DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 04/16/2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted 04/16/2024 and 10/16/2025 are in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.97 and are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality: In line 2 of claim 3, it appears that the word “the” should be deleted before the phrase “at least one of the speeds, the sizes, or the weights of the reporting aircraft.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 13:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, and claim 13 is directed to the corresponding system. Claims 1 and 13 are each directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claims 1 and 13 recite the abstract concept of determining and plotting a map of effective turbulence levels. This abstract idea is described at least in claims 1 and 13 by the mental process steps of generating normalized turbulence values based on reported turbulence levels in obtained airflow reports and at least one of size 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 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. These steps fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas as they include a human using pen and paper to mentally perform mathematical calculations to generate normalized turbulence values based on reported turbulence levels and aircraft characteristics, perform mathematical calculations to mentally determine effective turbulence levels specific to a first aircraft based on the normalized turbulence values and an identifying characteristic of the first aircraft to predict an effect of the atmospheric airflow on the first aircraft at the geographic locations of the received airflow reports, and drawing out vertical and horizontal axes to plot a map that shows representations of effective turbulence levels corresponding to the geographic locations of the received airflow reports. The limitations as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover their performance in the human mind if not for the recitation of generic computing components.
With respect to claims 1 and 13, other than reciting “a controller comprising one or more processors,” nothing in the recited steps precludes the idea from practically being performed in the human mind. If not for the “controller” language, the claims encompass a human mentally performing each of the steps with the help of pen and paper.
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.
Claims 1 and 13 each recite a controller comprising one or more processors, which is a generic computer component (as supported by ¶ 23 of the instant specification) that is simply employed as a tool for performing the abstract idea. The use of generic computing components such as the recited controller for executing the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claims 1 and 13 also each recite that the controller is configured to obtain airflow reports that are generated by multiple 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 aircraft. These steps are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, as they simply gather data necessary to perform the abstract idea (i.e., all uses of the abstract idea require such data gathering). The mere recitation of such insignificant extra-solution activity does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
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 is anything other than a conventional computer comprising conventional processor(s). 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 mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, the step of obtaining airflow reports is mere 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 13 are not patent-eligible.
Regarding claims 2-12 and 14-20:
Claims 2-8, 11, and 15-19 recite the additional mental process steps of generating the normalized turbulence values based on the speeds of the reporting aircraft; comparing at least one of the speeds, the sizes, or the weights of the reporting aircraft to at least one baseline value; inputting the reported turbulence level and at least one of the size, the weight, or the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft from each of the airflow reports into a normalization algorithm that is configured to output the normalized turbulence values; generating the normalized turbulence values so that all of the normalized turbulence values are within a standard range; 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; 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; positioning the graphic indicia at locations along the vertical axis that correspond to the altitudes of the airflow reports; filtering the airflow reports based on proximity of the geographic locations provided in the airflow reports to the scheduled route of the first aircraft; 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; inputting the reported turbulence level and at least one of the size, the weight, or the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft from each of the airflow reports into a normalization algorithm that is configured to output the normalized turbulence values so that all of the normalized turbulence values are within a standard range; and comparing at least one of the sizes or the weights of the reporting aircraft to at least one baseline value.
The steps listed above each fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas because they could each be performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper. For example, a human could use pen and paper to write out mathematical calculations for generating normalized turbulence values based on the aircraft speeds; mentally compare a speed, size, and/or weight of the reporting aircraft to a baseline value; write out mathematical operations for performing a normalization algorithm using the size, weight, and/or identifying characteristic of the reporting aircraft as an input in order to obtain the normalized turbulence values as outputs; perform mathematical calculations to generate normalized turbulence values that are within a standard range; perform mathematical calculations to scale up a severity of a first reported turbulence level based on mentally identifying that the size and/or weight of the first aircraft is above a baseline value; perform mathematical calculations to scale down a severity of a second reported turbulence level based on mentally identifying that a size and/or weight of the second aircraft is below a baseline value; drawing out a graph that positions indicia at locations along the vertical axis that correspond to the altitudes of the airflow reports; marking airflow reports that should be filtered out based on the proximity of their associated geographic locations to the scheduled route of the first aircraft; drawing a plot of indicia that only includes airflow reports with geographic locations within a certain proximity of the scheduled route; write out mathematical operations to perform a normalization algorithm using the size, weight, and/or identifying characteristic of the reporting aircraft from each airflow report as an input in order to obtain the normalized turbulence values within a standard range as outputs; and mentally compare the sizes and/or weights of the reporting aircraft to a baseline value.
Claims 9 and 14 recite the additional steps of displaying the generated map on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft. This step amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, because 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 or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claims 12 and 20 recite the additional step of receiving the airflow reports from an ADS-B receiver mounted onboard the first aircraft, the ADS-B receiver configured to wirelessly receive the airflow reports. This limitation amounts to general linking of the abstract idea to the particular technological field of ADS-B. This does not provide meaningful limits on the claim because receiving ADS-B messages is conventional in the art and does not preclude the abstract idea from being practically performed in the human mind. That is, a human could use pen and paper to execute the mental process steps regardless of whether the airflow reports are received over ADS-B or any other messaging protocol. Such general linking limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The dependent claims recite various limitations that further define the recited mental process. For example, claim 10 specifies that the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft comprises at least one of a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft, a type of the reporting aircraft, the weight of the reporting aircraft, or the size of the reporting aircraft. This limitation further defines the received identifying characteristic, but does not preclude the abstract idea from being performed in the human mind with the help of pen and paper.
As explained above, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 only recite additional mental process steps, limitations further defining the mental process, additional insignificant extra-solution activity, and steps 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. As such, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 2-12 and 14-20 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, 4-7, 9-10, 12-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobson et al. (US 2020/0013299 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jacobson.
Regarding claim 1:
Jacobson discloses the following limitations:
“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.” (Jacobson ¶ 7 discloses “an air turbulence analysis system that includes an air turbulence control unit that is configured to receive motion signals from one or more motion sensors of a plurality of aircraft within an air space.” Also, Jacobson ¶ 73: “air turbulence control unit 128 and the turbulence modeling control unit 130 may be or include one or more processors that are configured to control operation thereof.”)
“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.” (Jacobson ¶ 9: “the air turbulence control unit is configured to receive position signals from each of the plurality of aircraft. The position signals indicate the current positions of the plurality of the aircraft within the air space. The air turbulence control unit correlates the position signals with the motion signals to determine the locations of the air turbulence within the air space. In at least one embodiment, the motion signals are transmitted by the aircraft through the position signals.” Additionally, Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses that a flight plan database stores data such as the type, size, and weight for each aircraft, and Jacobson ¶ 68 discloses that the motion signals can be sent with ADS-B, which implies that the received motion signals contain a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft. This teaches the claim limitation in light of ¶ 71 of the instant specification, which states that an example of the identifying characteristic could be a “unique identifier for 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.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102.”)
“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.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. … normalization of motion signals received from the various aircraft 102 allows for an objective determination of air turbulence, and allows the severity of air turbulence to be categorized for different types of aircraft 102.” Further, Jacobson ¶ 64: “The air turbulence control unit 128 utilizes the current positions of the aircraft 102 within the air space 104 and the motion signals output by the aircraft 102 to determine real time or near real time locations of air turbulence within the air space 104.”)
“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.” (Jacobson ¶ 79 and FIG. 2 reproduced below: “The turbulence map 200 may include three-dimensional contours 202 and shapes 204 (such as bounded regions) that indicate the locations and altitudes of air turbulence within the air space 104.” Also, Jacobson ¶ 71: “The air turbulence control unit 128 may compare the current flight plans with the candidate flight plans in relation to the turbulence map generated by the turbulence modeling control unit 130 and output various alternative routes that avoid locations of turbulence.” Note that while the turbulence map of Jacobson is three-dimensional and contains an additional third axis, it also includes vertical and horizontal axes for plotting representations of the turbulence levels as claimed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
763
469
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 1, consistent with the specification, generating normalized turbulence values based on “at least one of sizes of the reporting aircraft or weights of the reporting aircraft” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Even though both the sizes and weights of the reporting aircraft have been addressed here, only one of the two is required for the claim to be rejected.
Regarding claim 4:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also discloses “wherein each of the normalized turbulence values is generated by inputting the reported turbulence level and at least one of the size, the weight, or the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft from each of the airflow reports into a normalization algorithm that is configured to output the normalized turbulence values.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “the flight plan database 132 may store normalization data regarding each aircraft 102 within the air space 104. The normalization data may include information about the size, weight, and the like of each aircraft 102. The normalization data may be used to send information to various aircraft 102 that takes the aircraft type, size, weight, and/or the like into consideration. … motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102.”)
Regarding claim 5:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson further discloses “wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises generating the normalized turbulence values so that all of the normalized turbulence values are within a standard range.” (Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses the generation of normalized air turbulence. Using a normalization process implies that the values are normalized to fall within a standard range such as [0,1].)
Regarding claim 6:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson further discloses “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.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values. Also, Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses that “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102,” which teaches that the turbulence severity should be scaled up for larger aircraft rather than being scaled down.)
Regarding claim 7:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 6,” and Jacobson further discloses “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.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values. Also, Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses that “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102,” which teaches that the turbulence severity should be scaled down for smaller aircraft rather than being scaled up.)
Regarding claim 9:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson further discloses the method “further comprising displaying the map that is generated on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 65: “The display 114 may receive the map data and show the real time or near real time generated turbulence map thereon. As such, pilots may view the turbulence map on the display.”)
Regarding claim 10:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also discloses “wherein the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft comprises at least one of a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft, a type of the reporting aircraft, the weight of the reporting aircraft, or the size of the reporting aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶¶ 62 and 68 disclose that the motion signals can be sent with ADS-B and associated with stored data specific to each aircraft. This implies that the received motion signals contain “a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft” as an identifying characteristic as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 10, consistent with the specification, “the identifying characteristic of the respective reporting aircraft [comprising] at least one of a unique identifier of the reporting aircraft, a type of the reporting aircraft, the weight of the reporting aircraft, or the size of the reporting aircraft” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only the “unique identifier of the reporting aircraft” has been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Regarding claim 12:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also discloses the following limitations:
“wherein the controller is disposed onboard the first aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 49: “the monitoring center 107 may be onboard an aircraft 102.” Also, Jacobson ¶ 51: “The monitoring center 107 also includes an air turbulence control unit 128.”)
“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.” (Jacobson ¶ 31: “the motion data may be communicated to the air turbulence control unit via position signals, such as ADS-B signals, which are also used to determine current locations of the aircraft.”)
Regarding claim 13:
Jacobson discloses “A turbulence notification system comprising: a controller including one or more processors, the controller configured to” perform a process. (Jacobson ¶ 73: “air turbulence control unit 128 and the turbulence modeling control unit 130 may be or include one or more processors that are configured to control operation thereof.”)
The remaining limitations of claim 13 are disclosed by Jacobson using the same rationale applied to claim 1 above, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 14:
Jacobson discloses “The turbulence notification system of claim 13,” and Jacobson also discloses the system “further comprising a display device communicatively connected to the controller, wherein the controller is configured to display the map that is generated on the display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 42: “A display 114 is also in communication with the communication device 110, such as through one or more wired or wireless connections. The display 114 may be a monitor, such as within a cockpit of the aircraft (102), which shows information thereon.”)
Regarding claim 15:
Jacobson discloses “The turbulence notification system of claim 13,” and Jacobson also discloses the system “further comprising a normalization algorithm, wherein the controller is configured to generate the normalized turbulence values by inputting the reported turbulence level and at least one of the size, the weight, or the identifying characteristic of the reporting aircraft from each of the airflow reports into a normalization algorithm that is configured to output the normalized turbulence values so that all of the normalized turbulence values are within a standard range.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “the flight plan database 132 may store normalization data regarding each aircraft 102 within the air space 104. The normalization data may include information about the size, weight, and the like of each aircraft 102. The normalization data may be used to send information to various aircraft 102 that takes the aircraft type, size, weight, and/or the like into consideration. … motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102.” Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses the generation of normalized air turbulence; using a normalization process implies that the values are normalized to fall within a standard range such as [0,1].)
Regarding claim 16:
Jacobson discloses “The turbulence notification system of claim 13,” and Jacobson also discloses “wherein the controller is configured to generate the normalized turbulence values by comparing (i) the at least one of the sizes or the weights of the reporting aircraft to (ii) at least one baseline value.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102, for example. As such, motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values.)
Regarding claim 17:
Jacobson discloses “The turbulence notification system of claim 13,” and Jacobson also discloses “wherein the controller is configured to generate the normalized turbulence values by 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, and 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.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values. Also, Jacobson ¶ 62 discloses that “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102,” which teaches that the turbulence severity should be scaled up for larger aircraft rather than being scaled down, and that the turbulence severity should be scaled down for smaller aircraft rather than being scaled up.)
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 12 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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reid et al. (US 2020/0013300 A1), hereinafter referred to as Reid.
Regarding claim 2:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 1,” but does not specifically disclose “wherein each of the airflow reports includes a speed of the respective reporting aircraft, and generating the normalized turbulence values comprises generating the normalized turbulence values based on the speeds of the reporting aircraft.” However, Reid does teach this limitation. (Reid ¶ 44: “position data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate changes in one or more position parameters of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, mass, and/or the like of the aircraft 102.” Additionally, Reid ¶ 66: “The air turbulence control unit 114 analyzes the one or more position parameters, such as speed, heading, altitude, and the like.”)
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 Jacobson by generating normalized turbulence values based on position parameters such as aircraft speed as taught by Reid with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this since Reid ¶ 44 teaches that “The normalization of position signals received from the various aircraft 102 allows for an objective determination of air turbulence, and allows the severity of air turbulence to be categorized for different types of aircraft 102.”
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Jacobson and Reid teaches “The method of claim 2,” and Jacobson also teaches “wherein generating the normalized turbulence values comprises comparing (i) the at least one of the speeds, the sizes, or the weights of the reporting aircraft to (ii) at least one baseline value.” (Jacobson ¶ 62: “The effects of air turbulence may be less in relation to larger aircraft 102 than smaller aircraft 102, for example. As such, motion data received from all aircraft 102 may be weighted and/or otherwise normalized so as to correlate motion of all aircraft 102 with a determination of air turbulence, regardless of type, size, weight, shape, and/or the like of the aircraft 102. For example, a large aircraft 102 may experience air turbulence as moderate air turbulence, while a smaller aircraft 102 may experience the air turbulence as severe turbulence.” Normalizing the turbulence data to remove the influence of aircraft characteristics such as size and weight implies that these aircraft characteristics are compared to baseline values. This at least teaches to compare the sizes and the weights of the reporting aircraft to at least one baseline value as claimed.)
Note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 3, consistent with the specification, “comparing (i) the at least one of the speeds, the sizes, or the weights of the reporting aircraft to (ii) at least one baseline value” is treated as an alternative limitation. Applicant has elected to use the phrase “at least one” in the claim language, and therefore, the BRI covers the scenario in which only one of the limitations applies. Accordingly, while only “the sizes” and “the weights” have been addressed here, the claim is still rejected in its entirety.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Ramachandra et al. (US 2020/0035109 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ramachandra.
Regarding claim 8:
Jacobson discloses “The method of claim 1,” and Jacobson also discloses “wherein each of the airflow reports includes an altitude of the respective reporting aircraft.” (Jacobson ¶ 86: “the position signals received from the aircraft provide the current position (including geospatial location, altitude, heading, and/or the like) for each aircraft, and the motion signals provide motion data for the aircraft at the current position.”)
Jacobson does not explicitly disclose “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.” However, Ramachandra does teach this limitation. (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.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
510
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Jacobson by plotting the flight route on a map with graphic indicia representing turbulence along a vertical altitude axis as taught by Ramachandra with a reasonable expectation of success. A person having ordinary skill in the art could have been motivated to do this because Ramachandra ¶ 33 teaches that with this modification, “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, thereby allowing for faster and more effective navigational decision making with a correspondingly reduced ‘heads-down’ time for the pilot.”
Regarding claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 8 above, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Hampel (US 2018/0268715 A1).
Regarding claim 11:
Jacobson 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 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.” 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 Jacobson 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 19:
Claim 19 is rejected with the same rationale applied to claim 11 above, mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crawford et al. (US 2025/0316175 A1) Abstract discloses a turbulence notification system and method for “receiving airflow reports that are generated by multiple aircraft while the aircraft are in flight. The airflow reports include a geographic location of a respective aircraft that generated the airflow report, an altitude of the respective aircraft, and an airflow condition experienced by the respective aircraft. The system and method 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 has a vertical axis representing altitude and a horizontal axis representing one of time, location, or distance. The system and method display the profile map on a display device for observation by an operator associated with the first aircraft.”
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