DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 04/05/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, which was filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted 04/05/2024 and 10/31/2025 are in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-9, 11-13, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/637,194 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences amount to minor wording differences, claimed features being split up into multiple claims, and additional limitations being included in the reference claims, as is demonstrated in the table below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant application: 18/627,787
Reference application: 18/637,194
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a controller comprising one or more processors, airflow reports that are generated by multiple aircraft while the aircraft are in flight, wherein each of the airflow reports includes a geographic location of a respective aircraft of the multiple aircraft that generated the airflow report, an altitude of the respective aircraft, and an airflow condition experienced by the respective aircraft and caused by atmospheric airflow;
generating a profile map via the controller, the profile map plotting at least a first flight path of a first aircraft on a scheduled route of the first aircraft and graphic indicia representing the airflow conditions included in at least some of the airflow reports, the profile map having a vertical axis representing altitude and a horizontal axis representing one of time, location, or distance; and
displaying the profile map that is generated on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.
1. A method comprising:
obtaining, at a controller comprising one or more processors, airflow reports that are generated by multiple reporting aircraft while the reporting aircraft are in flight, wherein each of the airflow reports includes a geographic location of the respective reporting aircraft that generated the airflow report, a reported turbulence level experienced by the respective reporting aircraft due to atmospheric airflow, and an identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft;
generating normalized turbulence values based on the reported turbulence levels in the airflow reports and at least one of sizes of the reporting aircraft or weights of the reporting aircraft;
determining effective turbulence levels specific to a first aircraft based on the normalized turbulence values and a first identifying characteristic of the first aircraft, wherein the effective turbulence levels predict an effect of the atmospheric airflow on the first aircraft at the geographic locations of the airflow reports; and
generating, via the controller, a map that plots a scheduled route of the first aircraft and graphic indicia representing the effective turbulence levels that are determined, wherein the map is generated to plot the graphic indicia at locations along vertical and horizontal axes of the map that correspond to the geographic locations of the airflow reports.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the airflow reports includes an altitude of the respective reporting aircraft, wherein the map is a profile map that depicts at least one flight path of the first aircraft along the scheduled route and the vertical axis represents altitude, wherein generating the map comprises positioning the graphic indicia at locations along the vertical axis that correspond to the altitudes in the airflow reports.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising displaying the map that is generated on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the profile map comprises positioning the graphic indicia on the profile map at locations along the vertical and horizontal axes that correspond to the geographic locations and the altitudes in the airflow reports.
1. … wherein the map is generated to plot the graphic indicia at locations along vertical and horizontal axes of the map that correspond to the geographic locations of the airflow reports.
8. The method of claim 1, … wherein generating the map comprises positioning the graphic indicia at locations along the vertical axis that correspond to the altitudes in the airflow reports.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving the airflow reports comprises the controller receiving the airflow reports from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver mounted onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the controller is disposed onboard the first aircraft and obtaining the airflow reports comprises the controller receiving the airflow reports from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver mounted onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the airflow condition describes a level of a force event experienced by the respective aircraft that generated the airflow report, wherein the level is one of a plurality of different turbulence levels of increasing severity.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises scaling up a severity of a first reported turbulence level by a first reporting aircraft of the reporting aircraft in response to the at least one of the size or the weight of the first reporting aircraft being above at least one baseline value.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises scaling down a severity of a second reported turbulence level by a second reporting aircraft of the reporting aircraft in response to the at least one of the size or the weight of the second reporting aircraft being below the at least one baseline value.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising filtering the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations provided in the airflow reports to the scheduled route, wherein generating the profile map comprises plotting the graphic indicia that correspond only to a subset of the airflow reports having geographic locations within a threshold proximity of the scheduled route.
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising filtering the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations provided in the airflow reports to the scheduled route of the first aircraft, wherein generating the map comprises plotting the graphic indicia that correspond only to a subset of the airflow reports having geographic locations within a threshold proximity of the scheduled route.
15. A turbulence notification system comprising:
a controller including one or more processors, the controller configured to receive airflow reports generated by multiple aircraft while the aircraft are in flight, wherein each of the airflow reports includes a geographic location of a respective aircraft of the multiple aircraft that generated the airflow report, an altitude of the respective aircraft, and an airflow condition experienced by the respective aircraft and caused by atmospheric airflow,
wherein the controller is configured to generate a profile map that plots at least a first flight path of a first aircraft on a scheduled route of the first aircraft and graphic indicia representing the airflow conditions included in at least some of the airflow reports, the profile map having a vertical axis representing altitude and a horizontal axis representing one of time, location, or distance; and
a display device communicatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to display the profile map that is generated on the display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.
13. A turbulence notification system comprising:
a controller including one or more processors, the controller configured to obtain airflow reports that are generated by multiple reporting aircraft while the reporting aircraft are in flight, wherein each of the airflow reports includes a geographic location of the respective reporting aircraft that generated the airflow report, a reported turbulence level experienced by the respective reporting aircraft due to atmospheric airflow, and an identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft,
wherein the controller is configured to generate normalized turbulence values based on the reported turbulence levels in the airflow reports and at least one of a size of the reporting aircraft or a weight of the reporting aircraft,
wherein the controller is configured to determine effective turbulence levels specific to a first aircraft based on the normalized turbulence values and a first identifying characteristic of the first aircraft, wherein the effective turbulence levels predict an effect of the atmospheric airflow on the first aircraft at the geographic locations of the airflow reports, and
the controller is configured to generate a map that plots a scheduled route of the first aircraft and graphic indicia representing the effective turbulence levels that are determined, wherein the controller is configured to plot the graphic indicia at locations along vertical and horizontal axes of the map that correspond to the geographic locations of the airflow reports.
16. The turbulence notification system of claim 15, further comprising an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports and communicate the airflow reports to the controller.
20. The turbulence notification system of claim 13, wherein the controller is disposed onboard the first aircraft and the controller is configured to obtain the airflow reports by receiving the airflow reports from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver mounted onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports.
17. The turbulence notification system of claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to filter the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations in the airflow reports to the scheduled route, wherein the controller is configured to generate the profile map by plotting the graphic indicia that correspond only to a subset of the airflow reports having geographic locations within a threshold proximity of the scheduled route.
19. The turbulence notification system of claim 13, wherein the controller is configured to filter the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations provided in the airflow reports to the scheduled route of the first aircraft, wherein the controller is configured to generate the map comprises by only plotting the graphic indicia that correspond to a subset of the airflow reports having geographic locations within a threshold proximity of the scheduled route.
18. The turbulence notification system of claim 15, wherein the controller is configured to generate the profile map by positioning the graphic indicia on the profile map at locations along the vertical and horizontal axes that correspond to the geographic locations and the altitudes in the airflow reports.
13. … wherein the controller is configured to plot the graphic indicia at locations along vertical and horizontal axes of the map that correspond to the geographic locations of the airflow reports.
18. The turbulence notification system of claim 13, wherein each of the airflow reports includes an altitude of the respective reporting aircraft and the vertical axis of the map represents altitude, wherein the controller is configured to generate the map to depict at least one flight path of the first aircraft along the scheduled route, the controller configured to position the graphic indicia at locations along the vertical axis that correspond to the altitudes in the airflow reports.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 15:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, and claim 15 is directed to the corresponding turbulence notification system. Claims 1 and 15 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1 and 15 recite the abstract concept of generating a profile map. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 1 and 15 by the mental process step of generating a profile map that plots at least a first flight path of a first aircraft on a scheduled route of the first aircraft and graphic indicia representing the airflow conditions included in at least some of the airflow reports, wherein the profile map has a vertical axis representing altitude and a horizontal axis representing one of time, location, or distance. This step falls into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because it encompasses a human using pen and paper to draw out a profile map plotting an aircraft’s scheduled flight path and graphic indicia representing received airflow conditions, wherein the profile map has a vertical axis representing altitude and a horizontal axis representing either time, location, or distance. This interpretation is supported by ¶ 38 of the instant specification, which demonstrates that the profile map could be drawn as shown in FIG. 4 with dots serving as the graphic indicia. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 1 and 15, other than specifying the use of a controller comprising one or more processors, nothing in the step of generating the profile map precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “controller” language, the claims encompass a human using pen and paper to generate the profile map.
Step 2A, prong 2: The claims recite elements additional to the abstract concepts. However, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites a controller that comprises one or more processors, which are generic computer components (in light of ¶ 18 of the instant specification) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of the such generic computer components for executing the process does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 also recites that the controller is configured to receive airflow reports that are generated by multiple aircraft while the aircraft are in flight, wherein each of the airflow reports includes a geographic location of a respective aircraft of the multiple aircraft that generated the airflow report, an altitude of the respective aircraft, and an airflow condition experienced by the respective aircraft and caused by atmospheric airflow. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as it simply gather data necessary for performing the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). Additionally, the recited step of displaying the profile map that is generated on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the aircraft is insignificant extra-solution activity, as it is a data output step that does not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that it is not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. The recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15 recites a turbulence notification system comprising a controller that includes one or more processors, which are generic computer components (in light of ¶ 18 of the instant specification) that are simply employed as tools for performing the abstract idea. The use of the such generic computer components for executing the process does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Also, the steps of receiving airflow reports and displaying the profile map amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application using the same reasoning applied to claim 1 above.
Step 2B: The additional elements are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the controller comprising one or more processors is anything other than a conventional computer that is employed to perform the abstract idea. The mere use of such generic and conventional computer components for executing the abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that the mere collection or output of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the steps of receiving airflow reports and displaying the profile map merely amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
For the above reasons, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, whether considered individually or in combination. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1 and 15 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-14 and 16-20:
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-10, and 18 recite limitations that merely serve to further define the mental process of claim 1. None of these limitations preclude the abstract idea from practically being performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper. As such, these limitations are considered additional mental process steps.
Claims 4 and 16 each specify that the airflow reports are received from an ADS-B receiver that is mounted onboard the first aircraft and that is configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports. These limitations amount to general linking of the abstract idea to the technological environment of ADS-B flight communications. Whether the airflow reports are received through ADS-B technology or through other communication means does not meaningfully impact the generation of the profile map. As such, this general linking limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claims 7, 11-13, 17, and 19-20 recite the additional steps of filtering the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations provided in the airflow reports to the scheduled route; plotting the graphic indicia that correspond only to a subset of the airflow reports having geographic locations within a threshold proximity of the scheduled route; identifying at least a first airflow report of the airflow reports that is more proximate to a current location and a current altitude of the first aircraft than other airflow reports of the airflow reports; generating a text box that provides the airflow condition of the at least first airflow report; determining a first turbulence score for the first flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route based on the airflow conditions of a first subset of the graphic indicia that are proximate to the first flight path; determining a second turbulence score for a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route based on the airflow conditions of a second subset of the graphic indicia that are proximate to the second flight path, wherein the second flight path has a different altitude than the first flight path; selecting one of the first flight path or the second flight path as a recommended flight path for the first aircraft based on a comparison of the first and second turbulence scores; generating a flight path recommendation indicating the recommended flight path; plotting a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route; and plotting the first flight path and at least a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route, wherein the second flight path has a different altitude than the first flight path.
The above steps are considered additional mental process steps because they could each be performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper. For example, a human being could user pen and paper to write notes for filtering certain airflow reports based on proximity to the route, draw out a map plotting indicia that are within a threshold proximity of the route, mentally identify a first airflow report that is more proximate to a current location and a current altitude of the first aircraft than other airflow reports, write a text box indicating the airflow condition of the first airflow report, write out mathematical calculations for determining first and second turbulence scores for first and second flight paths at different altitudes based on corresponding airflow conditions, mentally select the first flight path or the second flight path as a recommended flight path based on mentally comparing the turbulence scores and write out a corresponding recommendation indicating the recommended flight path, drawing out a second flight path on the scheduled route, and drawing out the first flight path and a second flight path with a different altitude on the scheduled route.
Claims 11-14 and 20 recite the additional steps of displaying the text box on the display device, displaying the generated flight path recommendations on the display device, displaying both the first and second flight paths on the profile map, and displaying the first flight path but not the second flight path during a first time period and displaying the second flight path but not the first flight path during a second time period. These steps amount to additional insignificant extra-solution activity, as they are data output steps that do not impose meaningful limits on the claims such that they are not nominally or tangentially related to the invention (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicates that such data output is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the recited display steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As explained above, dependent claims 2-14 and 16-20 only recite additional mental process steps, limitations further defining the mental process, additional insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations that generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological field. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-14 and 16-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramachandra et al. (US 2020/0035109 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ramachandra.
Regarding claim 1:
Ramachandra discloses the following limitations:
“A method comprising: receiving, at a controller comprising one or more processors, airflow reports that are generated by multiple aircraft while the aircraft are in flight, wherein each of the airflow reports includes a geographic location of a respective aircraft of the multiple aircraft that generated the airflow report, an altitude of the respective aircraft, and an airflow condition experienced by the respective aircraft and caused by atmospheric airflow.” (Ramachandra ¶¶ 21-22: “receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information from another aircraft, such as a pilot report (PIREP) from another aircraft, for example via an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) containing information about an unexpected weather event (such as a high wind-speed event or a turbulence event) or other such environmental parameter change along the predicted flight route. … In an additional or alternative exemplary embodiment, the receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information directly or indirectly from one or more sensor modules 13 onboard the aircraft, for example a measured windspeed magnitude that is different to the predicted windspeed magnitude at the aircraft's present location. … The receiver module 12, the memory module 11 and the one or more sensor modules 13 are each operably connected to a processor module 14.” Further, Ramachandra ¶ 31 discloses that the “altitude of the aircraft” can be graphed along with tail wind speeds and distance into the flight route, which implies that the altitude is part of the received flight plan information.)
“generating a profile map via the controller, the profile map plotting at least a first flight path of a first aircraft on a scheduled route of the first aircraft and graphic indicia representing the airflow conditions included in at least some of the airflow reports, the profile map having a vertical axis representing altitude and a horizontal axis representing one of time, location, or distance.” (Ramachandra ¶ 31 and FIG. 3 reproduced below: “the predicted tail wind speeds for the entire predicted flight are presented to the pilot on a vertical situation display (VSD) in the form of a graph 31 of altitude of the aircraft vs. distance of the aircraft into the predicted flight route. The instances 32, 33 of the flight plan information which satisfy the search query criteria of a tail wind being greater than 60 knots for a duration of greater than 30 minutes are highlighted or otherwise visually distinguished from the remainder of the predicted tail wind speeds shown on the graph 31.” This at least teaches the profile map including “a horizontal axis representing … distance” as claimed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
510
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“and displaying the profile map that is generated on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.” (Ramachandra ¶¶ 31-33: “An exemplary returned results display 30 is shown in FIG. 3… By highlighting the instances 32, 33 of the flight plan information that satisfy the search query criteria on the returned results display 30, the man-machine interface between the pilot and the aircraft display system 10 is improved such that the pilot can more quickly and more easily visually interpret the returned results.”)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, the “horizontal axis representing one of time, location, or distance” is being treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “one of” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “horizontal axis representing … distance” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 2:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Ramachandra additionally discloses “wherein generating the profile map comprises positioning the graphic indicia on the profile map at locations along the vertical and horizontal axes that correspond to the geographic locations and the altitudes in the airflow reports.” (Ramachandra ¶ 31 and FIG. 3 disclose instances 32, 33 being positioned along the axes to correspond to their distance into the flight route and altitude.)
Regarding claim 3:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Ramachandra additionally discloses “wherein receiving the airflow reports comprises automatically receiving the airflow reports on a periodic basis as additional airflow reports are generated.” (Ramachandra ¶ 21: “the receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information from another aircraft, such as a pilot report (PIREP) from another aircraft, for example via an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) containing information about an unexpected weather event (such as a high wind-speed event or a turbulence event) or other such environmental parameter change along the predicted flight route.” The use of ADS-B reports implies that the reports are received on a periodic basis as claimed.)
Regarding claim 4:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Ramachandra additionally discloses “wherein receiving the airflow reports comprises the controller receiving the airflow reports from an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver mounted onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports.” (Ramachandra ¶ 21: “The aircraft display system 10 further includes a receiver module 12. … the receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information from another aircraft, such as a pilot report (PIREP) from another aircraft, for example via an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) containing information about an unexpected weather event (such as a high wind-speed event or a turbulence event) or other such environmental parameter change along the predicted flight route.”)
Regarding claim 5:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Ramachandra additionally discloses “wherein the airflow condition describes a level of a force event experienced by the respective aircraft that generated the airflow report, wherein the level is one of a plurality of different turbulence levels of increasing severity.” (Ramachandra ¶ 27: “In an exemplary embodiment, the environmental or aircraft parameter ‘condition’ input boxes 23, 24 related to the corresponding aircraft or environmental parameter input boxes 21, 22 include conditions which are dynamically updated based on the parameter selected in the corresponding input box. For example, if the parameter ‘Tail-wind’ is chosen from the pre-determined list of parameters in parameter input box 21, the selectable list of ‘conditions’ presented to the pilot in the corresponding ‘condition’ box 23 is dynamically updated with a pre-determined list of conditions corresponding to the selected parameter, for example a list of options including: ‘greater than 20 knots’; ‘greater than 40 knots’; greater than ‘60 knots’ and so on.”)
Regarding claim 6:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 5,” and Ramachandra additionally discloses “wherein one of the different turbulence levels is smooth.” (Ramachandra ¶ 29: “In an exemplary embodiment, the custom search query condition defined using the condition input boxes 23, 24 is in the form of a numerical range, for example ‘greater than 60’; ‘less than 60’ or ‘between 50 and 60’.” Allowing the pilot to search for a small range less than a certain number teaches the claim limitation in light of ¶ 27 of the instant specification, which explains that a turbulence level can be considered smooth if it is laminar and generally free of turbulence.)
Regarding claim 8:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Ramachandra further discloses “wherein generating the profile map comprises differentiating a first visual characteristic of the graphic indicia for different airflow reports based on a turbulence level of the airflow condition.” (Ramachandra ¶ 31 and FIG. 3: “The instances 32, 33 of the flight plan information which satisfy the search query criteria of a tail wind being greater than 60 knots for a duration of greater than 30 minutes are highlighted or otherwise visually distinguished from the remainder of the predicted tail wind speeds shown on the graph 31.”)
Regarding claim 15:
Ramachandra discloses “A turbulence notification system comprising: a controller including one or more processors… and a display device communicatively connected to the controller.” (Ramachandra ¶ 24: “The aircraft display system 10 further includes a display module 16 operably connected to the processor module 14.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are disclosed by Ramachandra using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 16:
Ramachandra discloses “The turbulence notification system of claim 15,” and additionally discloses the system “comprising an automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) receiver onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports and communicate the airflow reports to the controller.” (Ramachandra ¶¶ 21-22: “the receiver module 12 is configured to receive updated flight plan information from another aircraft, such as a pilot report (PIREP) from another aircraft, for example via an Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) containing information about an unexpected weather event (such as a high wind-speed event or a turbulence event) or other such environmental parameter change along the predicted flight route. … The receiver module 12, the memory module 11 and the one or more sensor modules 13 are each operably connected to a processor module 14.”)
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 2 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Hampel (US 2018/0268715 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the method “further comprising filtering the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations provided in the airflow reports to the scheduled route, wherein generating the profile map comprises plotting the graphic indicia that correspond only to a subset of the airflow reports having geographic locations within a threshold proximity of the scheduled route.” However, Hampel does teach these limitations. (Hampel ¶¶ 73-76: “the visual representation may include a plurality of indicators superimposed on a map according to the respective locations at which the turbulence data was obtained or recorded. … the visual representation may be altered responsive to user selection, for example, to only show the indicators of a specified altitude range, within a specified radius or flight route, or within a specified period of time.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramachandra by filtering the data to only plot indicia corresponding to reports within a threshold proximity of the flight route as taught by Hampel with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that airflow reports that are far from the flight route are not relevant to the user and can distract the user from noticing the reports that are relevant.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 7 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gurusamy et al. (US 2018/0238996 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gurusamy.
Regarding claim 9:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 8,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein generating the profile map comprises differentiating a second visual characteristic of the graphic indicia for different airflow reports based on a recency level of the airflow report.” However, Gurusamy does teach this limitation. (Gurusamy ¶ 54: “process 800 also presents the graphical elements using varying intensities of color associated with an age of data represented by the graphical elements (step 810). In some embodiments, graphical elements associated with new or more recent data are shown using bolder colors, brighter colors, and with increased intensity of color, while the graphical elements associated with older data may be shown using an increased level of transparency, translucency, or other types of less-vibrant colors.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramachandra by including a visual differentiation of certain indicia based on their recency as taught by Gurusamy with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that the most recent data is most important since weather and turbulence patterns are constantly changing.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra in view of Gurusamy as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Jensen (US 2020/0334994 A1).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Ramachandra and Gurusamy teaches “The method of claim 9,” and Gurusamy also teaches that “the second visual characteristic is intensity of the graphic indicia.” (Gurusamy ¶ 54: “process 800 also presents the graphical elements using varying intensities of color associated with an age of data represented by the graphical elements.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramachandra by differentiating graphical indicia by using different intensities based on their recency as taught by Gurusamy with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that the most recent data is most important since weather and turbulence patterns are constantly changing, and that displaying certain indicia with a higher intensity would make them more noticeable to the display operator.
The combination of Ramachandra and Gurusamy does not explicitly teach that “the first visual characteristic is color.” However, Jensen does teach this limitation. (Jensen ¶ 72: “the ADS-B turbulence mapping function employs a circle drawn around the reporting aircraft the color of which is indicative of its real-time reported turbulence intensity level (TB).”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method that is disclosed by the combination of Ramachandra and Gurusamy by using different colors to represent different turbulence levels as taught by Jensen, because this is a simple substitution of one known element (i.e., the colors of Jensen) for another (a display of “highlighted or otherwise visually distinguished” information as disclosed by Ramachandra ¶ 31 and FIG. 3) to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)). A person having ordinary skill in the art could have replaced the highlighted display information of Ramachandra with display data that is shown in different colors to achieve the predictable result of visually identifying several different turbulence levels in an easily identifiable way.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Jensen (US 2020/0334994 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the limitations listed below. However, Jensen does teach these limitations:
“further comprising: identifying at least a first airflow report of the airflow reports that is more proximate to a current location and a current altitude of the first aircraft than other airflow reports of the airflow reports.” (Jensen ¶ 102: “Time correlated positions of the reporting aircraft are then ‘a’, ‘b’, and ‘c’ representing the positions of the reporting aircraft at t0, t−1, and t−2 respectively. For purposes of demonstration, it is stipulated that the positions of the three aircraft 910c, 920b and 930a, corresponding to times t−2 , t−1, and t0 respectively, are all within one mile radius of position X represented by circle 940a. Further let it be stipulated that for purposes of mapping data, data points within a one mile radius of position X (940a) can be considered collocated at position X. Thus, 910c represents the oldest sensed value at position X and 930a represents the most current value.” Also, Jensen ¶ 89: “the pilot may employ an altitude filter for example only displaying data for aircraft within 10,000 feet of his current altitude.”)
“generating a text box that provides the airflow condition of the at least first airflow report; and displaying the text box on the display device.” (Jensen ¶ 90: “if the pilot places the display cursor 766 on or immediately adjacent an aircraft reporting point, e.g. 710a. a pop-up window 760 may be opened to provide a textual display of the reported data. As see in the figure, the displayed textual data may include reporting aircraft type 761, reporting altitude 762, reported turbulence intensity (TB) 763, reported turbulence duration (TD) 764, and reporting time 765. Each of these items is important when evaluating the relevance of the report to the own-ship aircraft.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramachandra by showing a text display of airflow data that is proximate to the aircraft location and altitude as taught by Jensen with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Jensen ¶ 90 teaches that this allows relevant data such as reported turbulence intensity and duration to be shown, and that “Each of these items is important when evaluating the relevance of the report to the own-ship aircraft.”
Claims 12-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of McCann et al. (US 2016/0356922 A1), hereinafter referred to as McCann.
Regarding claim 12:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose the limitations listed below. However, McCann does teach these limitations:
“further comprising: determining, via the controller, a first turbulence score for the first flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route based on the airflow conditions of a first subset of the graphic indicia that are proximate to the first flight path; determining, via the controller, a second turbulence score for a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route based on the airflow conditions of a second subset of the graphic indicia that are proximate to the second flight path.” (McCann ¶ 136: “Embodiments of the DSEE provide an aircraft turbulence nowcast for a geospatial aviation volume by determining non-convective turbulence values for a geospatial aviation volume associated with an at least one aircraft and determining convective turbulence forecast values for the geospatial aviation volume (e.g., for 4-d spatial/temporal gridpoints within the volume). … The DSEE can then transmit the aircraft turbulence nowcast to a control system associated with the at least one aircraft (e.g., aircraft navigation systems, ground control systems, etc.), provide an alert based thereon, and/or determine/provide a flight plan deviation or alternate route (for which a turbulence nowcast may be determined and the compared to the nowcast for th initial route) for the aircraft to avoid or minimize turbulence.”)
“wherein the second flight path has a different altitude than the first flight path.” (McCann ¶ 36: “The DSEE can also provide enhanced granularity for all flight-level altitudes in order to identify the optimal path for avoiding hazards, and/or choosing the least dangerous hazard to encounter.”)
“selecting, via the controller, one of the first flight path or the second flight path as a recommended flight path for the first aircraft based on a comparison of the first and second turbulence scores; and generating a flight path recommendation for display on the display device, the flight path recommendation indicating the recommended flight path.” (McCann ¶ 136: “DSEE can then transmit the aircraft turbulence nowcast to a control system associated with the at least one aircraft (e.g., aircraft navigation systems, ground control systems, etc.), provide an alert based thereon, and/or determine/provide a flight plan deviation or alternate route (for which a turbulence nowcast may be determined and the compared to the nowcast for th initial route) for the aircraft to avoid or minimize turbulence.” Additionally, McCann ¶ 68: “The DSEE may provide weather/aviation decision support (e.g., via graphical displays) and/or provide alerts/triggers.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramachandra by recommending a candidate route based on a comparison of turbulence values for each route as taught by McCann with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because McCann ¶ 136 teaches that this can help the aircraft to avoid or minimize turbulence. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that avoiding or minimizing turbulence would help to improve flight safety.
Regarding claim 13:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” but does not explicitly disclose “wherein generating the profile map comprises plotting a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route, and displaying the profile map comprises concurrently displaying both the first and second flight paths on the profile map.” However, McCann does teach this limitation. (McCann ¶ 39: “an adjusted or modified flight plan (or a selection of plans) may be provided for approval or selection 122a.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramachandra by concurrently displaying a selection of multiple flight plans as taught by McCann with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because McCann ¶ 51 teaches that this can help “allow users to consider several ways of incorporating turbulence prediction into their flight path considering their flight requirements.”
Regarding claim 19:
Ramachandra discloses “The turbulence notification system of claim 15,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein the controller is configured to generate the profile map by plotting the first flight path and at least a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route, wherein the second flight path has a different altitude than the first flight path.” However, McCann does teach this limitation. (McCann ¶ 39: “an adjusted or modified flight plan (or a selection of plans) may be provided for approval or selection 122a.” Further, McCann ¶ 36: “The DSEE can also provide enhanced granularity for all flight-level altitudes in order to identify the optimal path for avoiding hazards, and/or choosing the least dangerous hazard to encounter.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Ramachandra by presenting more than one flight path with different altitudes as taught by McCann with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because McCann Abstract teaches that this modification can help “the aircraft to avoid or minimize the effects of turbulence on the flight.” A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that avoiding or minimizing turbulence would help to improve flight safety.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 12 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandra as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuwajima et al. (JP 2024-018055 A), hereinafter referred to as Kuwajima.
Regarding claim 14:
Ramachandra discloses “The method of claim 1,” but Ramachandra does not specifically disclose “wherein generating the profile map comprises plotting a second flight path of the first aircraft on the scheduled route, and displaying the profile map comprises displaying the first flight path but not the second flight path during a first time period and displaying the second flight path but not the first flight path during a second time period.” However, Kuwajima does teach these limitations. (Kuwajima ¶ 44: “The route derivation unit 50 may use a route model to sequentially present candidate routes, and the calculation unit 30 may apply each of the presented routes to a risk model to perform a risk assessment for each route. The route recommendation unit 55 may then comprehensively determine the calculated risk assessment result and the flight distance to determine one or more recommended routes.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Ramachandra by displaying the candidate routes sequentially as taught by Kuwajima with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this upon recognizing that displaying the candidate routes at the same time could result in overlapping information that leads to confusion, whereas displaying the candidate routes sequentially would allow for a less cluttered display that could help to improve clarity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Madison R Inserra whose telephone number is (571)272-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM EST.
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, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. 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.
/Madison R. Inserra/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662