DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/639,262 filed on 04/18/2024.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 11/03/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, lines 17-18, “a location of the int and the second unit” should read “a location of the unit and the second unit”.
In claim 15, line 6, “wherein the unit is receive” should read “wherein the unit is arranged to receive”.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without reciting significantly more. The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
Step One: Does the Claim Fall Within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 is directed towards a method (process). Dependent claims 2-14 are also directed towards a method (process). Claim 15 is directed towards an apparatus (machine).
Step Two A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. Taking into account claim 1 as one example, the claim recites measuring, via at least one sensor on the aircraft, a physical parameter relating to the aircraft thereby forming a set of measurements, receiving, by the unit, the set of measurements from the at least one sensor, periodically storing, by the unit, the set of measurements, in a memory, as data with an associated timestamp, comparing, by a processor separate from the unit, the data with flight data associated with a known aircraft to identify the aircraft on which the unit is located, and identifying, by the processor, the aircraft on which the unit is located. These limitations, as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a mechanic inspecting a mechanical component of an aircraft, running a diagnosis by inputting the mechanical component’s specifications into a diagnosis display in order to identify the location of the component on the aircraft, receiving a message on the display regarding the location of the component, and notifying the pilot of the aircraft about the component’s location. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step Two A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. Claim 1 recites four additional elements – a unit, a sensor, a memory, and a processor. All four elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unit, sensor, memory, and processor. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites four additional elements – a unit, a sensor, a memory, and an apparatus. All four elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unit, sensor, memory, and apparatus. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
This type of abstract idea recited in claims 1-15 is a mental process.
Step Two B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept
No. Regarding claim 1, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a unit, a sensor, a memory, and a processor amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unit, sensor, memory, and processor. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a unit, a sensor, a memory, and a processor cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 15, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a unit, a sensor, a memory, and an apparatus amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unit, sensor, memory, and apparatus. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a unit, a sensor, a memory, and an apparatus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are merely further defining the abstract idea by providing field of use limitations on transmitting and receiving data and are not adding anything to the abstract idea set forth in the independent claims such that the invention will amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-14 are merely field of use limitations which simply further limit the abstract idea set forth in claim 1. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
For example, dependent claim 4 merely recites the well understood, routine and conventional computing functions of data transmission and gathering. These claims do not contain further limitations that make them subject matter eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maji (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0018194 A1) in view of Tucker (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0236794 A1).
Regarding Claim 1:
Maji teaches:
A method of identifying an aircraft, wherein the aircraft comprises a unit located on the aircraft,, (See (Maji: Brief Summary – 5th-6th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 14th-15th and 30th-31st paragraphs))
the method comprising: measuring, via at least one sensor on the aircraft, a physical parameter relating to the aircraft thereby forming a set of measurements; receiving, by the unit, the set of measurements from the at least one sensor; periodically storing, by the unit, the set of measurements, in a memory, as data with an associated timestamp;, (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 17th, 21st-26th, 37th-40th, and 55th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
comparing, by a processor separate from the unit, the data with flight data associated with a known aircraft, (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 18th-19th, 28th, 33rd, 41st-43rd, and 46th-49th paragraphs))
Maji does not teach but Tucker teaches:
to identify the aircraft on which the unit is located; and identifying, by the processor, the aircraft on which the unit is located., (See (Tucker: Summary – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description – 17th-22nd, 28th-34th, 37th-40th, and 47th-48th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji with these above aforementioned teachings from Tucker in order to create a smart and safe method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Tucker’s self-referencing sensors for aircraft monitoring in order to identify an aircraft on which a unit is located. Combining Maji and Tucker would thus provide “flexible sensor networks on moving assets” (Tucker: Summary – 3rd paragraph) and more particularly “self-referencing sensors for aircraft monitoring.” (Tucker: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 2:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the memory is on the aircraft., (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 16th-21st paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 8:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 7. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 7, wherein comparing the one or more flight phases with the flight data associated with the known aircraft comprises comparing the duration of at least one of the one or more flight phases., (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 28th-33rd, 38th-43rd, and 46th-49th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 9:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the flight data associated with the known aircraft comprises at least one of an aircraft registration number, a manufacturer of the aircraft, a model of the aircraft, an airline operating the aircraft, a departure location, an arrival location, whether each of the one or more flight phases was performed correctly, a flight path, or a flight number., (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph))
Regarding Claim 10:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the flight data associated with the known aircraft comprises at least one of a planned flight plan, an actual flight path, an altitude, a speed, an acceleration, an orientation, a roll, a pitch, a yaw, or a vibration of the known aircraft., (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph))
Regarding Claim 11:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises one or more of an inertial measurement unit; a pressure sensor; a gyroscope; a vibration sensor; a magnetometer; a compass; an accelerometer; or a temperature sensor., (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 17th-18th, 21st-24th, and 55th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Regarding Claim 12:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: processing the data to determine a flight path; and comparing the data with the flight data associated with the known aircraft comprises comparing at least one feature of the flight path with the flight data associated with the known aircraft., (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 28th-33rd, 41st-43rd, and 46th-49th paragraphs))
Regarding Claim 13:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the aircraft further comprises: a second unit located on the aircraft, wherein the second unit comprises at least one second sensor; wherein the method further comprises:, (See (Maji: Brief Summary – 5th-6th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 14th-15th and 30th-31st paragraphs))
[…] measuring, via the at least one second sensor of the second unit a second physical parameter relating to the aircraft thereby forming a second set of measurements; and receiving, by the second unit, the second set of measurements from the at least one second sensor; periodically storing, by the second unit, the second set of measurements, in the memory, as second data with a second associated timestamp; […], (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 17th, 21st-26th, 37th-40th, and 55th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
Maji does not teach but Tucker teaches:
[…] and comparing, by the processor separate from the second unit, the data from the unit and the second data from the second unit to determine a location of the int and the second unit with respect to one another in the aircraft., (See (Tucker: Summary – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description – 17th-22nd, 28th-34th, 37th-40th, and 47th-48th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji with these above aforementioned teachings from Tucker in order to create a smart and safe method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Tucker’s self-referencing sensors for aircraft monitoring in order to identify an aircraft on which a unit is located. Combining Maji and Tucker would thus provide “flexible sensor networks on moving assets” (Tucker: Summary – 3rd paragraph) and more particularly “self-referencing sensors for aircraft monitoring.” (Tucker: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Regarding Claim 14:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 13. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 13, wherein the flight data associated with the known aircraft comprises a layout of the known aircraft, and wherein the method further comprises mapping the location of the unit and the second unit onto the layout of the known aircraft., (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 33rd-36th and 42nd-50th paragraphs, FIG. 3-4))
Regarding Claim 15:
Maji teaches:
An apparatus for identifying an aircraft, the apparatus comprising: a unit located on the aircraft; wherein the unit comprises, (See (Maji: Brief Summary – 5th-6th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 14th-15th and 30th-31st paragraphs))
at least one sensor; wherein the at least one sensor is arranged to measure a physical parameter relating to the aircraft thereby forming a set of measurements; and wherein the unit is receive the set of measurements from the at least one sensor; a memory arranged to periodically store the set of measurements as data with an associated timestamp; wherein the apparatus is arranged to:, (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 17th, 21st-26th, 37th-40th, and 55th paragraphs, FIG. 1))
compare the data with flight data associated with a known aircraft, (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 18th-19th, 28th, 33rd, 41st-43rd, and 46th-49th paragraphs))
Maji does not teach but Tucker teaches:
to identify the aircraft on which the unit is located; and identify the aircraft on which the unit is located., (See (Tucker: Summary – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description – 17th-22nd, 28th-34th, 37th-40th, and 47th-48th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji with these above aforementioned teachings from Tucker in order to create a smart and safe method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Tucker’s self-referencing sensors for aircraft monitoring in order to identify an aircraft on which a unit is located. Combining Maji and Tucker would thus provide “flexible sensor networks on moving assets” (Tucker: Summary – 3rd paragraph) and more particularly “self-referencing sensors for aircraft monitoring.” (Tucker: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maji (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0018194 A1) in view of Tucker (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0236794) in further view of Lonski (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0402326 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maji does not teach but Lonski teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the unit comprises a real time clock arranged to produce a timestamp and wherein the data is stored with the associated timestamp produced by the real time clock., (See (Lonski: Detailed Description – 29th, 32nd-33rd, and 59th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji in view of Tucker with these above aforementioned teachings from Lonski in order to create an effective method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Lonski’s automated logging method of aircraft oooi times using a mobile device in order to provide an aircraft system to monitor proximate traffic that includes a real time clock arranged to produce a timestamp, determine a duration of a flight phase, and store/transmit data with an associated timestamp produced by the real time clock. Combining Maji and Lonski would thus provide “a device and an automated method for collecting OOOI data which is more accurate and efficient than current manual or automated methods.” (Lonski: Background – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 4:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 1. Maji further teaches:
[…] wherein comparing the data with the flight data associated with the known aircraft […], (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 18th-19th, 28th, 33rd, 41st-43rd, and 46th-49th paragraphs))
[…] comparing at least one feature of the one or more flight phases with the flight data associated with the known aircraft., (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 28th, 33rd, 41st-43rd, and 46th-49th paragraphs))
Maji does not teach but Tucker teaches:
[…] to identify the aircraft on which the unit is located further comprises [...], (See (Tucker: Summary – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description – 17th-22nd, 28th-34th, 37th-40th, and 47th-48th paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji with these above aforementioned teachings from Tucker in order to create a smart and safe method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Tucker’s self-referencing sensors for aircraft monitoring in order to identify an aircraft on which a unit is located. Combining Maji and Tucker would thus provide “flexible sensor networks on moving assets” (Tucker: Summary – 3rd paragraph) and more particularly “self-referencing sensors for aircraft monitoring.” (Tucker: Summary – 3rd paragraph)
Maji in view of Tucker does not teach but Lonski teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: processing the data to determine one or more flight phases;, (See (Lonski: Background – 3rd-4th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 51st-52nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji in view of Tucker with these above aforementioned teachings from Lonski in order to create an effective method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Lonski’s automated logging method of aircraft oooi times using a mobile device in order to provide an aircraft system to monitor proximate traffic that includes a real time clock arranged to produce a timestamp, determine a duration of a flight phase, and store/transmit data with an associated timestamp produced by the real time clock. Combining Maji and Lonski would thus provide “a device and an automated method for collecting OOOI data which is more accurate and efficient than current manual or automated methods.” (Lonski: Background – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 5:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Maji does not teach but Lonski teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the one or more flight phases comprise one or more of taxiing, take-off, cruising, descent, final approach, or landing., (See (Lonski: Background – 3rd-4th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 51st-52nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji in view of Tucker with these above aforementioned teachings from Lonski in order to create an effective method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Lonski’s automated logging method of aircraft oooi times using a mobile device in order to provide an aircraft system to monitor proximate traffic that includes a real time clock arranged to produce a timestamp, determine a duration of a flight phase, and store/transmit data with an associated timestamp produced by the real time clock. Combining Maji and Lonski would thus provide “a device and an automated method for collecting OOOI data which is more accurate and efficient than current manual or automated methods.” (Lonski: Background – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 6:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Maji does not teach but Lonski teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein processing the data to determine the one or more flight phases comprises determining a duration of at least one of the one or more flight phases., (See (Lonski: Background – 3rd-4th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 51st-52nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji in view of Tucker with these above aforementioned teachings from Lonski in order to create an effective method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Lonski’s automated logging method of aircraft oooi times using a mobile device in order to provide an aircraft system to monitor proximate traffic that includes a real time clock arranged to produce a timestamp, determine a duration of a flight phase, and store/transmit data with an associated timestamp produced by the real time clock. Combining Maji and Lonski would thus provide “a device and an automated method for collecting OOOI data which is more accurate and efficient than current manual or automated methods.” (Lonski: Background – 9th paragraph)
Regarding Claim 7:
Maji in view of Tucker, as shown in the rejection above, discloses the limitations of claim 4. Maji further teaches:
The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the flight data associated with the known aircraft comprises, (See (Maji: Detailed Description – 30th paragraph))
Maji does not teach but Lonski teaches:
[…] a duration of at least one of the one or more flight phases., (See (Lonski: Background – 3rd-4th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 51st-52nd paragraphs))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Maji in view of Tucker with these above aforementioned teachings from Lonski in order to create an effective method and apparatus for identifying an aircraft. At the time the invention was filed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Maji’s aircraft systems and methods to monitor proximate traffic with Lonski’s automated logging method of aircraft oooi times using a mobile device in order to provide an aircraft system to monitor proximate traffic that includes a real time clock arranged to produce a timestamp, determine a duration of a flight phase, and store/transmit data with an associated timestamp produced by the real time clock. Combining Maji and Lonski would thus provide “a device and an automated method for collecting OOOI data which is more accurate and efficient than current manual or automated methods.” (Lonski: Background – 9th paragraph)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 3rd, 2025 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 3rd, 2025 with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, claims 1, 10, and 19 recite measuring, receiving, storing, comparing, and identifying steps that as drafted, are simple processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Moreover, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Considering claims 1, the claim recites four additional elements – a unit, a sensor, a memory, and a processor. All four elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unit, sensor, memory, and processor. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Considering claim 15, the claim recites four additional elements – a unit, a sensor, a memory, and an apparatus. All four elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as means to transmit and receive data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic unit, sensor, memory, and apparatus. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (See 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above for further detail)
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the limitations are taught in the combination of Maji and Tucker as has been set forth above, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendments and arguments are insufficient to overcome these prior art rejections.
More specifically, Maji mentions “In accordance with an exemplary embodiment, […] based on the missing flight information for the first aircraft.” Furthermore, Maji states “Broadly, […] with reference to “aircraft.”” Maji further states “In a first step 205, […] or non-proximate traffic.” See (Maji: Brief Summary – 5th-6th paragraphs and Detailed Description – 14th-15th and 30th-31st paragraphs) Maji mentions “As shown in FIG. 1, […] of the components of the system 100.” Furthermore, Maji states “Database 120 is coupled to […] may be referenced as “ADS-B IN.”” Maji further states “Returning to FIG. 2, […] although other time periods may be used.” Maji mentions “In step 260, […] (e.g., from air traffic control or sensors).” See (Maji: Detailed Description – 17th, 21st-26th, 37th-40th, and 55th paragraphs, FIG. 1) Furthermore, Maji states “The processing unit 110 may be […] and/or evaluated at a later time.” Maji further states “As described below, […] of the system 100 are provided below.” Maji mentions “In FIG. 3, […] to maintain awareness about traffic 311-315.” Furthermore, Maji states “In step 235, […] audio annunciation may be alternatively or additionally provided.” Finally, Maji further states “As shown in FIG. 4, […] or voice messages.” See (Maji: Detailed Description – 18th-19th, 28th, 33rd, 41st-43rd, and 46th-49th paragraphs) In doing so, Maji addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “A method of identifying an aircraft, wherein the aircraft comprises a unit located on the aircraft”, “the method comprising: measuring, via at least one sensor on the aircraft, a physical parameter relating to the aircraft thereby forming a set of measurements; receiving, by the unit, the set of measurements from the at least one sensor; periodically storing, by the unit, the set of measurements, in a memory, as data with an associated timestamp”, and “comparing, by a processor separate from the unit, the data with flight data associated with a known aircraft” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claim 15.
Moreover, Tucker mentions “This, […] or a strain gauge.” Furthermore, Tucker states “As described below, […] by respective one or more of the meta sensors.” Tucker further states “Some implementations of meta sensor self-location can be […] from which the signals are received.” Tucker mentions “At 310, […] to be executing a specified flight maneuver.” Finally, Tucker states “In some implementations, […] to meet the algorithm's requirements.” See (Tucker: Summary – 5th paragraph and Detailed Description – 17th-22nd, 28th-34th, 37th-40th, and 47th-48th paragraphs) In doing so, Tucker addresses the Applicant’s limitation of “to identify the aircraft on which the unit is located; and identifying, by the processor, the aircraft on which the unit is located” as set forth in claim 1 and similarly in claim 15.
As a result, the combination of Maji and Tucker addresses "[a] method of identifying an aircraft, wherein the aircraft comprises a unit located on the aircraft, the method comprising: measuring, via at least one sensor on the aircraft, a physical parameter relating to the aircraft thereby forming a set of measurements; receiving, by the unit, the set of measurements from the at least one sensor; periodically storing, by the unit, the set of measurements, in a memory, as data with an associated timestamp; comparing, by a processor separate from the unit, the data with flight data associated with a known aircraft to identify the aircraft on which the unit is located; and identifying, by the processor, the aircraft on which the unit is located" as set forth by the Applicant in claim 1 and similarly in claim 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey Chalhoub whose telephone number is (571) 272-9754. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Koppikar can be reached on (571) 272-5109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.R.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3667
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3667
December 5, 2025