DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-30 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1-30 are rejected.
Please refer to Forms 892 of record in this application and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers, titles, and/or author or inventor names.
Applicant is reminded that claim mapping is provided as a courtesy to the applicant, but applicant should consider a reference as a whole, as the entire reference gives context to mapped sections.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for foreign/domestic priority under 35 U.S.C. 119/120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 5/3/2024 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10-15, 18, and 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ““Aircraft Flight Data Delivery And Management System With Emergency Mode” by Jacobs et al, US2012/0191273A1 (“Jacobs”)”
With respect to claims 1 and 15, Jacobs discloses: A method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Claim 15’s related apparatus and Claim 30’s non-transitory computer-readable medium), comprising:
determining to perform an emergency communication procedure while the UE meets one or more flying state conditions indicative that the UE is in a flying state (see Jacobs at ¶¶65, 17 where the system may create a data file including a flight data recorder based on an event. See ¶68 where the triggering event can be a flight status.);
transmitting a message to a base station as part of the emergency communication procedure, the message indicative that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions (Jacobs at ¶ 64 where an emergency event triggers the system and ¶68 where the emergency message can be transmitted ); and
participating in the emergency communication procedure while the UE is in the flying state (Jacobs at ¶68 “The creation and transmission of a summary file may take place at any time during a flight or at the termination of a flight, depending on the data desired.” ).
However, Jacobs does not explicitly state that which is known in the art, specifically, wherein the UE is separate from and aboard an aerial vehicle. However, this is a difference without a patentable distinction.
Jacobs discloses that the wireless device is integrated into the plane. Separating out the component is per se obvious per MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) “Making Separable
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the systems of Jacobs and add separability to some of Jacobs’s components for the reasons above.
Differences in Claim 15 Claim 15 invokes a processor, memory, and instructions which can be found at ¶¶53-54.
With respect to claims 3 and 17, Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, and related apparatus, wherein transmitting the message further comprises: transmitting an invite to participate in the emergency communication procedure, the invite comprising an indication that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions (Jacobs at ¶¶81, “However, in a potential or confirmed emergency situation with an aircraft, or for other reasons that may be determined by ground or flight personnel, it is often crucial for the ground crew to have as much of the flight data available as soon as possible. In a situation in which an aircraft is in an abnormal state and/or the flight crew is having difficulties with the aircraft function or control, this data, if made available in a timely manner, can provide personnel on the ground with valuable insights that can either be relayed to the crew or, in the case of an accident, can provide valuable information related to the location of the aircraft and illuminate the events leading up to the crash. This capability allows the ground crew to be proactively alerted to a potential emergency situation occurring with the aircraft. It can also allow them to receive a more complete set of the flight data from the aircraft during an abnormal or potential emergency situation, when bandwidth and the cost to transmit the data is not a concern, and receive this flight data from the aircraft continuously when required. Other non-emergency reasons for crews to initiate the demand state may include in-flight troubleshooting, monitoring of training flights while in progress, or evaluating alternate flight profiles into or out of specific airports. The crew sending an emergency message for troubleshooting is implicitly an invitation to participate in the communication with regard to an emergency state.)
With respect to claims 4 and 18, Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the message further comprises: transmitting the message to a location retrieval function in accordance with a network provided location information procedure (Jacobs at ¶80 “In the normal state (302), the data processing unit (12) continuously retrieves, analyzes and stores flight data to be compiled into a summary report of particularly relevant flight data or parameters of the flight data over time and transmit this summary report to the ground server (14) periodically at a first rate. The periodic transmission of the information and the transmission of a significantly reduced portion of the flight data can reduce the bandwidth needed from the satellite network (22) the associated costs , while still providing a sufficient amount of information to a ground crew while the aircraft is experiencing normal operating conditions. In all cases, whether in normal or demand mode, the location, altitude and airspeed of the aircraft are transmitted.” )
With respect to claims 8 and 22, Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein transmitting the message further comprises: determining that the UE is in a limited-service state (Jacobs at ¶¶10, 65, and 92 “In one embodiment, the triggering event may be self-initiated, or the triggering event may be manually activated. In one embodiment, the method is automated. In one embodiment, in the demand state, the transmission of data is more frequent and/or more data is transmitted than in the normal state. In one embodiment, the data transmitted in the demand state is configured more efficiently to allow more data to be transmitted within a limited bandwidth usage, or to minimize bandwidth usage when transmitting larger amounts of data.” ); and
transmitting a registration message based at least in part on determining that the UE is in the limited-service state, wherein the registration message comprises an indication that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions based at least in part on determining to perform the emergency communication procedure (Fig 7 where the Flight Data Sent over the limited bandwidth link has registration information).
With respect to claims 10 and 24 Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, and related apparatus, wherein transmitting the message further comprises: transmitting the message via a frequency band dedicated to aerial vehicles, wherein the frequency band indicates that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions (Jacobs at ¶43 “In circumstances in which terrestrial ground receiving stations are within range of the aircraft, the communications module (36) may also include the appropriate radio (such as but not limited to VHF) and have the means to detect the availability of such communications channels and the embedded rules that may cause it to select such a channel for data communications.” In this context “[M]ay include the appropriate radio” is synonymous with “frequency band dedicated to”. )
With respect to claims 11 and 25, Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, and related apparatus, wherein transmitting the message further comprises: transmitting the message to the base station via the aerial vehicle on which the UE is boarded for a flight (Jacobs at ¶¶ 7-9 “In one aspect, the invention may comprise a method of transmitting flight data from an aircraft to a ground station server using an airborne data processing unit comprising data tables and instructions sets, the method comprising: (a) during operation in a normal state, obtaining and analyzing flight data from an aircraft and periodically generating and transmitting a summary file containing a summary of flight data to a ground station server; and (b) in response to a pre-defined triggering event, entering a demand state and obtaining flight data from the aircraft and periodically transmitting flight data to the ground station server, wherein the rate of data transmission is greater than in the normal state.”).
With respect to claims 12 and 26, Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, and related apparatus further comprising:
transmitting an indication of a height of the UE based at least in part on the UE meeting the one or more flying state conditions of the flying state (Jacobs ¶80 “In all cases, whether in normal or demand mode, the location, altitude and airspeed of the aircraft are transmitted.”).
With respect to claims 13 and 27, Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, and related apparatus, further comprising:
transmitting information associated with the aerial vehicle on which the UE is boarded for a flight (Jacobs at Fig. 7. )
With respect to claims 14 and 28, Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 13, and related apparatus, wherein the information comprises a broadcast remote identifier (BRID) of the aerial vehicle, a location of the aerial vehicle, a flight path, a flight number, a flight plan, or a combination thereof (Jacobs at Fig. 7. )
With respect to claim 29, Jacobs discloses: an apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
Examiner note: Examiner notes that the claim invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) through its usage of means for language that is not modified with any structure. Pursuant to MPEP 2181 and 2182 the USPTO will then turn to the specification to find the exact structure tied to the means for purposes of prior art application. In this instant case, Applicant at ¶144 states the means for transmitting is a transmitter. At ¶149 Applicant states the means for determining can be the communication manager. At ¶146 Applicant defines the structure for that manager as an ASIC, FPGA or other programmable logic\e device.
means for determining to perform an emergency communication procedure while a user equipment (UE) meets one or more flying state conditions indicative that the UE is in a flying state (Jacobs at ¶54 where there is an FPGA, thus reading on the FPGA from Applicant’s specification);
means for transmitting a message to a base station as part of the emergency communication procedure, the message indicative that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions (see ); and
means for participating in the emergency communication procedure while the UE is in the flying state (Jacobs at ¶11 where there is a communication module that transmits, i.e., a transmitter.)
However, Jacobs does not explicitly state that which is known in the art, specifically, wherein the UE is separate from and aboard an aerial vehicle. However, this is a difference without a patentable distinction.
Jacobs discloses that the wireless device is integrated into the plane. Separating out the component is per se obvious per MPEP 2144.04(V)(C) “Making Separable
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to take the systems of Jacobs and add separability to some of Jacobs’s components for the reasons above.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of in view of Methods and Systems for Commuincating Estimating Time of Arrival to a Third Party” by Ricci US10/679,276B2 (“Ricci”)
With respect to claims 2 and 16, while Jacobs discloses the method of Claim 1, and related apparatus : wherein transmitting the message further comprises: transmitting a …message in accordance with a user provided location information procedure, wherein the … message comprises an indication that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions (see Jacobs at ¶¶66 and 81 where location information is transmitted.)
Jacobs does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by . discloses [that the message is a] session initiation protocol message (Ricci at )
(see Ricci at Col 50: 45-50 “In accordance with at least some embodiments of the present disclosure, the communication network 5452 may comprise any type of known communication medium or collection of communication media and may use any type of protocols, such as SIP, TCP/IP, SNA, IPX, AppleTalk, and the like, to transport messages between endpoints” ).
Reasons to Combine: Both Jacobs and Ricci are analogous art to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor, transmitting messages wireless from aircraft “…it can be appreciated that the communication network 5452 need not be limited to any one network type, and instead may be comprised of a number of different networks and/or network types. The communication network 5452 may comprise a number of different communication media such as coaxial cable, copper cable/wire, fiber-optic cable, antennas for transmitting/receiving wireless messages, and combinations thereof.” Ricci at 50:5-12.
As SIP is a text-based protocol modeled on the structure of HTTP and SMTP, enabling interoperability and integration with other Internet applications. It provides mechanisms for user location, session setup, and session management, making it a foundational component of modern IP multimedia systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the system of Jacobs and modify it with the teachings of Ricci to make Jacobs’s teachings compatible with the dominant cellular systems before the effective time of filing, which included systems that use SIP for location estimation.
Claims 5-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Sharing Critical Flight Information Using Mesh Network” by Miller et al., US2019/0043369A1 (“Miller”)
With respect to claims 5 and 19, while Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, and related apparatus, Jacobs does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Miller. Miller in combination with Jacobs discloses wherein transmitting the message further comprises: transmitting a radio resource control session connection request message comprising an indication that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions based at least in part on determining to perform the emergency (Miller at ¶92 where RRC is used for emergency/critical in-flight communicaitons ).
Reasons to Combine: Both Jacobs and Miller are analogous art to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor, transmitting messages wireless from aircraft “In the control plane, the Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol layer may provide establishment, configuration, and maintenance of an RRC connection between a UE 115 and a base station 105 or core network 130 supporting radio bearers for user plane data” (Miller at ¶92)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take the system of Jacobs and modify it with the teachings of Miller to make Jacobs’s teachings compatible with the newer and dominant cellular systems before the effective time of filing, which included systems that use RRC in the control plane.
With respect to claims 6 and 20, while Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, and related apparatus, Jacobs does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Miller. Miller in combination with Jacobs discloses wherein transmitting the message further comprises: transmitting a non-access stratum packet data network connection message comprising an indication that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions based at least in part on determining to perform the emergency communication procedure (Johnson at ¶81 “[0081] The core network 130 may provide user authentication, access authorization, tracking, Internet Protocol (IP) connectivity, and other access, routing, or mobility functions. The core network 130 may be an evolved packet core (EPC), which may include at least one mobility management entity (MME), at least one serving gateway (S-GW), and at least one Packet Data Network (PDN) gateway (P-GW). The MME may manage non-access stratum (e.g., control plane) functions such as mobility, authentication, and bearer management for UEs 115 served by base stations 105 associated with the EPC. User IP packets may be transferred through the S-GW, which itself may be connected to the P-GW. The P-GW may provide IP address allocation as well as other functions. The P-GW may be connected to the network operators IP services. The operators IP services may include access to the Internet, Intranet(s), an IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), or a Packet-Switched (PS) Streaming Service.”)
Reasons to Combine: Both Jacobs and Miller are analogous art to the claimed invention in that they are from the same field of endeavor, transmitting messages wireless from aircraft. Miller discloses that the system may use a Mobile Management Entity that can work across alternate networks such as the internet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to take the system of Jacobs and modify it with the teachings of Miller to make Jacobs’s teachings compatible with the additional widely available systems such as the internet before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the internet.
Claims 7,8,21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs in view of “Method and Device for Performing Communication in Wireless Communication System” by Jung et al., US2022/0038878A1 (“Jung”)
With respect to claims 7 and 21, while Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, and related apparatus, Jacobs does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Jung. Jung in combination with Jacobs discloses wherein transmitting the message further comprises: transmitting a medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) message comprising an indication that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions based at least in part on determining to perform the emergency communication procedure (Jung at ¶176, “In the case of the scheduled resource allocation (mode 3) in which the gNB allocates and manages resources for V2X, when the RRC-connected UE has data to be transmitted to other UEs, information on the data may be transmitted to the gNB using an RRC message or a medium access control (MAC) control element (CE).”).
Reasons to Combine: Jacobs is analogous art to the claimed invention in that they are both from the same field of endeavor, transmitting messages wireless from aircraft. Jung is analogous to the claimed invention in that techniques therein are pertinent to the problem being solved as Jung relates to signaling standards for emergency messages (¶ 71) to the Miller discloses that the system may use a Mobile Management Entity that can work across alternate networks such as the internet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to take the system of Jacobs and modify it with the teachings of Jung to make Jacobs’s teachings compatible with the newer and dominant cellular systems before the effective time of filing, which included systems that use RRC or MAC-CE in the control plane.
With respect to claims 9 and 23, while Jacobs discloses: the method of claim 1, Jacobs does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Jung. Jung in combination with Jacobs discloses wherein transmitting the message further comprises: determining that the UE lacks an established emergency protocol data unit session (Jung at ¶¶81, 90 ); and
transmitting a protocol data unit session establishment message comprising a request type, wherein the request type indicates an emergency request and that the UE meets the one or more flying state conditions (Jacobs at Fig. 7 and ¶¶61-65 where the message is sent over the indicated wireless protocol).
Reasons to Combine: Jacobs is analogous art to the claimed invention in that they are both from the same field of endeavor, transmitting messages wireless from aircraft. Jung is analogous to the claimed invention in that techniques therein are pertinent to the problem being solved as Jung relates to signaling standards for emergency messages (¶71) to the Miller discloses that the system may use a Mobile Management Entity that can work across alternate networks such as the internet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date herein to take the system of Jacobs and modify it with the teachings of Jung to make Jacobs’s teachings compatible with the newer and dominant cellular systems before the effective time of filing, which included systems that use RRC or MAC-CE in the control plane.
Response to Arguments
Examiner has read and considered Applicants’ arguments and finds them to be unpersuasive. Applicant argues at page 10 of its submission that the amended limitation “wherein the UE is separate from and aboard an aerial vehicle” takes the claims outside the prior art. However, this limitation is still read on by Jacobs as the amendment has merely taken an existing prior art structure and made it separable. Examiner, incorporates by reference, the analysis made regarding this point in the rejection of Claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p.
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 supervisory colleague, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan at 571-272-7855. 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.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights