DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This final rejection is in response to Applicant’s original filing of 03/03/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13-15, 18, and 20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the rejection of record; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations “select a lookup rule from a set of lookup rules based on an airplane configuration, wherein the set of lookup rules includes a dictionary lookup rule and a non-dictionary lookup rule;” is still a method step that can be performed in the human mind without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Additionally, “scan an airplane log datastore for error events associated with the alert rule in accordance with the selected lookup rule;” and “remove the group of error events from further processing in response to the alert threshold not being met” are mere extra-solution activities to preceding method steps that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s assertion that the claims represent a technological improvement, particularly that it reduces processing of nuisance or duplicate alerts. However, said processing is still within the judicial exception, and the mere fact that it is performed by a generic computer and memory including instructions (well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e. WURC) activities that processors and memory are well known to be able to perform) does not integrate it into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 rejected under 35 USC § 103 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
“A computing system comprising:
a processor;
and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
…
select[ing] a lookup rule from a set of lookup rules based on an airplane configuration, wherein the set of lookup rules includes a dictionary lookup rule and a non-dictionary lookup rule…”
Nowhere in the specification does it recite the processor selecting, choosing, picking, or any reasonably synonymous term a lookup rule from a set of lookup rules. It is unclear why a selection is made or what it facilitates to the inventive concept. Why is a selection made between dictionary and non-dictionary lookup rules? What does making the selection help further achieve? How is the selection process achieved by the processor and coupled memory with instructions? Therefore, these limitations fail to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to corresponding computing system, computer readable media, and method for determining if airplane alerts in a given category amount above a given alert threshold.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The method of claim 15 is directed toward a mental process and, therefore, an abstract idea. It consists of:
“looping through a plurality of airplane system alert types;
determining an alert rule associated with individual airplane system alert types, wherein the alert rule has an alert threshold associated with a category type;
selecting a lookup rule from a set of lookup rules based on an airplane configuration, wherein the set of lookup rules includes a dictionary lookup rule and a non-dictionary lookup rule;
scanning an airplane log datastore for error events associated with the alert rule in accordance with the selected lookup rule;
grouping the error events based at least in part on the category type;
determining whether a group of error events meets the alert threshold;
and removing the group of error events from further processing in response to the alert threshold not being met.”
The steps underlined above – specifically the “grouping”, “determining”, and “selecting” steps – can be performed in the human mind. Particularly, a person can determine an alert rule with an alert threshold, select dictionary and non-dictionary lookup rules according to an airplane configuration, group alerts into categories, and determine if the group of alerts meets the alert threshold. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961,1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person in an analyzing role can ascertain dictionary and non-dictionary lookup rules for issuing alerts to know if they meet a given threshold, group alerts into similar categories, and determine if the grouped alerts exceed the alert rule threshold. The mere nominal recitation that the determining and grouping is being executed by a processor does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping.
Claims 1 and 8 recite similar steps and/or actions as disclosed in claim 15. Claim 1 recites the method being performed by a computing system and claim 8 recites the steps being in instructions executed by the computing system. Therefore, both claims are examined under the same criteria as claim 15 above.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 15 further recites the limitations:
“looping through a plurality of airplane system alert types;
determining an alert rule associated with individual airplane system alert types, wherein the alert rule has an alert threshold associated with a category type;
selecting a lookup rule from a set of lookup rules based on an airplane configuration, wherein the set of lookup rules includes a dictionary lookup rule and a non-dictionary lookup rule;
scanning an airplane log datastore for error events associated with the alert rule in accordance with the selected lookup rule;
grouping the error events based at least in part on the category type;
determining whether a group of error events meets the alert threshold;
and removing the group of error events from further processing in response to the alert threshold not being met.”
The “looping,” “scanning,” and “removing” steps recite insignificant extra-solution activity. Specifically, “looping” is a means of gathering alert type categories before determinations are made, “scanning” is a means of reviewing information following and preceding further determinations, and “removing” merely discards the information if it fails to meet the threshold according to the determinations made. None of these steps help integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 8 recite similar steps and/or actions as disclosed in claim 15. Therefore, both claims are examined under the same criteria as claim 15 above.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 recites the aforementioned steps/actions being performed by a computing system comprising a processor and memory storing instructions, and claim 8 recites the aforementioned steps/actions being performed by a computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by the computing system. These computing system, processor, and memory (storage medium) are used to merely automate the determining and grouping steps that are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e. WURC) activities that processors and memory are well known to be able to perform. Therefore, these limitations to not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, since claims 1, 8, and 15 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 recite additional steps like creating a hash value, determining if a hash value matches a previous event, and sending, ignoring, and/or storing the results of the determination. The “creating” and “determining” steps further direct the invention toward a mental process and the “sending, ignoring, and/or storing” all represent post-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As such, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passemard et al. (US 20200409811 A1) in view of Alcantara et al. (US 20110093141 A1) and Habboub (US 10850868 B1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Passemard discloses a computing system (claim 1; see at least ¶ [0033]) comprising:
a processor (see at least ¶ [0033]);
and a memory (at least one computer readable storage medium – claim 8; see at least ¶ [0014]) coupled to the processor, the memory including a set of instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method (claim 15; see at least ¶ [0014]) of:
looping through a plurality of airplane system alert types (see at least ¶ [0037-0038] disclosing an analyzer scanning an error report and filtering according to a family of grouped errors or a given communication chain);
determining an alert rule associated with individual airplane system alert types, wherein the alert rule has an alert threshold associated with a category type (see at least ¶ [0027], [0029], and [0039-0044] disclosing an analyzer for an aircraft system that computes a first and second median count where errors of a type can occur in a communication chain before breaching first and second thresholds plus a predefined margin);
scanning an airplane log datastore for error events associated with the alert rule in accordance with the selected lookup rule (see at least ¶ [0023-0027] and [0029] disclosing an analyzer that consults with an event logger to collect error event reports);
grouping the error events based at least in part on the category type (see at least ¶ [0037-0038] disclosing an analyzer scanning an error report and filtering according to a family of grouped errors or a given communication chain);
and determining whether a group of error events meets the alert threshold (see at least ¶ [0027], [0029], and [0039-0044] disclosing an analyzer for an aircraft system that computes a first and second median count where errors of a type can occur in a communication chain before breaching first and second thresholds plus a predefined margin).
Passemard does not explicitly disclose selecting a lookup rule from a set of lookup rules based on an airplane configuration, wherein the set of lookup rules includes a dictionary lookup rule and a non-dictionary lookup rule.
However, Alcantara suggests selecting a lookup rule from a set of lookup rules based on an airplane configuration, wherein the set of lookup rules includes a dictionary lookup rule and a non-dictionary lookup rule (see at least ¶ [0032-0037] disclosing a lookup table database with airplane configuration codes and corresponding take-off thrust codes for pilots to select from display).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the lookup code selection of Alcantara into the error reporting of Passemard with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward managing airplane event data and storing and presenting that data. While Alcantara is not specifically directed toward error or alert codes, the ability to process airplane information through coded databases and consequently retrieving those codes are directly applicable regardless of the subsystem of the airplane in question. This would allow the pilots stronger control and awareness of the airplane’s operation and improve their ability to respond.
The combination of Passemard and Alcantara does not explicitly disclose removing the group of error events from further processing in response to the alert threshold not being met.
However, Habboub suggests removing the group of error events from further processing in response to the alert threshold not being met (see at least columns 6-7, lines 44-67 and 1-29 disclosing in-flight tuning for an aircraft voter where noisy sensors register dormant failures and faults, and removes dormant signals when they occur at lower detection thresholds).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the dormant fault removal of Habboub into the combination of Passemard and Alcantara with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward managing airplane event data and storing and presenting that data. This would help the airplane systems reduce unnecessary processing and storage of redundant or noisy error alerts and help prevent issuing false alarms (see Passemard ¶ [0043]).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Passemard suggests the alert threshold has an upper alert threshold value and a lower alert threshold value (see at least ¶ [0027], [0029], and [0039-0044] disclosing an analyzer for an aircraft system that computes a first and second median count where errors of a type can occur in a communication chain before breaching first and second thresholds plus a predefined margin).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Passemard suggests the category type is one or more of occurrences per flight or occurrences per time period (see at least ¶ [0037] disclosing filtering the error report according to a parameterized duration during the flight).
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passemard et al. in view of Alcantara et al. and Habboub, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and in further view of Vauclair et al. (US 20090222667 A1), Brundridge et al. (US 20030074607 A1), and Leung et al. (US 20170169633 A1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 18, the combination of Passemard, Alcantara, and Habboub does not explicitly disclose the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
create a hash value of the group of events in response to the alert threshold being met;
determine if the hash value matches a previous hash value of a previous event that already exists in the airplane log datastore;
and ignore the group of error events in response to the hash value matching the previous hash value.
However, Vauclair suggests creating a hash value of the group of events in response to the alert threshold being met (see at least ¶ [0023-0024] disclosing generating an error detection code using a cyclic redundancy check circuit (CRCs are a form of hash function)).
Additionally, Brundridge suggests determining if the hash value matches a previous hash value of a previous event that already exists in the airplane log datastore (see at least ¶ [0026-0027] and [0029] disclosing error event codes recorded in an error log and compared to codes present in the log).
Finally, Leung suggests removing the group of error events in response to the hash value matching the previous hash value (see at least abstract ¶ [0021] and [0024] disclosing removing a duplicate fault event for an aircraft).
While neither Vauclair and Brundridge are applied in aircraft systems, with Vauclair being directed toward general computer communications and Brundridge being directed toward troubleshooting computer failures, both are directed toward formulating data structures as they relate to error information and processing them to corresponding logs, regardless of what functions are used to associate codes to error events and how those codes are included in those logs. Meanwhile, Leung is directed toward managing duplicate fault events in an aircraft, and the aforementioned formulations of Vauclair and Brunbridge can be extended to delete detected duplicate hash value logs. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the hash function assignment of Vauclair, error log contribution of Brundridge, and duplicate deletion of Leung into the combination of Passemard, Alcantara, and Habboub with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward managing error event data and storing and presenting that data. This would help identify specific errors connected to particular airplane fault alerts and collect them in appropriate logs without redundant duplication.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, while Passemard discloses the analyzer generating an alarm when an intermittent fault is suspected (see at least ¶ [0044]), the combination of Passemard, Alcantara, and Habboub does not explicitly disclose instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
create a hash value of the group of events in response to the alert threshold being met;
determine if the hash value matches a previous hash value of a previous event that already exists in the airplane log datastore;
send an alert to an end user in response to the hash value not matching the previous hash value;
and store the hash value in the airplane log datastore in response to the hash value not matching the previous hash value.
However, Vauclair suggests creating a hash value of the group of events in response to the alert threshold being met (see at least ¶ [0023-0024] disclosing generating an error detection code using a cyclic redundancy check circuit (CRCs are a form of hash function)).
Additionally, Brundridge suggests determining if the hash value matches a previous hash value of a previous event that already exists in the airplane log datastore (see at least ¶ [0026-0027] and [0029] disclosing error event codes recorded in an error log and compared to codes present in the log);
sending an alert to an end user in response to the hash value not matching the previous hash value (see at least abstract and ¶ [0032-0034] disclosing grouping the unique event codes in the error log to construct frequently asked questions (FAQ) files to an end user for a tailored response to experienced errors);
and storing the hash value in the airplane log datastore in response to the hash value not matching the previous hash value (see at least abstract disclosing the error log storing unique event codes).
While neither Vauclair and Brundridge are applied in aircraft systems, with Vauclair being directed toward general computer communications and Brundridge being directed toward troubleshooting computer failures, both are directed toward formulating data structures as they relate to error information and processing them to corresponding logs, regardless of what functions are used to associate codes to error events and how those codes are included in those logs. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the hash function assignment of Vauclair and error log contribution of Brundridge into the combination of Passemard, Alcantara, and Habboub with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward managing error event data and storing and presenting that data. This would help identify specific errors connected to particular airplane fault alerts and collect them in appropriate logs without redundant duplication.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Passemard et al. in view of Alcantara et al. and Habboub, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and in further view of Emerick et al. (US 20240371214 A1).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, Passemard suggests the instructions, when executed, further cause the processor to:
download an airplane log file associated with an individual airplane (see at least ¶ [0026] discloses the event logger comprising an upload-download interface to retrieve and/or transmit an error report to an external apparatus);
determine the airplane configuration associated the individual airplane (see at least ¶ [0026] discloses the event logger producing an error report on the aircraft during manufacture and/or service);
establish the dictionary lookup rule based on the airplane configuration, wherein the dictionary lookup rule identifies operational error types (see at least ¶ [0030] disclosing the analyzer connected to a dictionary of fault codes to associate an error with a particular family);
determine whether the error events have occurred in the airplane log file based on the dictionary lookup rule (see at least ¶ [0037-0038] disclosing the analyzer scanning and filtering the error report according to a dictionary of fault codes);
and extract error data from the airplane log file based on the error events (see at least ¶ [0037-0038] disclosing an analyzer scanning an error report and filtering according to a family of grouped errors).
The combination of Passemard, Alcantara, and Habboub does not explicitly disclose determining whether a portion of the error events exceeds a time threshold based on the error data;
remove the portion of the error events that exceeds the time threshold;
and export the portion of the error events that does not exceed the time threshold.
However, Emerick discloses a telematic device that deletes telematics data from a data buffer that has aged beyond a predetermined time period (see at least ¶ [0049-0050]).
While Emerick is directed toward telematics data and Passemard reports on error data, both inventions are directed toward managing data stored in logs and available for reference or use. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the age-based deletion of data from Emerick into the combination of Passemard, Alcantara, and Habboub with a reasonable expectation of success. This would prevent the storage of Passemard from accumulating out-of-date information and running out of room for new data, thereby slowing down the error report scanning and filtering processes of the analyzer.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Passemard discloses the error data is one or more of time of error event, type of error event, system involved in the error event (see at least ¶ [0025] disclosing the error report providing information associated with the time occurrence of the event and the communication chain involved), flight number, specific airplane, location of airplane at time of error, airplane hardware configuration, or airplane software configuration.
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 JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights