CTFR 18/785,233 CTFR 77639 DETAILED ACTION 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on May 5,, 2026. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below. Claims 1-2, 10, 12, 17 and 19-20 have been amended. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground rejections. In response to the applicant’s argument that Pennapareddy fails to teach identifying the aircraft was malfunctioning, the examiner now relies on Wang et al. (WO 2022/166501 A1) to clarify this issue, as discussed in claim 1 below. Wang explicitly teaches identifying and reporting an aircraft malfunctioning, such as communication failure conditions, thereby supplying the limitation the applicant alleges is missing from Pennapareddy. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-6, 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennapareddy, US 2021/0035457 A1 in view of Wang et al., WO 2022/0166501 A1 (see English Translation) . As to claim 1, Pennapareddy teaches a method, comprising: continuously receiving data at a first aircraft from a second aircraft while the first aircraft and the second aircraft are traveling, the data including at least some positional information of the second aircraft (¶ 25-27, 31 and Fig. 1; e.g. Pennapareddy gives two examples: 1 st example shows a first aircraft receives a second aircraft’s positional data from the second aircraft, and 2 nd example shows the first aircraft receives third aircraft’s positional data from the third aircraft); identifying one or more anomalies in the data, the one or more anomalies indicative of one or more geographic locations where a global positioning system of the second aircraft has abnormal condition (¶ 28-34, 67 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. positional information fails verification); one or more of automatically creating or changing a digital map displayed onboard the first aircraft that indicates the one or more geographic locations associated with the one or more anomalies that are identified in the data (¶ 57 and Figs 1-3). Pennapareddy does not specifically teach the aircraft has abnormal condition including malfunctioning. However, this matter is taught by Wang as identifying and reporting an aircraft’s malfunction (see English translation page 16 ¶ 6; communication failure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Wang’s malfunction identification and reporting capability into Pennapareddy’s anomaly identification system in order to better alert the aircraft to safety critical conditions and improve overall operational reliability. As to claim 2, Pennapareddy teaches communicating a notification to an operator of the first aircraft responsive to the one or more of automatically creating or charging the digital map (¶ 33-35, 48-49, 57 and Figs. 1-3). As to claim 3, Pennapareddy teaches comprising continuously receiving the data at the first aircraft via automatic dependent surveillance broadcasts transmitted by the second aircraft (¶ 27, 32 and Fig. 1; e.g. the first aircraft 102 receives ADS-B messages). As to claim 4, Pennapareddy teaches wherein the digital map indicates one or more other geographic locations where no anomalies were identified in the data (¶ 29, 57 and Figs. 1-3; e.g. the positional information has been verified). As to claim 5, Pennapareddy teaches comparing the data with a baseline standard; and identifying the one or more anomalies responsive to a difference between the data and the baseline standard being outside of a determined threshold (¶ 29-34, 57 and Figs 1-3). As to claim 6, Pennapareddy teaches determining that the digital map should remain unchanged responsive to the difference between the data and the baseline standard being within the determined threshold (¶ 28-29, 57; e.g. if the positional information is within a threshold, the positional information will be verified and map would not be changed). As to claim 10, Pennapareddy in view of Wang further teaches continuously receiving second data from a third aircraft; identifying one or more second anomalies in the second data, the one or more second anomalies indicative of one or more geographic locations where a global positioning system of the third aircraft was malfunctioning; and automatically updating the digital map by changing at least a portion of the digital map responsive to the identification of the one or more second anomalies to indicate the one or more geographic locations associated with the one or more second anomalies that are identified in the second data (Pennapareddy: ¶ 15, 25-34, 57 and Figs. 1-3; also see claim 1 above for explanation of the reference; e.g. the malicious data from the third aircraft is updated with a different color so that the pilot understands the data fails verification; see claim 1 above for Wang’s teaching of malfunctioning and reason to combine the references). As to claim 11, Pennapareddy teaches wherein the one or more geographic locations associated with the one or more anomalies in the data from the second aircraft are different than the one or more geographic locations associated with the one or more second anomalies in the second data from the third aircraft (¶ 25-34, 57 and Figs. 1-3; e.g. the anomalies from the second aircraft is within the threshold whereas the anomalies from the second aircraft is not). Claim 19 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claim 1 above. Claim 20 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claim 10 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 7-9 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pennapareddy, US 2021/0035457 A1 in view of Wang et al., WO 2022/0166501 A1 (see English translation), and in further view of Mohan et al., US 2023/0280472 A1 . As to claim 7, Pennapareddy in view of Wang teaches create a digital map as discussed in claim 1 above. Pennapareddy in view of Wang does not specifically teach digital map is configured to include at least a portion of an upcoming flight path of the first aircraft. However, Mohan teaches a digital map includes displaying an upcoming flight path of an aircraft (¶ 22 and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the digital map of Pennapareddy in view of Wang to include an upcoming flight path of the first aircraft taught by Mohan in order to better direct the air traffic. As to claim 8, Pennapareddy in view of Wang and Mohan further teaches indicating on the digital map one or more locations of the upcoming flight path of the first aircraft where a global positioning system of the first aircraft is expected to malfunction (Mohan: ¶ 22 and Fig. 1; see claim 7 above for reason to combine the references). As to claim 9, Pennapareddy in view of Wang and Mohan further teaches changing at least a portion of the upcoming flight path of the first aircraft to avoid the one or more locations where the global positioning system of the first aircraft is expected to malfunction (Mohan: ¶ 22-23 and page 6 claim 1 and Fig. 1; see claim 7 above for reason to combine the references). Claim 12 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claims 1, 5 and 7-8 above. Claim 13 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claim 3 above. Claim 14 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claim 4 above. Claim 15 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claim 2 above. Claim 16 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claim 9 above. Claim 17 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claim 10 above. Claim 18 is rejected based on the same rationale as used for claim 11 above. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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. Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Cheung whose telephone number is (571) 272-6705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Christian Chace, can be reached on (571) 272-4190. 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). The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceedings is assigned are as follows: (571) 273-8300 (Official Communications; including After Final Communications labeled “BOX AF”) (571) 273-6705 (Draft Communications) /MARY CHEUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 May 28, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/785,233 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/785,233 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/785,233 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/785,233 Page 5 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/785,233 Page 6 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/785,233 Page 7 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/785,233 Page 8 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights