the specified aircraft (Barraci at para [00791].)
BARRACI fails to disclose instructs the user to capture an image of a portion of the specified aircraft that includes damage. GRIBBLE discloses instructs the user to capture an image of a portion of the specified aircraft that includes damage (a graphical checklist devices prompts/requests an operator to take camera photographs of faults/deficiencies on an aircraft support high speed inspection and maintenance compliance; col 3, In 5-60; col 5, Jn 5-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the relevant date to modify the invention of BARRACI to include instructs the user to capture an image of a portion of the specified aircraft that includes damage as taught by GRIBBLE for the advantage of helping with compliance checks.
9. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barraci and Anthony as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et al (US-20080223926-A1)(“Miller”), provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 5/14/2024.
As per claim 13, BARRACI and Anthony disclose the method of claim 1. BARRACI further discloses, wherein the authorization is sent subsequent to determining the client device is within wireless communication range of the specified aircraft (permission clearances sent after identifying the client is within a wireless network for searching for a selected range of aircraft identified with the appropriate checklist; para [0051-0052), [0070], [0112], [0151-0152]), but BARRACI fails to disclose within a threshold distance of the specified aircraft. MILLER discloses within a threshold distance of the specified aircraft {threshold proximity parameters to securely control access/authorizations for aircraft equipment; para [0044-0045], [0071-0072), [0099], [0121], [0125-0128l). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the relevant date to modify the invention of BARRACI to include within a threshold distance of the specified aircraft as taught by MILLER for the advantage of providing enhanced security.
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 ELLIS B. RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8920. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am to 5:00pm.
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, Ramon Mercado can be reached at 571-270-5744. 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.
/ELLIS B. RAMIREZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3658