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 action is in response to the claims filed on 02/19/2026. Wherein, claims 1, 3-6, 12, 14-17, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see REMARKS, filed 02/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20, under 35 USC § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejections, under 35 USC § 101, have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20, under 35 USC § 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn. However, a new rejection is presented below in view of Lekach.
With respect to the independent claims, the Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention cannot be grouped as a mental process as alleged in the Office Action, because the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind. The MPEP indicates that a claim limitation is not a mental process when it cannot practically be performed in the mind. The MPEP expands on this and clarifies that this is when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. Here, Applicant submits that the claimed invention cannot practically be performed in the human mind, due to, for example, requirements such as, inter alia, "displaying, via a user interface of the vehicle and based on the viability information, a visual representation of: (a) at least one first transportation corridor ... (b) at least one second transportation corridor ... and (c) at least one third transportation corridor ... receiving, via the user interface of the vehicle, an indication of a transportation corridor selection determined by an occupant of the vehicle; and causing transmission of, by the one or more of processors and to an external computing device, the indication of the transportation corridor selection." Indeed, it is not possible, let alone practical, for such limitations to be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claims do not recite a judicial exception and thus do not recite an abstract idea as alleged in the Office Action.
The act of providing data on a generic display is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., a post-solution activity. Similarly, sending and receiving data is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. While, the act of displaying, sending, and receiving data cannot be performed in the human mind, they also do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that even assuming, arguendo, the claims were deemed to recite an abstract idea under the first prong of the Step 2A analysis, the claims, as a whole, integrate the elements of the independent claims into a practical application under the second prong of the Step 2A analysis. In particular, the elements of the independent claims reflect specific technical improvements over existing systems for providing transportation corridor recommendations via a user interface of a vehicle.
Applicant's argument that the claims amount to be “provides an improvement to the technology of providing transportation recommendations, and it does so by applying any recited abstract idea in a meaningful way” under Step 2B of the 2019 PEG analysis is not persuasive because an improvement of providing transportation corridor recommendations is not a technical solution to a technical problem. Instead the argued improvement represent improvements to the abstract idea. In contrast, the 2019 PEG cite to “a modification of Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid web page” (i.e., the invention of DDR Holdings) to demonstrate an “improvement in the function of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field.” That is, the improvements achieved by the claimed invention appear to be directed towards improvements to transportation corridor recommendations (i.e., improve a confidence level of a pilot to fly to a new corridor. See ¶ [0023] of the originally filed Specification) rather than technical/technological improvements to those disclosed in, for example, DDR Holdings and Examples 37-42 of the 2019 PEG.
Therefore, the Examiner finds the above arguments unpersuasive.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that even if assuming, arguendo, the claims were deemed directed to the abstract idea alleged in the Office Action, the specific claim elements recited would constitute "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea such that the claims recite an "inventive concept" over the alleged abstract idea. Under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, the examiner should evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept, i.e., whether the claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception to which it is directed. See MPEP 2106.
The Applicant has not provided which elements individually or in combination they consider to an inventive concept. Therefore, Applicant's arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims overcomes the rejections under 35 USC § 101.
Therefore, the Examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the arrangement of all of the claim features provides an improvement to the technology of the claims. That is, the claims are directed to, and specifically recite, a processor implemented method, a system, and an apparatus that are fundamentally different from generic computing functions or conventional human processes. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that the Step 2B analysis demonstrates that the claims are significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and eligible for patenting.
For the reasons above the Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, as amended and presented herein, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Withdrawal of the rejections of Claims 1-20 and allowance of pending claims are respectfully requested.
For the above reasons the Examiner maintains the previous rejections under 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed towards a method for receiving and transmitting transportation corridor information and other data. Claim 12 is directed towards a system performing the method of claim 1. Claim 20 is directed towards an apparatus performing the method of claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) 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 (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, independent claim 1 recites:
“…selecting…a subset of transportation corridors from the set of transportation corridors based at least in part on (i) the vehicle configuration data and (ii) the trigger event;”
Independent claims 12 and 20 recites substantially similar limitations.
These claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. Therefore these limitations are abstract ideas and claims 1, 12, and 20 are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) 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.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) 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;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
In the instant application, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims 1, 12, and 20 recite “one or more processors” at a high level. The specification identifies the processor generically as a general processor, i.e., In various embodiments, the processor 202 is embodied in a number of different ways. For example, in some example embodiments, the processor 202 includes one or more processing devices configured to operate independently. Additionally, or alternatively, in some embodiments, the processor 202 includes a processor configured in tandem via a bus to enable independent execution of instructions, pipelining, and/or multithreading. The use of the terms, processor, and, processing circuitry, should be understood to include a single core processor, a multi-core processor, multiple processors internal to the computing device 200, and/or one or more remote or cloud-based processors external to the computing device 200. – See specification at ¶ [0047]. The processor(s) is merely a computer used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claims 1, 12, and 20 further recites a “a user interface” and claim 20 recites “a memory storing instructions” These combinations of elements also merely describe a generic computer that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The processor, user interface, and memory, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a processor, user interface, and memory) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Therefore, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
The independent claims further recite various limitations claiming receiving data, providing data to a user interface, transmitting data to external computing devices. These amendments are a form of extra-solution activity and amount to mere data gathering. Therefore, these elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2B
Finally, even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception renders the claim eligible under §101. Examples that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, 2) simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, 3) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and 4) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Examples of generic computing functions that are not enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea include 1) performing repetitive calculations, 2) receiving, processing, and storing data, 3) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, 4) electronic recordkeeping, 5) automating mental tasks, and 6) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data.
In the instant application, claims 1, 12, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this particular application, the same analysis above in determining whether the recited additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception is applicable to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Based on the above analysis, claims 1, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2 and 13 recite “…receiving…a signal indicative of a request from the occupant of the vehicle for the efficiency metric value; and providing, via the user interface of the vehicle, an indication of the efficiency metric value based at least in part on receiving the signal.” Which is a form of extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 3 and 14 recite: “…wherein the signal is generated based at least in part on the occupant of the vehicle positioning a cursor over a visual representation of the at least one second transportation corridor.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 15 recite: “…providing, via the user interface of the vehicle, (i) the indication of the efficiency metric value for the at least one second transportation corridor and (ii) a second indication of a second efficiency metric value for another transportation corridor of the subset of transportation corridors, wherein the transportation corridor selection is based at least in part on the occupant of the vehicle comparing the efficiency metric value and the second efficiency metric value.” Which is a form of extra-solution activity. The claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 16 recite: “…wherein the transportation corridor selection indicates that the occupant of the vehicle has selected the another transportation corridor.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 17 recite “…wherein the transportation corridor selection indicates that the occupant of the vehicle has selected the at least one second transportation corridor.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 18 recite “…wherein the vehicle configuration data comprises one or more of: (i) vehicle size data, (ii) vehicle weight data, (iii) vehicle capability data, (iv) vehicle navigational data, and (v) vehicle type data.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 19 recite “…wherein the trigger event comprises receiving one or more of: (i) weather data, (ii) traffic data, (iii) flight management system (FMS) data, and (iv) vehicle status data.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the set of transportation corridors comprises a plurality of transportation corridors below a threshold altitude.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10 recites “…wherein the set of transportation corridors comprises a plurality of transportation corridors for vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicles.” Which further defines an abstract idea identified above. However, the claim does not recite any additional elements and, therefore, does not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meek et al. (US 2022/0198946 A1, “Meek”) in view of Villa et al. (US 2019/0340934 A1, “Villa”).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Meek discloses dynamic approach procedure system and teaches:
A system comprising: (Referring more particularly to the figures, FIG.1 illustrates an example of a system 100 for generating an integrated approach interface 102, including a map 104 and a procedures sidebar 106 – See at least ¶ [0038])
a user interface; and (In some examples, the computing device 108 has at least one processor 110 and a memory 112, and also includes a user interface device 114, which presents (e.g., displays) the integrated approach interface 102 to a user – See at least ¶ [0040])
one or more processors in communication with the user interface, the one or more processors configured to: (In some examples, the processor 110 is programmed to execute instructions such as those illustrated in the figures (e.g., Fig. 21, Fig. 22, and/or Fig. 23) – See at least ¶ [0040]; Examiner notes that the instructions illustrated in the above figures includes presenting information, i.e., the processor is in communication with the display – See at least Fig. 21 #2110)
receive, from a transportation [route] database, a set of transportation [route]; (In other examples, if the system recommends a set of routes, the integrated approach interface is updated to include information associated with the recommended routes, while information associated with non-recommended routes is removed from the map 104 (map view) and/or the procedure side bar 106 – See at least ¶ [0052])
receive vehicle configuration data for a vehicle; (The aircraft data 126 is data identifying and/or describing an aircraft selected by the user. The aircraft data 126 can include data describing the type of aircraft, aircraft equipment, aircraft speed and/or any other aircraft data. The aircraft data 126 can be obtained from user-provided data, data obtained from a database, data obtained in real-time from a sensor, such as a fuel sensor or airspeed indicator, as well as other sources of data – See at least ¶ [0048] and Fig. 1)
responsive to receiving an indication of a trigger event; (The integrated approach interface 102 in other examples is updated dynamically in response to user selections 206 – See at least ¶ [0062]) determining viability information for the vehicle to travel each transportation corridor of the set of transportation [routes] based at least in part on (i) the vehicle configuration data (The procedural side bar 106 presents customized procedures information to the user 208 in a linear format. In some examples, the linear format provides information in a condensed form without including information unrelated to the user selected aircraft, airport and/or route. In other words, any terminal approach procedure information unrelated to the user's flight plan and current selected route(s) are removed from display within the integrated approach inter face 102 for a streamlined presentation of information to the user – See at least ¶ [0061]) and (ii) the trigger event, (The integrated approach interface 102 in other examples is updated dynamically in response to user selections 206, i.e., the trigger event. The user selections 206 can include, for example, user selection of a destination airport, user selection of a route from two or more possible routes into a destination airport, i.e., a subset of transportation corridors, user selection of an approach, etc – See at least ¶ [0062]; Examiner notes that the system provides navigable transportation routes which are viable for the aircraft to travel.) wherein the user interface is configured to display one or more of: [] (b) at least one second transportation corridor of the set that is indicated as viable for travel by the vehicle and recommended, wherein the recommendation based at least in part on an efficiency metric value for the at least one second transportation [route]; (Once the approach type is selected, the dynamic approach procedures application 116 evaluates the efficiency of each approach path at operation 2106, which can be based on a number of different factors – See at least ¶ [0098])
receive, via the user interface of the vehicle, an indication of a transportation [route] selection determined by an occupant of the vehicle; and (The user selections 206 can include, for example, user selection of a destination airport, user selection of a route from two or more possible routes into a destination airport – See at least ¶ [0062])
Meek discloses the use of route data and route selection. Meek does not explicitly teach that these routes include a “corridor”. However, Villa discloses dynamic aircraft routing and teaches that flight routes consist of flight corridors:
[] transportation corridors [] (the route selection module 320 determines a route for the VTOL aircraft 220 based on the vehicle noise profile and noise conditions of the map data . The route selection module 320 may determine a route cost for a number of predetermined flight corridors and select the corridor with the lowest route cost – See at least ¶ [0091])
cause transmission of, to an external computing device, the indication of the transportation corridor selection. (A VTOL aircraft 220 may include a computer system that communicates status information (e.g., via the network 270) to other elements of the computing environment 200. The status information may include current location, planned route, current battery charge, potential component failures, and the like – See at least ¶ [0040] and Fig. 2)
In summary, Meek discloses the usage of flight routes. Meek does not explicitly teach that these flight routes consist of “corridors”. However, Villa discloses dynamic aircraft routing and teaches that aircraft can fly along routes in different skylanes. These skylanes are corridors with different altitudes, which allows aircraft to fly along the same route but in different skylanes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek to provide for the dynamic aircraft routing, as taught in Villa, to organize flows of air traffic into a set of “skylanes” or flight paths along which aircraft are typically routed but that may change to accommodate changing demand patterns, weather, airspace restrictions, or other dynamic considerations. (At Villa ¶ [0104])
The combination of Meek and Villa does not explicitly teach displaying, via a user interface of the vehicle and based on the viability information, a visual representation of: (a) at least one first transportation corridor of the set that is indicated as inviable for travel by the vehicle, (b) at least one second transportation corridor of the set that is indicated as viable for travel by the vehicle and recommended wherein the recommendation is based at least in part on an efficiency metric value for the at least one second transportation corridor, and (c) at least one third transportation corridor of the set that is indicated as viable for travel by the vehicle and not recommended. However, Lekach discloses Google Map’s routing and teaches:
displaying, via a user interface of the vehicle and based on the viability information, a visual representation of: (As Shown in the image on pg. 3, Google maps provides a visual representation on a mobile device, i.e., a user interface. Examiner notes that this interface may be used within vehicle, e.g., a car, and therefore can act as a user interface of the vehicle.)
(a) at least one first transportation corridor of the set that is indicated as inviable for travel by the vehicle, (As part of a "spring cleaning" of sorts, the Google Maps app will also look a bit different. Instead of having to toggle between tabs when searching for directions, users will be able to see all the different modes (walking, biking, driving, public transit, ride-sharing, and others) on one page – See at least pg. 4; Examiner notes that the map application will show walking directions to any location, as the location is further and further away from the user, the walking mode route becomes inviable, e.g., walking from New York to Japan.)
(b) at least one second transportation corridor of the set that is indicated as viable for travel by the vehicle and recommended wherein the recommendation is based at least in part on an efficiency metric value for the at least one second transportation corridor, and (Google Maps is sprucing up its app, and one of the new looks is an eco-friendly route option. And no, that doesn't just mean biking or e-scooting somewhere Taking into consideration road conditions and topography along with traffic and congestion, Google Maps will offer an eco-route with a lower carbon emission. Sometimes the most fuel efficient way will be the fastest or comparable, so Google Maps will default to that option. But if the eco-friendly way is a bit slower, you'll be able to see how much more you'd be polluting to shave a few minutes off your journey. Google Maps partnered with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to help make the calculations with a new mapping model. It estimates carbon emissions for the typical vehicle in a region on different routes, taking into account things like steep hills or heavy traffic. The eco routes will be on iOS and Android phones later this year starting in the U.S. – See at least pg. 1-4; As shown in the Figure on pg. 4, the maps highlight the recommended, e.g., most fuel efficient, path as a recommendation.)
(c) at least one third transportation corridor of the set that is indicated as viable for travel by the vehicle and not recommended; (As shown in the Figure on pg. 4, Google Maps provides 3 viable routes, 1 blue and 2 grey. The grey routes are viable but they are not recommended because they are not as fuel-efficient as the blue recommended route.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek and Villa to provide for the route and travel mode recommendations, as taught in Lekach, to offer an eco-route with a lower carbon emission. (At Lekach pg 2)
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Meek further teaches:
further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a signal indicative of a request from the occupant of the vehicle for the efficiency metric value; and (Once the approach type is selected, the dynamic approach procedures application 116 evaluates the efficiency of each approach path at operation 2106, which can be based on a number of different factors – See at least ¶ [0098])
providing, via the user interface of the vehicle, an indication of the efficiency metric value based at least in part on receiving the signal. (For example, the dynamic approach procedures application 116 evaluates flight conditions along the selected approach path (e.g., thunderstorms) at operation 2108. The dynamic approach procedures application presents assimilated approach information in a linear order with dynamic map at operation 2110 – See at least ¶ [0098])
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Meek doesn’t explicitly teach, but Villa further teaches:
wherein the signal is generated based at least in part on the occupant of the vehicle positioning a cursor over a visual representation of the at least one second transportation corridor. (The machine 1500 may also include an alphanumeric input device 1512 (e.g., a keyboard), an UI navigation device 1514 (e.g., a mouse, a touchpad, a trackball, a joystick, a motion sensor, or other pointing instrument) – See at least ¶ [0150])
In summary, Meek discloses a user selecting a route via a user interface. Meek does not explicitly teach that this is performed with a cursor. However, Villa discloses the use of a mouse or other pointer device as a user interface navigation device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek and Lekach to provide for the dynamic aircraft routing, as taught in Villa, to organize flows of air traffic into a set of “skylanes” or flight paths along which aircraft are typically routed but that may change to accommodate changing demand patterns, weather, airspace restrictions, or other dynamic considerations. (At Villa ¶ [0104])
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Meek further teaches:
wherein the transportation [route] selection indicates that the occupant of the vehicle has selected the at least one second transportation [route]. (The user selections 206 can include, for example, user selection of a destination airport, user selection of a route from two or more possible routes into a destination airport – See at least ¶ [0062])
Meek does not explicitly teach that the routes consist of corridors. However, Villa further teaches:
[] transportation corridors [] (the route selection module 320 determines a route for the VTOL aircraft 220 based on the vehicle noise profile and noise conditions of the map data . The route selection module 320 may determine a route cost for a number of predetermined flight corridors and select the corridor with the lowest route cost – See at least ¶ [0091])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek and Lekach to provide for the dynamic aircraft routing, as taught in Villa, to organize flows of air traffic into a set of “skylanes” or flight paths along which aircraft are typically routed but that may change to accommodate changing demand patterns, weather, airspace restrictions, or other dynamic considerations. (At Villa ¶ [0104])
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Meek further teaches:
wherein the vehicle configuration data comprises one or more of: (i) vehicle size data, (ii) vehicle weight data, (iii) vehicle capability data, (iv) vehicle navigational data, and (v) vehicle type data. (The aircraft data 126 is data identifying and/or describing an aircraft selected by the user. The aircraft data 126 can include data describing the type of aircraft, aircraft equipment, aircraft speed and/or any other aircraft data. The aircraft data 126 can be obtained from user-provided data, data obtained from a database, data obtained in real-time from a sensor, such as a fuel sensor or airspeed indicator, as well as other sources of data – See at least ¶ [0048] and Fig. 1)
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Meek further teaches:
wherein the trigger event comprises receiving one or more of: (i) weather data, (ii) traffic data, (iii) flight management system (FMS) data, and (iv) vehicle status data. (The dynamic terminal approach data 132 output to the user within the integrated approach interface 102 is updated in real-time to reflect changes made to the flight plan due to weather changes, missed approach, or other events – See at least ¶ [0051])
Regarding claim 9, Meek further teaches:
wherein the set of transportation [routes] comprises a plurality of transportation [routes] below a threshold altitude. (As shown in Fig.6 #612, the route data includes a minimum and maximum altitude, i.e., routes below a threshold altitude.)
Meek does not explicitly teach that the routes consist of corridors. However, Villa further teaches:
[] transportation corridors [] (the route selection module 320 determines a route for the VTOL aircraft 220 based on the vehicle noise profile and noise conditions of the map data . The route selection module 320 may determine a route cost for a number of predetermined flight corridors and select the corridor with the lowest route cost – See at least ¶ [0091])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek and Lekach to provide for the dynamic aircraft routing, as taught in Villa, to organize flows of air traffic into a set of “skylanes” or flight paths along which aircraft are typically routed but that may change to accommodate changing demand patterns, weather, airspace restrictions, or other dynamic considerations. (At Villa ¶ [0104])
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Meek and Lekach does not explicitly teach, but Villa further teaches:
wherein the set of transportation corridors comprises a plurality of transportation corridors for vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) vehicles. (At operation 850, the route selection module 320 determines a route for the VTOL aircraft 220 based on the vehicle noise profile and noise conditions of the map data. The route selection module 320 may determine a route cost for a number of predetermined flight corridors and select the corridor with the lowest route cost – See at least ¶ [0091])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek and Lekach to provide for the dynamic aircraft routing, as taught in Villa, to organize flows of air traffic into a set of “skylanes” or flight paths along which aircraft are typically routed but that may change to accommodate changing demand patterns, weather, airspace restrictions, or other dynamic considerations. (At Villa ¶ [0104])
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Meek and Lekach does not explicitly teach, but Villa further teaches:
further comprising: communicating one or more control signals to one or more control systems of the vehicle based at least in part on the transportation corridor selection, wherein the one or more control signals cause the vehicle to switch from an initial transportation corridor to a selected transportation corridor. (In a further embodiment, the approach and departure pathways for a vertiport may be changed to manage the vertiport's noise profile. Once vehicles have been selected for optimal takeoff and landing, their routing may be modified such that they do not fly over places with higher sensitivity to perceived noise. Vehicle speeds and/or rates of climb may also be adjusted to manage the vertiport's noise profile. Once a path for a vehicle has been decided, the perceived noise level impact of the vehicle (which contributes to the overall noise signature of the vertiport) can be modified by altering a vehicle's speed and/or rate of climb/descent. This is because an aircraft's noise signature is a function of its pressure delta on the ambient environment which is controlled by how much it actively disturbs the air – See at least ¶ [0103])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek and Lekach to provide for the dynamic aircraft routing, as taught in Villa, to organize flows of air traffic into a set of “skylanes” or flight paths along which aircraft are typically routed but that may change to accommodate changing demand patterns, weather, airspace restrictions, or other dynamic considerations. (At Villa ¶ [0104])
Claim(s) 4, 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meek in view of Villa and Lekach, as applied to claims 1 and 12, and in further view of Moondra (“Navigate more sustainably and optimize for fuel savings with eco-friendly routing”, “Moondra”).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, the combination of Meek, Villa, and Lekach does not explicitly teach providing, via the user interface of the vehicle, (i) the indication of the efficiency metric value for the transportation corridor and (ii) a second indication of a second efficiency metric value for a second transportation corridor of the subset of transportation corridors, wherein the transportation corridor selection is based at least in part on the occupant of the vehicle comparing the efficiency metric value and the second efficiency metric value. However, Moondra discloses eco-friendly routing and teaches:
further comprising: providing, via the user interface of the vehicle, (i) the indication of the efficiency metric value for the transportation corridor and (ii) a second indication of a second efficiency metric value for a second transportation corridor of the subset of transportation corridors, wherein the transportation corridor selection is based at least in part on the occupant of the vehicle comparing the efficiency metric value and the second efficiency metric value. (The Routes API estimates fuel and energy efficiency using insights from the US Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory and data from the European Environment Agency. This calculation includes factors that affect your fuel and energy usage and CO2 emissions, such as: Average fuel or energy consumption based on regionally representative vehicles per engine type (petrol or gas, diesel, hybrid, or electric) Steepness of hills on your route Stop-and-go traffic patterns Types of roads (such as local roads or highways) The Routes API returns the most fuel or energy-efficient route when one can be found with minimal impact on the arrival time. In cases where fuel or energy savings are too small or increase driving time significantly, the API shows relative fuel or energy savings between routes to help your drivers decide which route to take – See at least Pg. 1-2 and Fig. below)
PNG
media_image1.png
542
1100
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek, Villa, and Lekach to provide for the eco-friendly routing, as taught in Moondra, to improving fuel efficiency and help lower a fleet’s fuel/energy usage and CO2 emissions. (At Moondra pg. 1)
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Meek further teaches:
wherein the transportation corridor selection indicates that the occupant of the vehicle has selected the another transportation [route]. (The user selections 206 can include, for example, user selection of a destination airport, user selection of a route from two or more possible routes into a destination airport – See at least ¶ [0062])
The combination of Meek and Lekach does not explicitly teach that the routes consist of corridors. However, Villa further teaches:
[] transportation corridors [] (the route selection module 320 determines a route for the VTOL aircraft 220 based on the vehicle noise profile and noise conditions of the map data . The route selection module 320 may determine a route cost for a number of predetermined flight corridors and select the corridor with the lowest route cost – See at least ¶ [0091])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the dynamic approach procedure system of Meek, Lekach, and Moondra to provide for the dynamic aircraft routing, as taught in Villa, to organize flows of air traffic into a set of “skylanes” or flight paths along which aircraft are typically routed but that may change to accommodate changing demand patterns, weather, airspace restrictions, or other dynamic considerations. (At Villa ¶ [0104])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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).
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 CHASE L COOLEY whose telephone number is (303)297-4355. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aniss Chad can be reached at 571-270-3832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights