DETAILED ACTION
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 filing on July 26, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
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 abstract idea without significantly more. (See MPEP § 2106.)
STEP 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes for Claims 1-20.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, because Claim 1 recites the following limitation(s):
“identifying one or more anomalies in the data …” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information which is categorized as a Mental Process according to See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III)
Yes, because Claim 12 recites the following limitation(s):
“comparing the data with a baseline …” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and collecting and comparing known information which is categorized as a Mental Process according to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III); and
“…and identifying one or more anomalies in the data responsive to a difference between the data and the baseline being outside of a determined threshold … ” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis and/or collecting and comparing known information which is categorized as a Mental Process according to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III)
Yes, because Claim 19 repeats the subject matter of Claim 1 and analyzed in like manner.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, Claim 1 recites the following limitation(s):
“continuously receiving data at a [party A] from a [party B] …” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.); and
“automatically creating a digital map … identified in the data” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.)
No, Claim 12 recites the following limitation(s):
“continuously receiving data at a [party A] from a [party B] …” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Receiving or transmitting data over a network. See MPEP § 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity.); and
“automatically creating a digital map … identified in the data …” – (This/These step(s) is/are considered Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. See MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.)
No, because Claim 19 repeats the subject matter of Claim 1 and analyzed in like manner.
The above limitations are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as generic computer hardware and/or functions, for example, collecting and/or processing data. These generic limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, for example, at least one processor; at least one memory; and a non-transitory computer storage medium. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, Claims 1, 12, and 19 are directed to the abstract idea.
Additionally, The Examiner refers to The Berkheimer Memorandum1 for submitting more evidence into the prosecution regarding what subject matter is/are well known in the technology. The Berkheimer Memorandum specifies The Examiner shall show one or more of the follow items:
“A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (1).
“A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (2).
“A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (3).
“A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).” See Section III (A) (4).
In this particular case, The Examiner provides “A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” as required by Section III:
“It is well known in the art to provide a vehicle display screen located within the vehicle.” (US 20130224721 A1)
“Client-Server and network communication is well-known in the art of computers and networking.” (US 20050021745 A1, [0052])
“The electronic control unit 23 comprises a microprocessor including a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an A/D converter, and an input/output interface, all not shown, but well-known in the art.” (US 4741163)
“As is well-known in the art, software is stored on a computer-readable storage medium (including compact disc, computer diskette, and computer memory, etc.) with code, or instructions, which, when read and executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform a process or task.” (US 20120226548 A1, [0020])
“Conventionally, an in-vehicle microphone device mounted on a vehicle interior, for example, a vehicle interior ceiling, is widely known.” (JP 2016105557 A)
STEP 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No for Claims 1, 12, and 19. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, Claim(s) 1, 12, and 19 is/are ineligible.
Dependent Claim 2-11, 13-18 and 20 are also ineligible because they do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In summary, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pennapareddy, US 2021/0035457 A1.
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: 1st example shows a first aircraft receives a second aircraft’s positional data from the second aircraft, and 2nd 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 was compromised (¶ 28-34, 67 and Figs. 1-2; e.g. positional information fails verification);
automatically creating a digital map 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).
As to claim 2, Pennapareddy teaches communicating a notification to an operator of the first aircraft responsive to automatically creating 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 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 is compromised; 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 (¶ 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).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 Mohan et al., US 2023/0280472 A1.
As to claim 7, Pennapareddy teaches create a digital map as discussed in claim 1 above. Pennapareddy 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 Pennapareddy’s digital map 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 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 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.
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 February 4, 2026
1 See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF