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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 7 depends on claim 6 and recites the same limitations as claim 6, and claim 20 depends on claim 19 and recites the same limitations as claim 19. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, it appears Applicant intended “the companion” to read --the companion system--
In each of claims 15-20, line 1, it appears Applicant intended “the method comprises:” to read --the method further comprises:--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zygmant et al. (US PGPub. No. 2016/0077523).
Regarding claim 1, Zygmant discloses an air mobility system between an aircraft [110] and a companion system [120], the air mobility system comprising:
a data link [114, 122] configured to provide wireless communication between the companion system and the aircraft, wherein the data link is a set-aside analog channel configured to transmit audio signals that carry voice and data (¶0016-0019, ¶0022); and
state information that is received by the companion, wherein the state information indicates a basic state of the aircraft (¶0037).
Regarding claim 2, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 1, wherein the set-aside analog channel is transmitted from the companion system to the aircraft (¶0016).
Regarding claim 3, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 2, wherein the set-aside analog channel transmits a first audio data packet that indicates that a subsequent data transmission or a subsequent voice transmission is a personalized communication that is specific to the aircraft (¶0016-0019, ¶0034). Examiner notes that control signals for the aircraft are specified in some way in the transmission in order for the intended aircraft to be controlled.
Regarding claim 4, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 3, wherein the set-aside analog channel transmits a second audio data packet that indicates a command that is performed by a pilot-in-command (PIC) of the aircraft (¶0015-0016).
Regarding claim 5, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 1, wherein the set-aside analog channel is transmitted from the aircraft to the companion system (¶0016).
Regarding claim 6, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 5, wherein the set-aside analog channel transmits a plurality of audio data packets that each contain the state information of the aircraft (¶0037). Examiner notes that Zygmant’s disclosure is directed toward sustained communications for controlling an aircraft throughout its journey and includes a plurality of audio data packets including information regarding a current state of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 7, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 6, wherein the set-aside analog channel transmits a plurality of audio data packets that each contain the state information of the aircraft (¶0037). Examiner notes that Zygmant’s disclosure is directed toward sustained communications for controlling an aircraft throughout its journey and includes a plurality of audio data packets including information regarding a current state of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 9, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 1, wherein the set-aside analog channel transmits the audio signals in one direction at a time (¶0016).
Regarding claim 10, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 1, wherein the set-aside analog channel is an aviation VHF channel (¶0019, ¶0027).
Regarding claim 11, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 1, wherein the set-aside analog channel is configured to relay radio calls spoken by a companion that is part of the companion system (¶0018).
Regarding claim 12, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 11, wherein the set-aside analog channel is configured to carry commands generated by the companion (¶0016-0019).
Regarding claim 13, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 1, wherein the set-aside analog channel is configured to only transmit the audio signals that carry the voice and the data (¶0016-0019). Examiner understands Zygmant’s system to only transmit audio signals that carry the voice and the data, as no other content is disclosed as being transmitted.
Regarding claim 14, Zygmant discloses a method for providing wireless communication by an air mobility system between an aircraft [110] and a companion system [120], the method comprising:
enabling, by a companion that is part of the companion system, personalized communication between the aircraft and the companion system over a data link [114, 122] configured to provide the wireless communication between the companion system and the aircraft, wherein the data link is a set-aside analog channel configured to transmit audio signals that carry voice and data and the personalized communication is specific to the aircraft (¶0016-0019, ¶0022); and
receiving state information by the companion, wherein the state information indicates a basic state of the aircraft (¶0037). Examiner notes that control signals for the aircraft are specified in some way in the transmission in order for the intended aircraft to be controlled.
Regarding claim 15, Zygmant discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting the set-aside analog channel from the companion system to the aircraft (¶0016).
Regarding claim 16, Zygmant discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting, by the set-aside analog channel, a first audio data packet that indicates that a subsequent data transmission or a subsequent voice transmission is the personalized communication (¶0016-0019, ¶0034). Examiner notes that control signals for the aircraft are specified in some way in the transmission in order for the intended aircraft to be controlled.
Regarding claim 17, Zygmant discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting, by the set-aside analog channel, a second audio data packet that indicates a command that is performed by a PIC of the aircraft (¶0015-0016).
Regarding claim 18, Zygmant discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting the set-aside analog channel from the aircraft to the companion system (¶0016).
Regarding claim 19, Zygmant discloses the method of claim 18, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting, by the set-aside analog channel, a plurality of audio data packets that each contain the state information of the aircraft (¶0037). Examiner notes that Zygmant’s disclosure is directed toward sustained communications for controlling an aircraft throughout its journey and includes a plurality of audio data packets including information regarding a current state of the aircraft.
Regarding claim 20, Zygmant discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the method comprises:
transmitting, by the set-aside analog channel, a plurality of audio data packets that each contain the state information of the aircraft (¶0037). Examiner notes that Zygmant’s disclosure is directed toward sustained communications for controlling an aircraft throughout its journey and includes a plurality of audio data packets including information regarding a current state of the aircraft.
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zygmant as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Nehman et al. (US Patent No. 12,379,722).
Regarding claim 8, Zygmant discloses the air mobility system of claim 7 (Zygmant ¶¶0016-0019, ¶0022, ¶0037), but appears to be silent on the system further wherein the set-aside analog channel transmits an audio data packet that indicates a nature of a transmission over the data link.
Nehman, however, teaches a system for controlling unmanned vehicles such as drones, ground vehicles and robots includes multiple human-to-machine interface components to manage interactions efficiently and effectively between humans and robots with respect to control mechanisms (i.e., inputs such as voice-commands or joystick use) and monitoring (i.e., outputs such as camera or other sensor feeds, geolocation overlay, or audio feedbacks). A system according to the principles of the invention includes numerous modalities for control (e.g., voice-control, gesture-control, touch screen, joystick or other hand-held controllers) as well as monitoring (visual screen display, heads-up-display, audio feedbacks, geolocation overlay, haptic feedback, wearable sensor devices). The system is preferably expandable and may include additional modalities in the future, such as eye-tracking as compared to voice or gesture control (Nehman Abstract). Nehman further teaches that “a data packet indicates the message type is from a wearable, then the context block processes the command data as if provided by the wearable” (Nehman Col. 10, lines 12-14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Zygmant in view of Nehman. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to have modified Zygmant, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success therein, to include the system further wherein the set-aside analog channel transmits an audio data packet that indicates a nature of a transmission over the data link, as doing so was a known way of indicating a transmission’s data type for informing subsequent handling/processing of the transmission, as recognized by Nehman (Nehman Col. 10, lines 12-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V KERRIGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-8:00pm.
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, Kito Robinson can be reached at (571) 270-3921. 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.
/MICHAEL V KERRIGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3664