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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on June 17, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on May 21, 2024.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunter (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0118254).
Claims 3, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0118254) in view of McNally et al. (U.S. Patent Number 9,171,473).
Claims 5-6, 9, 13-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0118254) in view of Green (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0082637).
Claims 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0118254) in view of Green (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0082637), further in view of Kassner et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0215499).
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.
Claim 1
Claim 1. A method, comprising:
accessing a regulation that restricts flight operations for one or more locations during one or more windows of time;
determining, based on the regulation, that a scheduled flight will be delayed by the regulation;
identifying one or more alternative routes for the scheduled flight; and
submitting a first alternative route of the one or more alternative routes as an updated flight plan for the scheduled flight.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determining, based on the regulation, that a scheduled flight will be delayed by the regulation; identifying one or more alternative routes for the scheduled flight; and submitting a first alternative route of the one or more alternative routes as an updated flight plan for the scheduled flight.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, an individual could use the accessed information to mentally determine that a scheduled flight will be delayed, and use a map to identify an alternative route for the scheduled flight. The individual would submit the alternative route as an updated flight plan.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of: accessing a regulation that restricts flight operations for one or more locations during one or more windows of time.
The accessing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering regulation information for the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 11
Claim 11. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media containing, in any combination, computer program code that, when executed by a computer system, performs an operation comprising:
accessing a regulation that restricts flight operations for one or more locations during one or more windows of time;
determining, based on the regulation, that a scheduled flight will be delayed by the regulation;
identifying one or more alternative routes for the scheduled flight; and
submitting a first alternative route of the one or more alternative routes as an updated flight plan for the scheduled flight.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determining, based on the regulation, that a scheduled flight will be delayed by the regulation; identifying one or more alternative routes for the scheduled flight; and submitting a first alternative route of the one or more alternative routes as an updated flight plan for the scheduled flight.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, an individual could use the accessed information to mentally determine that a scheduled flight will be delayed, and use a map to identify an alternative route for the scheduled flight. The individual would submit the alternative route as an updated flight plan.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of: accessing a regulation that restricts flight operations for one or more locations during one or more windows of time.
The accessing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering regulation information for the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The computer-readable media and computer program code from the preamble of the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computer environment,
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 16
Claim 16. A system comprising:
one or more computer processors; and
one or more memories containing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, perform an operation comprising:
accessing a regulation that restricts flight operations for one or more locations during one or more windows of time;
determining, based on the regulation, that a scheduled flight will be delayed by the regulation;
identifying one or more alternative routes for the scheduled flight; and
submitting a first alternative route of the one or more alternative routes as an updated flight plan for the scheduled flight.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of determining, based on the regulation, that a scheduled flight will be delayed by the regulation; identifying one or more alternative routes for the scheduled flight; and submitting a first alternative route of the one or more alternative routes as an updated flight plan for the scheduled flight.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, an individual could use the accessed information to mentally determine that a scheduled flight will be delayed, and use a map to identify an alternative route for the scheduled flight. The individual would submit the alternative route as an updated flight plan.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of: one or more computer processors; and one or more memories containing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, perform an operation comprising: accessing a regulation that restricts flight operations for one or more locations during one or more windows of time.
The accessing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering regulation information for the determining step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “one or more computer processors” and the “one or more memories” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processing environment, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 16.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7-8, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hunter (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0118254).
Regarding claim 1, Hunter discloses a method, comprising:
accessing a regulation that restricts flight operations for one or more locations during one or more windows of time; (Hunter ¶ 37 discloses using dynamic air traffic routing technology that requires current knowledge of all special activity airspace (SAA) status, including the airspaces that “may be restricted and closed to commercial traffic during ... certain calendar dates and time windows,” also see Fig. 2 depicting the SAAs to be a data source and are thereby accessed.)
determining, based on the regulation, that a scheduled flight will be delayed by the regulation; (Hunter ¶ 56 discloses a candidate route identifier technology 104 that evaluates “restrictions information to determine if the route ... may be subject to delay due to a soft closure”)
identifying one or more alternative routes for the scheduled flight; and (Hunter ¶ 43 discloses that “Several different types of events in the national airspace system may restrict flights from using their preferred route, and instead require flying a reroute [i.e., an alternate route],” such that “The AFPs [airspace flow programs] may provide [i.e., identify] candidate reroutes for users to select from,” see ¶ 50, and routes that are available, along with their “potential delay information” form a list of candidate routes [i.e., alternative routes], see ¶ 56)
submitting a first alternative route of the one or more alternative routes as an updated flight plan for the scheduled flight. (Hunter ¶ 63 discloses that the system will compute a reroute and “send the flight plan updates to the server,” also see Fig. 10 and 11D)
Regarding claim 2, Hunter discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that the first alternative route is not subject to the regulation. (Hunter ¶ 40 discloses “The dynamic air traffic routing disclosed herein collects these SAA data in real-time and models the temporal and spatial active status, for use in determining if a candidate route is available or not,” wherein the candidate route includes a first route may be selected by default)
Regarding claim 4, Hunter discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
outputting, via a graphical user interface (GUI), an indication that the scheduled flight is affected by the regulation. (Hunter ¶ 53 discloses “provide routing guidance to airspace users via a graphical user interface,” such that delays are displayed [i.e., outputting an indication] as depicted in Fig. 13, wherein the delays are caused by airspace closures [i.e., affected by the regulation], see ¶ 54)
Regarding claim 7, Hunter discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
outputting, for each respective alternative route of the one or more alternative routes, a respective indication via a graphical user interface (GUI). (Hunter ¶ 53 discloses “provide routing guidance to airspace users via a graphical user interface,” such that delays are displayed [i.e., outputting an indication] as depicted in Fig. 13, wherein the delays are caused by airspace closures [i.e., affected by the regulation], see ¶ 54)
Regarding claim 8, Hunter discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising:
determining, for each respective alternative route of the one or more alternative routes, a respective regulatory delay. (Hunter ¶ 39 discloses showing SAA daily updates to users, such that “In addition to the graphical representation of delay, textual information regarding SAA daily updates is available as well,” wherein the available status updates for restricted areas makes dynamic planning of flight trajectories possible for modeling reroutes and deriving an optimal rerouting decision, see ¶¶ 38 and 46, thereby having determined a regulatory delay respective to the one or more alternative routes)
Regarding claim 11, Hunter discloses the or more non-transitory computer-readable media containing, in any combination, computer program code that, when executed by a computer system, performs an operation comprising:
accessing a regulation that restricts flight operations for one or more locations during one or more windows of time; (Hunter ¶ 37 discloses using dynamic air traffic routing technology that requires current knowledge of all special activity airspace (SAA) status, including the airspaces that “may be restricted and closed to commercial traffic during ... certain calendar dates and time windows,” also see Fig. 2 depicting the SAAs to be a data source and are thereby accessed.)
determining, based on the regulation, that a scheduled flight will be delayed by the regulation; (Hunter ¶ 56 discloses a candidate route identifier technology 104 that evaluates “restrictions information to determine if the route ... may be subject to delay due to a soft closure”)
identifying one or more alternative routes for the scheduled flight; and (Hunter ¶ 43 discloses that “Several different types of events in the national airspace system may restrict flights from using their preferred route, and instead require flying a reroute [i.e., an alternate route],” such that “The AFPs [airspace flow programs] may provide [i.e., identify] candidate reroutes for users to select from,” see ¶ 50, and routes that are available, along with their “potential delay information” form a list of candidate routes [i.e., alternative routes], see ¶ 56)
submitting a first alternative route of the one or more alternative routes as an updated flight plan for the scheduled flight. (Hunter ¶ 63 discloses that the system will compute a reroute and “send the flight plan updates to the server,” also see Fig. 10 and 11D)
Regarding claim 16, Hunter discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 1 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Hunter further discloses one or more computer processors (Hunter in at least ¶ 54) and one or more memories (Hunter in at least ¶ 53 “Data storage devices”) containing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, (Hunter ¶ 54 disclosing the computer processing system 100 using data from data sources) perform an operation comprising the limitations of claim 1.
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 3, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0118254) in view of McNally et al. (U.S. Patent Number 9,171,473).
Regarding claim 3, Hunter does not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining that a delay of the first alternative route is less than the delay of the scheduled flight.
However, McNally discloses:
determining that a delay of the first alternative route is less than the delay of the scheduled flight. (McNally Col. 2 Line 66 – Col. 3 Line 4 discloses selecting a candidate alternate route that has a minimum flying time delay relative to the preferred reference route.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the delays disclosed by Hunter with determining that a delay of the first alternative route is less than the delay of the scheduled flight, as disclosed by McNally, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a system that automatically analyzes in-flight aircraft in en-route airspace and finds simple reroutes that result in more efficient flight around convective weather and potentially save substantial flying time and fuel (McNally Col. 1 Lines 49-52), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Hunter does not expressly disclose the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, the operation further comprising:
at least one of: determining that the first alternative route is not subject to the regulation; or determining that a delay of the first alternative route is less than the delay of the scheduled flight.
However, McNally discloses:
at least one of: determining that the first alternative route is not subject to the regulation; or determining that a delay of the first alternative route is less than the delay of the scheduled flight. (McNally Col. 2 Line 66 – Col. 3 Line 4 discloses selecting a candidate alternate route that has a minimum flying time delay relative to the preferred reference route.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the alternative route disclosed by Hunter with determining that a delay of the first alternative route is less than the delay of the scheduled flight, as disclosed by McNally, with reasonable expectation of success, to provide an improvement by providing an alternate route that results in more efficient flight around convective weather and potentially save substantial flying time and fuel (McNally Col. 1 Lines 48-52), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Hunter in combination with McNally discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 12 for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 5-6, 9, 13-14, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0118254) in view of Green (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0082637).
Regarding claim 5, Hunter does not expressly disclose the method of claim 4, further comprising:
highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay.
However, Green discloses:
highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay. (Green ¶ 91 discloses a trajectory-colour module 490 that “determines a colour of a visual traffic delay notification according to the direction of the traffic delay,” for example, “a traffic delay of 10 minutes may be displayed having a brightness level of X, whilst a traffic delay of 30 minutes may be displayed having a brightness level of Y, wherein Y is a greater intensity then X”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the route guidance of Hunter with highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay, as disclosed by Green, with reasonable expectation of success, to render the trajectory to be easily distinguishable from other trajectories, even when the trajectories overlie each other (Green ¶ 33), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Hunter in combination with Green discloses the method of claim 5, wherein:
highlighting the indication based on the length of the delay comprises, in response to determining that the delay is greater than a threshold, emphasizing the indication. (Green ¶ 91 discloses that a traffic delay of 30 minutes [i.e., a threshold] is displayed having a brightness level of Y according to the traffic delay severity, whereas a traffic delay of 10 minutes may be displayed having a brightness level of X, wherein “wherein Y is a greater intensity [i.e., emphasized] then X.” One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that using a brightness Y of greater intensity when the delay is 30 minutes indicates that the delay is greater than a threshold compared to the traffic delay of 10 minutes with a brightness X.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the route guidance of Hunter with highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay, as disclosed by Green, with reasonable expectation of success, because a user may wish to avoid any roads on which traffic congestion is likely, expected or currently prevailing (Green ¶ 54), and by emphasizing the indication based on the delay being greater than a threshold, the user may more easily be able to distinguish which trajectories to avoid (MPEP 2143.01(G)), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Hunter in combination with Green discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
highlighting each respective indication based on the respective regulatory delays. (Green ¶ 91 discloses “the navigation device 200 is arranged to display traffic information in a colour which allows identification of a direction of the traffic delay,” such that “Each trajectory is displayed in colour on the display device 14 and a local colour, which is a colour at a locality of the trajectory,” see ¶ 26)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the route guidance of Hunter with highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay, as disclosed by Green, with reasonable expectation of success, to render the trajectory to be easily distinguishable from other trajectories, even when the trajectories overlie each other (Green ¶ 33), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 13, Hunter discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, the operation further comprising:
outputting, via a graphical user interface (GUI), an indication that the scheduled flight is affected by the regulation; and (Hunter ¶ 53 discloses “provide routing guidance to airspace users via a graphical user interface,” such that delays are displayed [i.e., outputting an indication] as depicted in Fig. 13, wherein the delays are caused by airspace closures [i.e., affected by the regulation], see ¶ 54)
Hunter does not expressly disclose:
highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay.
However, Green discloses:
highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay. (Green ¶ 91 discloses a trajectory-colour module 490 that “determines a colour of a visual traffic delay notification according to the direction of the traffic delay,” for example, “a traffic delay of 10 minutes may be displayed having a brightness level of X, whilst a traffic delay of 30 minutes may be displayed having a brightness level of Y, wherein Y is a greater intensity then X”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the route guidance of Hunter with highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay, as disclosed by Green, with reasonable expectation of success, to render the trajectory to be easily distinguishable from other trajectories, even when the trajectories overlie each other (Green ¶ 33), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Hunter discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 11, the operation further comprising:
outputting, for each respective alternative route of the one or more alternative routes, a respective indication via a graphical user interface (GUI); (Hunter ¶ 53 discloses “provide routing guidance to airspace users via a graphical user interface,” such that delays are displayed [i.e., outputting an indication] as depicted in Fig. 13, wherein the delays are caused by airspace closures [i.e., affected by the regulation], see ¶ 54)
determining, for each respective alternative route of the one or more alternative routes, a respective regulatory delay; and (Hunter ¶ 39 discloses showing SAA daily updates to users, such that “In addition to the graphical representation of delay, textual information regarding SAA daily updates is available as well,” wherein the available status updates for restricted areas makes dynamic planning of flight trajectories possible for modeling reroutes and deriving an optimal rerouting decision, see ¶¶38 and 46, thereby having determined a regulatory delay respective to the one or more alternative routes)
Hunter does not expressly disclose:
highlighting each respective indication based on the respective regulatory delays.
However, Green discloses:
highlighting each respective indication based on the respective regulatory delays. (Green ¶ 91 discloses “the navigation device 200 is arranged to display traffic information in a colour which allows identification of a direction of the traffic delay,” such that “Each trajectory is displayed in colour on the display device 14 and a local colour, which is a colour at a locality of the trajectory,” see ¶ 26)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the route guidance of Hunter with highlighting the indication based on a length of the delay, as disclosed by Green, with reasonable expectation of success, to render the trajectory to be easily distinguishable from other trajectories, even when the trajectories overlie each other (Green ¶ 33), rendering the modification to be obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Hunter in combination with Green discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 13 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 19, Hunter in combination with Green discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 14 for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 10, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0118254) in view of Green (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2011/0082637), further in view of Kassner et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0215499).
Regarding claim 10, Hunter in combination with Green does not expressly disclose the method of claim 9, wherein:
highlighting each respective indication comprises, in response to determining that a delay of first alternative route is lower than the delay of the scheduled flight, emphasizing the indication of the first alternative route.
However, Kassner discloses:
highlighting each respective indication comprises, in response to determining that a delay of first alternative route is lower than the delay of the scheduled flight, emphasizing the indication of the first alternative route. (Kassner ¶ 79 discloses “The route that takes more time should be denoted by an orange or red color in order to indicate that there is a more attractive route” compared to the original route, see ¶ 78, such that “The more attractive route should be displayed in the color of the active route (e.g. blue) [i.e., highlighted]”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the route guidance of Hunter with highlighting each respective indication comprises, in response to determining that a delay of first alternative route is lower than the delay of the scheduled flight, emphasizing the indication of the first alternative route, as disclosed by Kassner, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to indicate a more attractive route (Kassner ¶ 79) and to assist the user with constant road and route guidance (Kassner ¶ 13), rendering the modification to be obvious. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Hunter and Green with the teachings of Kassner with reasonable expectation of success, to provide an improvement to route guidance in vehicles (Kassner ¶ 15).
Regarding claim 15, Hunter in combination with Green and Kassner discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, Hunter in combination with Green and Kassner discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 10 for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Arakawa (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0108345) discloses a route calculation device that includes a delay time calculation unit and offering a candidate route having the shortest required time as a first travel route.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662