DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 08/14/2024. Claims 1-18 are pending and examined below.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN 2024/11049301, filed on 27/6/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Computer system” claim 1
[0028] of PGPub describe processor as computer system.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim (s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, Step 1: Claim 10 is directed towards a system for an aircraft.
Under step 2A prong 1, the inquiry is if the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Claim 10 recites “copies a clone of the reference flight plan for analysis of potential changes to the reference flight plan, modifies the clone of the reference flight plan with any changes to the reference flight plan that occurred subsequent to copying the clone of the reference flight plan, and analyzes the modified clone of the reference flight plan for incorporating potential changes to the reference flight plan; and a control display unit (CDU) which receives the data from a pilot of the aircraft, where the data modifies the clone of the reference flight plan.”. The claim limitations, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be performed in the human mind. Therefore, these limitations are abstract ideas. The steps recited, planning, modifying and analyzing modified plan a person does those steps normally mentally.
Under step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. “Computer system” and “display unit” are generic and commercially available. There are no additional steps other than mental observation and evaluation involved on the recited claim limitation. These combinations of elements also merely describe a generic computer that is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These steps are not meaningful limitations on the judicial exception. The computer system, flight management system, display device no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Under step 2B, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 is directed towards a method for in-flight management of a flight plan.
Under step 2A prong 1, same analysis as claim 10.
Under step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. There are no additional steps other than mental observation and evaluation involved on the recited claim limitation.
Under step 2B, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 2-9 and 11-18, Further defines an abstract idea identified above. The claims do not recite elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14 (and similarly claim 5), which recites “the modified secondary flight plan handles inflight aircraft emergencies”, the specification lacks written description as to how this is achieved. Submitted specification does not describe the recited claim language.
Regarding claim 16 (and similarly claim 7), which recites “the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes in the cruising altitude of the aircraft”, the specification lacks written description as to how this is achieved. Submitted specification does not describe the recited claim language.
Regarding claim 18 (and similarly claim 9), which recites “the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes in the runway used by the aircraft”, the specification lacks written description as to how this is achieved. [0017] and [0034] of PGPub of submitted specification describe FMS use data points include airports, runways. Specification does not describe the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes in the runway used by the aircraft.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13 (and similarly claim 4), which recites the modified secondary flight plan handles upcoming aircraft missions along the same route as the modified reference flight plan” is not clear. It is not clear modified secondary flight plan and the modified reference flight plan are same or different. [0037] of PGPub describe reference plan is the secondary flight plan.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0215387 (“Yadav”), and further in view of US 2022/0358696 (“Holder”).
Regarding claim 10 (and similarly claim 1), Yadav discloses a system for updating a variant for a reference flight plan for an aircraft (see at least fig 1), comprising:
a flight management system (FMS) (see at least [0025] and [0041], where pilot is using FMS), where the FMS includes,
a computer system that generates the reference flight plan (see at least [0025], where “At step 102, an active flight plan (e.g., the active flight plan 202 of FIGS. 2 through 13) is either created by a pilot or uses a default active flight plan. At step 104, a temporary flight plan (e.g., the temporary flight plan 206 of FIGS. 2 through 13) and a reference flight plan are created”; see also [0005], where “a flight management system includes a processor”; see also fig 14),
copies a clone of the reference flight plan for analysis of potential changes to the reference flight plan (see at least [0025], where “The temporary flight plan includes a copy of the active flight plan and the initiated first revision. Further, the reference flight plan is a copy of the active flight plan (e.g., the copy of active flight plan 204 of FIGS. 2 through 13).”;),
modifies the clone of the reference flight plan with any changes to the reference flight plan that occurred subsequent to copying the clone of the reference flight plan (see at least [0028], where “when the pilot modifies the active flight plan 202 by performing a lateral revision "insert WOLF after TOE", the copy of the active flight plan 204 and the temporary flight plan 206 are created.”; see also fig 1, block 106), and
analyzes the modified clone of the reference flight plan for incorporating potential changes to the reference flight plan (see at least [0036], see also [0005], where “multiple revisions”); and
a control display unit (CDU) which receives the data from a pilot of the aircraft, where the data modifies the clone of the reference flight plan (see at least [0029], where “FIG. 3 illustrates a display unit 300 displaying the copy of the active flight plan 204 and the temporary flight plan 206.”; see also [0005], where “The display unit includes one or more action buttons for performing multiple undo and redo operations”; see also [0032]).
Yadav does not disclose the following limitation:
a flight management system (FMS) located onboard the aircraft.
However, Holder discloses a system wherein a flight management system (FMS) located onboard the aircraft (see at least [0016], where “FIG. 1 depicts an exemplary embodiment of a system 100 which may be located onboard a vehicle, such as an aircraft 102…The system 100 includes…a flight management system (FMS) 116,”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yadav to incorporate the teachings of Holder by including the above feature for providing flight path adjustment quicker by having FMS onboard the aircraft.
Regarding claim 11 (and similarly claim 2), Yadav further discloses a system comprising: adopting the modified clone as a modified reference flight plan (see at least [0003-4], where the reference flight plan is a copy of the active flight plan and revision is made on the copy of the active flight plan. modify existing route by doing revisions. See also [0028]).
Regarding claim 12 (and similarly claim 3), Yadav further discloses a system comprising: adopting the modified clone as a modified secondary flight plan ([0037] of PGPub of submitted specification describes a secondary flight plan is a reference plan. see at least Yadav [0025]).
Regarding claim 16 (and similarly claim 7), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Holder further discloses a system where the clone of the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes in the cruising altitude of the aircraft (see at least [0046] and [0003]).
Regarding claim 17 (and similarly claim 8), Yadav further discloses a system where the clone of the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes in the arrival plan of the aircraft (see at least [0003], where pilot is modifying the route plan arrival point).
Regarding claim 18 (and similarly claim 9), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Yadav discloses a system where the clone of the reference flight plan is modified to reflect changes in the runway used by the aircraft (see at least [0003], where pilot is modifying the route to new destination e.g., new runway).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0215387 (“Yadav”), and in view of US 2022/0358696 (“Holder”), as applied to claim 3 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2018/0304993 (“Offredi”).
Regarding claim 13 (and similarly claim 4), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Yadav in view of Holder does not disclose claim 14. However, Offredi discloses a system where the modified secondary flight plan handles upcoming aircraft missions along the same route as the modified reference flight plan (see at least [0020] and [0046]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yadav in view of Holder to incorporate the teachings of Offredi by including the above feature for increasing safety during active flight.
Regarding claim 14 (and similarly claim 5), as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Yadav in view of Holder does not disclose claim 14. However, Offredi discloses a system where the modified secondary flight plan handles inflight aircraft emergencies (see at least [0020]).
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0215387 (“Yadav”), and in view of US 2022/0358696 (“Holder”), as applied to claim 3 and 12 above, and further in view of US 2023/0122408 (“Grimald”).
Regarding claim 15 (and similarly claim 6), Yadav in view of Holder does not disclose claim 15. However, Grimald discloses a system where the modified secondary flight plan handles optimization of aircraft flightpaths (see at least [0169] and [0023]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yadav in view of Holder to incorporate the teachings of Grimald by including the above feature for providing fasted completion of a mission.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657