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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The official correspondence below is a first action non-final.
Priority
No priority has been claimed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07-29-2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Drawings received 07-29-2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
CLAIM 17 (claims 1 and 11 parallel in scope and spirit, are included in the rejection while claim 17 is used in the §101, abstract idea, analysis) IS REJECTED under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 17 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 17 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 17 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold text) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 17 Recites:
A method of monitoring aircraft, the method comprising:
identifying, by executing instructions with at least one processor circuit located in space, an anomaly based on aircraft operation data;
preparing, by executing instructions with one or more of the processor circuits located in space, an updated mission plan for an aircraft based on the anomaly; and
communicating the updated mission plan to the aircraft.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers a performance within the limitations of the human mind. “Identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a determination, by a person observing sensor data or outputs collected and forming a simple judgement. For example, determining an error based upon a comparison between retrieved/real-time data and known/historical data; e.g., a deviation from a standard, normal, traditional, and/or historical parameter, comparing, and/or identifying a difference between a value of a measured parameter or metric with an average value based on historical and/or empirical data, is well within the limitations of the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 17 Recites:
A method of monitoring aircraft, the method comprising:
identifying, by executing instructions with at least one processor circuit located in space, an anomaly based on aircraft operation data;
preparing, by executing instructions with one or more of the processor circuits located in space, an updated mission plan for an aircraft based on the anomaly; and
communicating the updated mission plan to the aircraft.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the first additional limitation of “preparing”, the examiner respectfully submits an automated response to a threshold breach (due to the determined anomaly, the preceding mental process) using software/hardware/firmware is considered as post-solution activity and “how to apply” the preceding mantal process. The final step of the method, communicating/transmitting data, is also considered post-solution activity. The examiner respectfully submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that use a computer to perform the process. The displaying information (communicating an updated) step (to crew, pilot, ground control) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of displaying the weather evaluation result from the evaluating step), and amounts to post solution displaying/transmitting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, a “processor” describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose computer controlled environment. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 appears to not be more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 17 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a controller (computer, firmware, hardware, software) to perform the an evaluating amounts to no more than applying the exception using a generic computer or electronic components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations are insignificant extra-solution (post-solution) activities after the mental process has occurred. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is wellunderstood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “prompting human intervention” by transmitting/displaying data are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer device within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. The additional limitation of “displaying (providing a notification)” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 18-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects (an expansion) of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application beyond the limitations of the human mind. Therefore, dependent claims 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim. Further, claim 1 and 11 are parallel in scope and spirit, containing the same mental process using contemporary electronics to facility and apply the process. Therefore claims 1 and 11 are rejected for the same reasoning as claim 17. Further still, dependent claim 2-10 and 12-16 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Dell (US 20130197725 A1) in view of Mitchell (US 20250259553 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, communication interface circuitry to access aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0055] FIG. 4 is a flowchart of a method 400 for requesting and retrieving aircraft data from an aircraft's various sub-systems during flight; [0003] There is a need for methods and systems for monitoring the health of an aircraft and the aircraft's various components and sub-systems … [0004] A parameter request message is then generated that includes a parameter file that specifies the relevant parameters that are to be measured at the aircraft. The parameter request message is communicated to the aircraft over satellite communication links); machine-readable instructions (O'Dell: [0051] programmed with computer executable instructions for implementing a particular health and trend monitoring algorithm (HTMA). The memory 392 can store various different AHTM program modules 380 that can be used to implement various different HTMAs via computer executable instructions); and programmable circuitry to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to: identify an anomaly based on the aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022] the measured data for each of the parameters that are included in the file can be analyzed to determine which of the parameters are at an abnormal level (i.e., outside of its upper and/or lower threshold limits)); prepare an updated mission plan for an aircraft based on the anomaly (O'Dell: [0089] The disclosed methods and systems can reduce the amount of time needed to identify and diagnose problems and perform routine troubleshooting and aircraft maintenance tasks. In-flight issues can be identified for ground-based crews as soon as they occur to facilitate the development and implementation of quick and efficient return-to-service when the aircraft lands).
O'Dell discloses notifying a ground crew of an updated mission plan ([Claim 3]). O'Dell does not explicitly disclose notifying aircraft crew of an updated mission plan.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, communicate the updated mission plan to the aircraft (Mitchell: [0019] satellites, receiving and aggregating signal data, determining signal characteristics, identifying atmospheric anomalies, and adjusting flight plans based on the identified anomalies. The system and method may provide real-time data and may be used to improve flight planning and safety; [0081] The system 138 may also transmit an alert (e.g., audio and/or visual alert) to the pilots to alert the pilots of the presence of atmospheric anomalies 216 that may require intervention (e.g., manual, automated or FAA directed intervention) or changes to the flight plan), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include crew communication taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 2, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell also discloses, the programmable circuitry is to communicate one or more of the aircraft operation data, information related to the anomaly, or the updated mission plan to a ground-based entity (O'Dell: [0022] the measured data for each of the parameters that are included in the file can be analyzed to determine which of the parameters are at an abnormal level (i.e., outside of its upper and/or lower threshold limits)).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell also discloses, the aircraft is a first aircraft (O'Dell: [0063] Upon generating the CAS message file, at 510, the aircraft 110 performs operations to open a first satellite communication link 111 between the aircraft 110 and the satellite 112 and a second satellite), the aircraft operation data is first aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022] the measured data for each of the parameters that are included in the file can be analyzed to determine which of the parameters are at an abnormal level (i.e., outside of its upper and/or lower threshold limits)), the anomaly is a first anomaly (O'Dell: [0022] the measured data for each of the parameters that are included in the file can be analyzed to determine which of the parameters are at an abnormal level (i.e., outside of its upper and/or lower threshold limits)), and the updated mission plan is a first updated mission plan (O'Dell: [0089] The disclosed methods and systems can reduce the amount of time needed to identify and diagnose problems and perform routine troubleshooting and aircraft maintenance tasks. In-flight issues can be identified for ground-based crews as soon as they occur to facilitate the development and implementation of quick and efficient return-to-service when the aircraft lands); prepare a second updated mission plan for the second aircraft based on the second anomaly (O'Dell: [0089] The disclosed methods and systems can reduce the amount of time needed to identify and diagnose problems and perform routine troubleshooting and aircraft maintenance tasks. In-flight issues can be identified for ground-based crews as soon as they occur to facilitate the development and implementation of quick and efficient return-to-service when the aircraft lands).
O'Dell does not explicitly recite preparing a second plan. However, it is well within the scope of customary practices for one of ordinary skill, an typically not considered inventive, to duplicate essential parts or steps.
O’Dell does not explicitly disclose, the communication interface circuitry to access second aircraft operation data related to a second aircraft; and the programmable circuitry to: identify a second anomaly based on the second aircraft operation data; and communicate the second updated mission plan to the second aircraft, wherein the programmable circuitry is to prepare the first updated mission plan and the second updated mission at least partially simultaneously.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, the communication interface circuitry to access second aircraft operation data related to a second aircraft (Mitchell: [0080] configured to receive aircraft data from one or more sensors 118 of one or more aircraft 100); and the programmable circuitry to: identify a second anomaly based on the second aircraft operation data (Mitchell: [0019] satellites, receiving and aggregating signal data, determining signal characteristics, identifying atmospheric anomalies, and adjusting flight plans based on the identified anomalies. The system and method may provide real-time data and may be used to improve flight planning and safety; [0081] The system 138 may also transmit an alert (e.g., audio and/or visual alert) to the pilots to alert the pilots of the presence of atmospheric anomalies 216 that may require intervention (e.g., manual, automated or FAA directed intervention) or changes to the flight plan); and communicate the second updated mission plan to the second aircraft (Mitchell: [0019] satellites, receiving and aggregating signal data, determining signal characteristics, identifying atmospheric anomalies, and adjusting flight plans based on the identified anomalies. The system and method may provide real-time data and may be used to improve flight planning and safety; [0081] The system 138 may also transmit an alert (e.g., audio and/or visual alert) to the pilots to alert the pilots of the presence of atmospheric anomalies 216 that may require intervention (e.g., manual, automated or FAA directed intervention) or changes to the flight plan), wherein the programmable circuitry is to prepare the first updated mission plan and the second updated mission at least partially simultaneously (Mitchell: [0080] the aircraft data may aid in real-time atmospheric anomaly detection to alert other aircraft; [0086] such steps may be carried out in any desired order and two or more of the steps may be carried out simultaneously with one another), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include duplicating a process for one or more aircraft taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 5, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell also discloses, the aircraft is a first aircraft (O'Dell: [0063] Upon generating the CAS message file, at 510, the aircraft 110 performs operations to open a first satellite communication link 111 between the aircraft 110 and the satellite 112 and a second satellite) and the aircraft operation data is first aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022] the measured data for each of the parameters that are included in the file can be analyzed to determine which of the parameters are at an abnormal level (i.e., outside of its upper and/or lower threshold limits)).
O’Dell does not explicitly disclose, the communication interface circuitry to access second aircraft operation data related to a second aircraft; and the programmable circuitry to: identify a second anomaly based on the second aircraft operation data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, the communication interface circuitry to access second aircraft operation data related to a second aircraft (Mitchell: [0080] configured to receive aircraft data from one or more sensors 118 of one or more aircraft 100); and the programmable circuitry to: identify a second anomaly based on the second aircraft operation data (Mitchell: [0019] satellites, receiving and aggregating signal data, determining signal characteristics, identifying atmospheric anomalies, and adjusting flight plans based on the identified anomalies. The system and method may provide real-time data and may be used to improve flight planning and safety; [0081] The system 138 may also transmit an alert (e.g., audio and/or visual alert) to the pilots to alert the pilots of the presence of atmospheric anomalies 216 that may require intervention (e.g., manual, automated or FAA directed intervention) or changes to the flight plan), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include duplicating a process for one or more aircraft taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 6, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell also discloses, prepare a maintenance log based on the aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0089] The disclosed methods and systems can reduce the amount of time needed to identify and diagnose problems and perform routine troubleshooting and aircraft maintenance tasks. In-flight issues can be identified for ground-based crews as soon as they occur to facilitate the development and implementation of quick and efficient return-to-service when the aircraft lands); and communicate the maintenance log to an aircraft manufacturer (O'Dell: [0017] The computer 122 may be located, for example, at aircraft monitoring center of either an operator or the aircraft manufacturer; [0089] reduce the amount of time needed to identify and diagnose problems and perform routine troubleshooting and aircraft maintenance tasks. In-flight issues can be identified for ground-based crews as soon as they occur to facilitate the development and implementation of quick and efficient return-to-service when the aircraft lands).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, Mitchell also discloses, the space-based apparatus is distributed over at least two satellites (Mitchell: [FIG. 2A]).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, O’Dell discloses, access aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0055]; [0003-0004]); identify an anomaly based on the aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022]); prepare an updated mission plan for an aircraft based on the anomaly (O'Dell: [0089]).
O'Dell discloses notifying a ground crew of an updated mission plan ([Claim 3]). O'Dell does not explicitly disclose notifying aircraft crew of an updated mission plan.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, communicate the updated mission plan to the aircraft (Mitchell: [0019]; [0081]), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include crew communication taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 12, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 11. Further, O’Dell also discloses, communicate one or more of the aircraft operation data, information related to the anomaly, or the updated mission plan to a ground-based entity (O'Dell: [0022]).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 11. Further, O’Dell also discloses, the aircraft is a first aircraft (O'Dell: [0063]), the aircraft operation data is first aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022]), the anomaly is a first anomaly (O'Dell: [0022]), and the updated mission plan is a first updated mission plan (O'Dell: [0089]); prepare a second updated mission plan for the second aircraft based on the second anomaly (O'Dell: [0089]).
O’Dell does not explicitly disclose, the communication interface circuitry to access second aircraft operation data related to a second aircraft; and the programmable circuitry to: identify a second anomaly based on the second aircraft operation data; and communicate the second updated mission plan to the second aircraft, wherein the programmable circuitry is to prepare the first updated mission plan and the second updated mission at least partially simultaneously.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, the communication interface circuitry to access second aircraft operation data related to a second aircraft (Mitchell: [0080]); and the programmable circuitry to: identify a second anomaly based on the second aircraft operation data (Mitchell: [0019]; [0081]); and communicate the second updated mission plan to the second aircraft (Mitchell: [0019]; [0081]), wherein the programmable circuitry is to prepare the first updated mission plan and the second updated mission at least partially simultaneously (Mitchell: [0080]; [0086]), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include duplicating a process for one or more aircraft taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 14, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 11. Further, O’Dell also discloses, the aircraft is a first aircraft (O'Dell: [0063]) and the aircraft operation data is first aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022]).
O’Dell does not explicitly disclose, the communication interface circuitry to access second aircraft operation data related to a second aircraft; and the programmable circuitry to: identify a second anomaly based on the second aircraft operation data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, the communication interface circuitry to access second aircraft operation data related to a second aircraft (Mitchell: [0080]); and the programmable circuitry to: identify a second anomaly based on the second aircraft operation data (Mitchell: [0019]; [0081]), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include duplicating a process for one or more aircraft taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 15, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 11. Further, Mitchell also discloses, the storage medium and the at least one processor circuit are distributed over at least two satellites (Mitchell: [FIG. 2A]).
REGARDING CLAIM 17, O’Dell discloses, identifying, by executing instructions with at least one processor circuit located in space, an anomaly based on aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022]); preparing, by executing instructions with one or more of the processor circuits located in space, an updated mission plan for an aircraft based on the anomaly (O'Dell: [0089]).
O'Dell discloses notifying a ground crew of an updated mission plan ([Claim 3]). O'Dell does not explicitly disclose notifying aircraft crew of an updated mission plan.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, communicate the updated mission plan to the aircraft (Mitchell: [0019]; [0081]), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include crew communication taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 18, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 17. Further, O’Dell also discloses, the aircraft is a first aircraft (O'Dell: [0063]), the aircraft operation data is first aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022]), the anomaly is a first anomaly (O'Dell: [0022]), and the updated mission plan is a first updated mission plan (O'Dell: [0089]), preparing, by executing instructions with one or more of the processor circuits located in space, a second updated mission plan for the second aircraft based on the second anomaly (O'Dell: [0089]).
O'Dell does not explicitly disclose, the method including: identifying, by executing instructions with one or more of the processor circuits located in space, a second anomaly based on second aircraft operation data; and communicating the second updated mission plan to the second aircraft.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, the method including: identifying, by executing instructions with one or more of the processor circuits located in space, a second anomaly based on second aircraft operation data (Mitchell: [0019]; [0081]); and communicating the second updated mission plan to the second aircraft (Mitchell: [0019]; [0081]), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include duplicating a process for one or more aircraft taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 19, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 17. Further, O’Dell also discloses (O'Dell: [0063]), the aircraft is a first aircraft and the aircraft operation data is first aircraft operation data (O'Dell: [0022]).
O’Dell does not explicitly disclose, the method including identifying, by executing instructions with one or more of the processor circuits located in space, the anomaly based on second aircraft operation data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses, the method including identifying, by executing instructions with one or more of the processor circuits located in space (Mitchell: [0080]), the anomaly based on second aircraft operation data (Mitchell: [0080]), for the benefit of improving flight planning and safety.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by O’Dell to include duplicating a process for one or more aircraft taught by Mitchell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve flight planning and safety.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 17. Further, Mitchell also discloses, the one or more of the processor circuits are located on one or more satellites (Mitchell: [FIG. 2A]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Dell (US 20130197725 A1) in view of Mitchell (US 20250259553 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montsma (US 20190191334 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell, as modified, does not explicitly disclose, dynamically shift communication beams based on air traffic.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Montsma discloses, dynamically shift communication beams based on air traffic (Montsma: [ABS] A dynamic satellite load balancing system measures geographic position and travel information of in-flight aircraft in a fleet of aircraft equipped to establish in-flight connectivity services from a plurality of satellite beams … The dynamic satellite load balancing system may transmit the load balanced satellite map parameters over an existing satellite data connection to make up-to-date adjustments to the communications load among the group of available satellite beams), for the benefit of load balancing in high traffic/volume scenarios.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified O’Dell to include dynamic beaming taught by Montsma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to load balance.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Dell (US 20130197725 A1) Mitchell (US 20250259553 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of von der Embse (US 5969674 A).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell, as modified, fails to disclose, the programmable circuitry is in the thermosphere.
However, in the same field of endeavor, von der Embse discloses, the programmable circuitry is in the thermosphere (von der Embse: The communication satellites 14 are preferably in multiple planes using Low Earth Orbit (LEO) although Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellite constellations such as Iridium, Globalstar and Intermediate Circular Orbit (ICO) (Col. 2, Ln. 46-50)), for the benefit of providing navigation and tracking without limiting ranging.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified O’Dell to include altitude minimums taught by von der Embse. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide navigation and tracking without limiting ranging.
REGARDING CLAIM 8, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell, as modified, fails to disclose, the communication interface circuitry and the programmable circuitry are at an altitude of at least 100 kilometers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, von der Embse discloses, the communication interface circuitry and the programmable circuitry are at an altitude of at least 100 kilometers (von der Embse: (Col. 2, Ln. 46-50)), for the benefit of providing navigation and tracking without limiting ranging.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified O’Dell to include altitude minimums taught by von der Embse. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide navigation and tracking without limiting ranging.
REGARDING CLAIM 16, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell, as modified, fails to disclose, the satellites are in low Earth orbit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, von der Embse discloses, the satellites are in low Earth orbit (von der Embse: (Col. 2, Ln. 46-50)), for the benefit of providing navigation and tracking without limiting ranging.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified O’Dell to include altitude minimums taught by von der Embse. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide navigation and tracking without limiting ranging.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Dell (US 20130197725 A1) in view of Mitchell (US 20250259553 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walter (US 20220063836 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, O’Dell, as modified, remains as applied to claim 1. Further, O’Dell, as modified, fails to disclose, the aircraft operation data includes pilot facial expressions and pilot voice analysis.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Walter discloses, the aircraft operation data includes pilot facial expressions (Walter: [0084] Among the laws of degraded mode control is a law that addresses a pilot failure on board during the aircraft take-off. The failure of the pilot on board results, for example, from a sudden death of the pilot or from a physical or psychological incapacity of any kind occurring during the flight; [0149] The pilot monitoring system includes a camera that acquires images of the face, and in particular the eyes of the pilot on board) and pilot voice analysis (Walter: [0084] Among the laws of degraded mode control is a law that addresses a pilot failure on board during the aircraft take-off. The failure of the pilot on board results, for example, from a sudden death of the pilot or from a physical or psychological incapacity of any kind occurring during the flight; [0184] The voice analysis device compares the intonation of the pilot's voice with the voices contained in the personal voice database), for the benefit of determining an emergency situation and determining alternate control systems.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by a modified O’Dell to include monitoring cabin/cockpit oddities taught by Walter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to determine an emergency situation and determining alternate control systems.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Garcia (US 20180198516 A1)
Corcoran (US 20050230563 A1)
Walter (US 20220063836 A1)
Nichols (US 20060106506 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARRON SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, ANGELA ORTIZ can be reached at (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663