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
This action is responsive to the application filed on 02/23/2024 has a total of 20 claims pending in the application; there is 1 independent claims and 19 dependent claims, all of which are ready for examination by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-14-18, 20-22 and 20, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and 17, recites the limitation "wherein the broadcasted data packet is indicative of the to-be- broadcasted information" in the last limitation of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the to-be-broadcasted information”, the preamble recites “broadcasting information pertaining to a first aircraft”, but it isn’t clear if that the to-be-broadcasted information” pertains to the first aircraft.
Regarding claims 5, 11-14, 17, 20, 24, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-11, 13-16, 18 and 20-22 are rejected as well as being dependent on the base claims 1 and 17
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The program product is embodied on a computer readable. Said computer is interpreted to include non-statutory subject matter such as carrier waves, signals, and communication media because carrier waves, signals, and communication media store data within the wave, signal or media. While the specification lists examples of physical media, those are considered to be just non-limiting examples. The examiner encourages applicant to amend the claims and specification with explicit arguments that the medium is ‘non-transitory’ or ‘non-transmissible.’
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.
Claim 1-11, 13-18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taboso et al. Publication No. (US 2018/0027382 A1) in view of DeRoche Patent No. (US 10,650,688 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Taboso teaches a broadcast device for wirelessly broadcasting information pertaining to a first aircraft (aircraft onboard system 1000 [0074] FIG.10), the broadcast device comprising:
- a positioning device (global navigation satellite system (GNSS) 1010 FIG.10) configured to determine a position of the broadcast device (the aircraft 120 may determine its position using the GNSS receiver 1010 [0051-52] FIG.10),
- a control unit (The onboard system 1000 comprises an onboard control module 1004 [0075] FIG.9) configured to:
* receive the position as determined by the positioning device (the aircraft 120 may obtain its position using the instruments onboard (e.g. geographical coordinates obtained by a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receiver [0051-52] FIG.10), and
* generate a data packet comprising the received position, an identifier of the broadcast device (The onboard control module 1004 may also obtain the primary identifier 104 of the sector 108 corresponding to the current aircraft position by accessing a sector database 1006 storing the correspondence between the coordinates of the aircraft (longitude and latitude) and sectors 102. The information about the position of the aircraft 120 may include the aircraft position (longitude, latitude), the primary identifier 104 of the sector 108 on which the aircraft 120 is located, or both. [0075-78] FIG.10), a packet protocol version of the data packet, and a maximum supported packet protocol version of the broadcast device, wherein the data packet is generated based on the packet protocol version (The header 700 may include a version 710 field with an assigned pre-established value [e.g., maximum supported protocol version] different than the value assigned to IPv4 or IPv6 including the retrieved information about the position of the aircraft 120. The onboard control module 1004 may generate aircraft data 122 including at least one IP packet with the previously generated header 700 and may check if the version 710 of the header 700 coincides with the pre-established value [the maximum supported protocol version] to extract the position of all the surrounding aircraft included in the IP packets. [0076-77] FIG.7B), and
wherein the broadcast device (aircraft onboard system 1000 [0074] FIG.10) further comprises
– a radio transmitter (onboard communications module 1002 FIG.10) configured to receive the generated data packet and wirelessly broadcast the received data packet (The onboard control module 1004 may generate aircraft data 122 including at least one IP packet with the previously generated header 700 and may send the generated aircraft data 122 through the onboard communications module 1002 to a receiver (e.g., the communications unit 902 of the system of FIG. 9). [0076-77] FIG.10).
Taboso does not explicitly teach wherein the broadcasted data packet is indicative of the to-be- broadcasted information.
DeRoche teaches wherein the broadcasted data packet is indicative of the to-be- broadcasted information (a transponder to broadcast information indicative of the position of the first aircraft to one or more aircrafts in proximity to the first aircraft. The HF transceiver can receive one or more situational awareness [to-be- broadcasted information] messages from one or more other aircrafts. For each of these other aircrafts, a respective situational awareness message can be received via a HF datalink and can include at least an indication of the position of that aircraft and information indicative of positions of other aircrafts; col.2, lines 39-51, FIG.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Taboso by the teaching of DeRoche to indicate the broadcasted data packet of the to-be-broadcasted information to allow the respective aircraft to continuously (or periodically) determine the location(s) of nearby aircrafts to avoid collision with other aircrafts (DeRoche: col.7, lines 49-52, FIG.1).
Claims 2-12 (allowable subject matter).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Taboso teaches the broadcast device of any of the preceding claim 1 configured to generate the data packet in such a way that the data packet comprises a timestamp, in particular in the payload section of the data packet (DeRoche: The automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data can further include information indicative of the aircraft's identification (ID), air speed, direction, destination, takeoff location, takeoff time, expected time of arrival, or a combination thereof. [col.5, lines 3-6, FIG.3).
Claims 14-18 (allowable subject matter).
Claim 19 (cancelled).
Claims 20-21 (allowable subject matter).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Taboso teaches the computer program product comprising instructions to cause a device of any of the claim 1 to execute the steps of a method of any of the claim 17 (DeRoche: Air traffic control ground stations 102 can be connected to one another or to air traffic control computer servers via one or more communications networks, such as the Internet col.5, lines 39-42, FIG.1).
Claims 23-25 (cancelled).
Conclusion
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELNABI O MUSA whose telephone number is (571)270-1901, and email address is abdelnabi.musa@uspto.gov ‘preferred’. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates, can be reached on 571-2723980. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov 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.
/ABDELNABI O MUSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights