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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 19 were amended.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to applicant’s argument in regards to 101 abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The rejection does not characterize the display or database operation as the abstract idea. Rather, the claim recites an abstract mental process involving analyzing aeronautical data and applying decision criteria to determine whether a feature change is flight-critical, including comparing valid times of data with AIRAC cycles and comparing feature changes between datasets according to alert criteria. Such evaluation and rule-based determination can be performed mentally by a human reviewing aviation data and alert rules, and therefore constitutes a mental process. The additional limitations cited by Applicant such as, displaying the feature change and proposed solution in a dashboard, cross-referencing a database and automatically creating change notice, business process management ticket, and database entry – merely involve generic computer functions for receiving, presenting and storing information, which are routine data processing activities and constitute insignificant extra-solution activity. These additional elements do not improve computer functionality or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims remain directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §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 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to independent claims, 1, 8 and 15, specifically claim 1 recites “comparing the valid time of the current data file with an Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) cycle effective dates; responsive to a discrepancy between the valid time of the AIXM file and the AIRAC cycle effective dates, determining if a feature change resulting from the discrepancy is flight critical to safety of a flight, wherein determining whether a feature change resulting from the discrepancy is flight critical to safety of the flight comprises comparing feature changes between the AIXM file and a previously released data file according to specified flight alert criteria;;”. These limitations describing analyzing aeronautical information, comparing data sets, and applying decision criteria to determine whether a condition is flight critical, which is a form of evaluation and judgment that could be performed mentally by a human reviewing aviation data and alert criteria
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. At step 2A, prong two, claim(s) 1, 8 and 15 recites the additional elements of “a storage device”, “one or more processors”, “computer program product”, “a computer-readable storage medium” are elements merely invoking a generic computer environment (processor, database, memory) hence reciting insignificant extra solution activities. Further, additional elements recited in claim 1 “receiving input of a AIXM file, wherein the current data file includes a valid time for features within the current data file; displaying the feature change and a proposed solution with suggested text to a user in a dashboard…; a decision-making support system generates the proposed solution by cross-referencing the identified feature change with a database; and responsive to input of agreement from the user to the proposed solution, automatically creating a change notice with the suggested text, a business process management ticket, and a data entry into a database.” are elements merely invoking mere data input, data output, data manipulation and routine database operations performed by generic computing systems. These steps do not improve the functioning of computer or other technology, nor do they apply the abstract idea in a meaningful technological way. Instead they merely implement the abstract decision-making process using conventional computer components. Accordingly, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims, 1, 8 and 15 at step 2B do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements as recited in step 2A prong 2 recite conventional computer executing routine data manipulation and outputting in a aviation domain. No elements individually or in combination adds “significantly more” than the abstract idea hence are no more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions that merely apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. When viewed as an ordered combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea itself. According, claim 1 is ineligible under 101.
Claims 2-7 are dependent claims and do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically,
Claim 2. With respect to step 2A prong 1 “determination that the feature change is flight critical” recites abstract idea of mental steps (observation & evaluation), a person can determine if a feature is critical based on review of a report. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “automatically creating a flight alert” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 3. With respect to step 2A prong 1 “responsive to a determination there is no discrepancy between the valid time of theAIXM file and the AIRAC cycle effective dates” recites abstract idea of mental steps (observation & evaluation), a person can determine changes and differences when comparing reports. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “automatically creating only the business process management ticket and the data entry into the database. ” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 4. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “responsive to input of disagreement from the user to the proposed solution, displaying, in the dashboard, input options to manually enter a solution and update the database” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records, for example based on a trigger or a policy a system can display data or give a user option to enter data.
Claim 5. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “wherein the features include at least one of runeway identity, altitude, Airspace, Elevation, Azimuth, Route, and Glidepath” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 6. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “wherein the flight alert criteria is updated regularly based on industry standards.” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claim 7. With respect to step 2A prong 2 “displays at least one of: a timeline of the feature changes; overlap of the valid time with the AIRAC cycle effective dates; a timeframe of flight alert; or a timeframe of change notice” recites additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity. With respect to step 2B the recited insignificant extra solution activity is recited at a high level of generality which are well-understood, routine and conventional as taught by the prior art of records.
Claims 8-20 are similar to claims 1-7 hence rejected similarly.
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 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 of this title, 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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lissajoux et al. (US20190389565 - IDS) in view of Dhulipudi et al. (EP 2927894) further in view of Idupunur et al. (US 10,593,214)
1. Lissajoux teaches, A computer-implemented method of decision making support (Abstract – teaches assisting pilots though onboard processing and recommendations, Lissajoux), the method comprising:
displaying the feature change and a dynamically generated proposed solution with suggested text to a user in an interactive dashboard (Abstract, Paragraphs 53 and 134 – teaches presenting operational recommendations on cockpit displays to assist the pilots with decision-making actions – discloses the cockpit display functions as the interactive dashboard through which the system presents recommendations to the users, Lissajuox), wherein a decision-making support system generates the proposed solution by cross-referencing the identified feature change with a database (Abstract, Paragraphs 3 and 97 – teaches avionics decision-support loci utilizing stored operational data to generate recommendations presented to the pilot – disclosing cross-referencing system data against stored information to generate recommendations corresponds to database-driven support logic, Lissajoux); and
responsive to input of agreement from the user to the proposed solution, automatically creating a change notice with the suggested text, a business process management ticket, and a data entry into the database (Fig 2:250, Paragraph 121 – teaches automated recording and processing of operational actions within onboard system once confirmation by user – the recording the accepted operational recommendations as system data corresponds to creating a record or entry in a system database, Lissajoux).
Lissajuox does not explicitly teach or suggest,
using a number of processors to perform the operations of:
receiving input of an Aeronautical Information Exchange Model (AIXM) file, and wherein the current data AIXM file includes a valid time for features within the current data AIXM file;
comparing the valid time of the AIXM current data file with an Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) cycle effective dates;
responsive to a discrepancy between the valid time of the current data AIXM file and the AIRAC cycle effective dates, determining if a feature change resulting from the discrepancy is flight critical to safety of a flight, wherein determining whether a feature change resulting from the discrepancy is flight critical to safety of the flight comprises comparing feature changes between the AIXM file and a previously released data file according to specified flight alert criteria.
However, Dhulipudi teaches,
using a number of processors to perform the operations (Paragraph 14 – teaches the first processor 21 may comprise… microprocessors… configured to carry out the various methods, process tasks, calculations and control/display functions – discloses avionics architecture includes processors executing software operations, Dhulipudi) of:
receiving input of an Aeronautical Information Exchange Model (AIXM) file, and wherein the current data AIXM file includes a valid time for features within the current data AIXM file (Paragraph 19 – teaches terminal area network generator 40 receives aerodrome surface information… in a GIS aerodrome mapping database standard such as D)-272/291, AIXM or ARINC 816 – discloses AIXM format, Dhulipudi);
comparing the valid time of the AIXM current data file with an Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) cycle effective dates (Paragraph 21 – teaches … generates termina area networks every 28 days with the Aeronautical information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) cycle – disclosing aeronautical database generation synchronized to the AIRAC cycle, implying evaluation of dataset timing relative to the AIRAC publication cycle, Dhulipudi).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to incorporate Dhulipudi’s aeronautical data processing and AIRAC-cycle dataset management into the decision-support of Lissajoux to enable the system to utilize standardized and regularly updated aeronautical data when generating cockpit alerts and recommendations, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the information presented to pilots.
However, Idupunur teaches,
responsive to a discrepancy between the valid time of the current data AIXM file and the AIRAC cycle effective dates, determining if a feature change resulting from the discrepancy is flight critical to safety of a flight, wherein determining whether a feature change resulting from the discrepancy is flight critical to safety of the flight comprises comparing feature changes between the AIXM file and a previously released data file according to specified flight alert criteria (Claim 1 – teaches a domain rules set… prioritizes the bundled NOTAM based on the criticality of their content… the filtering engine processes the bundled NOTAMs according to the domain rules set – thus disclosing evaluating aviation notifications and determining their criticality for flight operations and applying rule-based filinter criteria to aeronautical notifications corresponds to determining alert significance by comparing aeronautical data updates against stored rule criteria, Idupunur).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to allow Lissajoux’s invention to be combined with Idupunur’s invention because both references are in the same field of endeavor of avionics/decision – support for pilots. The combination would enhance cockpit recommendations (Lissajoux) with validated temporal discrepancies (Idupunur) to ensure flight-critical alerts are displayed in dashboards.
2. The combination of Lissajoux, Dhulipudi and Idupunur teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to a determination that the feature change is flight critical, automatically creating a flight alert. (Abstract - teaches A domain rules set for a filter engine on board the aircraft is created that prioritizes the bundled NOTAMs based on their criticality and the NOTAM messages are then displayed to the pilot on a graphical display device on board the aircraft., Idupunur)
3. The combination of Lissajoux, Dhulipudi and Idupunur teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to a determination there is no discrepancy between the valid time of the AIXM file and the AIRAC cycle effective dates (Paragraph 21 – teaches terminal area network generator 40… generates terminal area networks every 28 days, in accordance with the AIRAC cycle, Dhulipudi), automatically creating only the business process management ticket and the data entry into the database. (Abstract – The prioritized critical NOTAMs are stored on board in an electronic database and retrieved during the relevant phase of the flight path of the aircraft, Idupunur)
4. The combination of Lissajoux, Dhulipudi and Idupunur teach, The method of claim 1, further comprising, responsive to input of disagreement from the user to the proposed solution, displaying, in the dashboard, input options to manually enter a solution and update the database. (Paragraph 46 - teaches manual operator input when rejecting or modifying a recommendation, equivalent to “dashboard input options” for manual updates, Lissajoux)
5. The combination of Lissajoux, Dhulipudi and Idupunur teach, The method of claim 1, wherein the features include at least one of runway identity, altitude, Airspace, Elevation, Azimuth, Route and Glidepath. (Claim 1, Paragraph 19 - teaches aerodrome and navigation datasets including runway and route information, “Terminal area network generator 40 receives aerodrome surface information, map data ("data"), in a GIS aerodrome mapping database standard such as DO-272/DO-291, AIXM or ARINC 816”, Dhulipudi)
6. The combination of Lissajoux, Dhulipudi and Idupunur teach, The method of claim 1, wherein the flight alert criteria is updated regularly based on industry standards. (Paragraph 21 – teaches “the terminal area network generator 40 is a land-based system and method that generates terminal area networks every 28 days, in accordance with the Aeronautical Information Regulation and Control (AIRAC) cycle.” Dhulipudi)
7. The combination of Lissajoux, Dhulipudi and Idupunur teach, The method of claim 1, wherein the dashboard further displays at least one of: a timeline of the feature changes; overlap of the valid time with the AIRAC cycle effective dates; a timeframe of flight alert; or a timeframe of change notice. (Paragraphs 60-65 teaches – dashboard display of contextual timelines and accessibility info. While not in the exact AIRAC phrasing, it covers temporal/timeframe visualization of recommendations, Lissajoux)
Claims 8-20 are similar to claims 1-7 hence rejected similarly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMRESH SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-3560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Ann J. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9767. 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.
/AMRESH SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159