DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a Non-final Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-18 are currently pending and are addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
NPL documents 1-4 from the 12/19/2024 IDS were not considered since legible copies were not provided, as required by 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
NPL document 5 (U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/303,993) was not considered because it does not identify the inventor, as required by 37 CFR 1.98(b)(3).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 830 and 1430. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to due to a typographical error in line 5 (“preform”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0033] recites “…GPS processor 203…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error since Fig. 2 shows GPS and processor as separate components “202” and “203”.
[0038] recites “…various other imaging system can be used…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[0038] recites “…to greatly enhances…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect.
The first sentence of [0039] appears to be missing ending punctuation.
[0040] recites “The compass 212 determining direction of the pilot’s head thus providing the heading”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[0041] contains a hyperlink, which should be removed.
[0041] recites “This algorithms…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[0041] recites “For aircrafts and object…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[0042] recites “…is provide…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[0042] recites “The camera is leading aircraft(s) thus can provide…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
[0042] recites “…given them better situational awareness”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error.
[0058] recites “…in article…”, which appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the relative position” and “the subset of formation aircraft…”. Examiner respectfully recommends using “a” or “an” instead of “the” when introducing a new term to improve clarity.
Claim 3 recites “…wherein one or more computing devices collect location data using sensors comprises…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Claim 4 recites “…wherein chalk responsibilities for each aircraft…is updated…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be grammatically incorrect.
Claim 7 recites “the location”, “the size” and “the view”. Examiner respectfully recommends using “a” or “an” instead of “the” when introducing a new term to improve clarity.
Claim 14 recites “…each located with a different aircraft in the formation…”, in which the underlined portion appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
the data capture means in claims 14-18:
“…for obtaining aircraft position, orientation, altitude, and velocity data…”
the data analysis module in claims 14-18:
“…for determining aircraft relative position and velocity…”
the communication module in claims 14-18:
“…for transmitting and receiving data with a computing device in a second aircraft…”
“…transmitting and receiving data with an operatively coupled augmented reality display device…”
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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the identified procedure”. It is unclear if this is referring to the identified formation flight procedure recited in lines 7-9.
Claim 1 recites “an operatively coupled augmented reality display device”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same display device recited in line 1.
Claim 1 recites “one or more computing devices”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same computing devices recited in lines 3-4.
Claim 3 recites “wherein one or more computing devices”. It is unclear which instance of “one or more computing devices” is being referred to in parent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites “the flight procedure”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same “identified formation flight procedure” recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the completion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the formation flight procedure”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same “identified formation flight procedure” recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the completion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the formation flight procedure”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same “identified formation flight procedure” recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the trailing aircraft" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the data collected from the lead computing device and trail computing device” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites “…a specified computing device in the formation flight…”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same specified computing device recited in line 2.
Claim 10 recites “…a hardware display operatively coupled to the specified computing device in the formation flight”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same hardware display recited in line 1.
Claim 11 recites “…in the formation”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same formation recited in parent claim 10 (“formation flight”).
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the formation” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “…containing an augmented reality display device…”. It is unclear whether this is referring to the same augmented reality display device recited in line 3.
Claim 14 recites “…a computing device in a second aircraft…”. It is unclear whether this is referring to the same computing device(s) recited in line 7.
Claim 14 recites “…an operatively coupled augmented reality display device…”. It is unclear whether this is referring to the same augmented reality display device recited in lines 3 and 8-9.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the screen” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites “…the data capture means for obtaining aircraft position and altitude data…” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “…the data capture means for obtaining aircraft orientation data…” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “…the data capture means for obtaining aircraft velocity data…” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “…the data capture means for obtaining aircraft altitude data…” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations “data capture means”, “data analysis module”, and “communication module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions of obtaining aircraft position, orientation, altitude, and velocity data, determining aircraft relative position and velocity, and transmitting and receiving data. Although the specification provides structure for performing each of these functions, such as the gyroscope in [0040] for measuring orientation, the computing devices in [0047] for determining relative position of an aircraft, and the transceiver in [0036] for transmitting and receiving data, the specification does not clearly link the data capture means, data analysis module, or communication module to any of the provided structure.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent Claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method for issuing formation flight procedural guidance on an augmented reality display device (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A method for issuing formation flight procedural guidance on an augmented reality display device comprising:
collecting position data for each formation aircraft using one or more computing devices;
determining the relative position in formation of each formation aircraft based on the collected position data;
identifying a formation flight procedure to be conducted;
determining the subset of formation aircraft affected by the identified formation flight procedure;
mapping procedural guidance for the identified procedure to each formation aircraft in the subset, based on their relative position in formation; and
issuing procedural guidance to an operatively coupled augmented reality display device in each formation aircraft in the subset using one or more computing devices.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “determining the relative position in formation of each formation aircraft based on the collected position data” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining a relative position of an aircraft on based on available position data. The limitation “identifying a formation flight procedure to be conducted” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally identifying a formation flight procedure. The limitation “determining the subset of formation aircraft affected by the identified formation flight procedure” encompasses mentally determining or selecting a subset of formation aircraft. Lastly, the limitation “mapping procedural guidance for the identified procedure to each formation aircraft in the subset, based on their relative position in formation” encompasses mentally mapping or assigning procedural guidance to a specific aircraft.
Step 2A Prong 2: 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”):
A method for issuing formation flight procedural guidance on an augmented reality display device comprising:
collecting position data for each formation aircraft using one or more computing devices;
determining the relative position in formation of each formation aircraft based on the collected position data;
identifying a formation flight procedure to be conducted;
determining the subset of formation aircraft affected by the identified formation flight procedure;
mapping procedural guidance for the identified procedure to each formation aircraft in the subset, based on their relative position in formation; and
issuing procedural guidance to an operatively coupled augmented reality display device in each formation aircraft in the subset using one or more computing devices.
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 additional limitation of “collecting position data for each formation aircraft using one or more computing devices”, the examiner submits it is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitation “issuing procedural guidance to an operatively coupled augmented reality display device in each formation aircraft in the subset using one or more computing devices” is also recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere post-solution displaying or data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the additional limitations of the “augmented reality display device”, “formation aircraft”, and “one or more computing devices” merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle control 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 is not 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.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “augmented reality display device”, “formation aircraft”, and “one or more computing devices” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than integrating the exception into a technological environment. The examiner also submits that the additional limitations of “collecting position data for each formation aircraft using one or more computing devices” and “issuing procedural guidance to an operatively coupled augmented reality display device in each formation aircraft in the subset using one or more computing devices” is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering and post-solution displaying).
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 well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitation of “collecting position data for each formation aircraft using one or more computing devices” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of 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), which 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. Furthermore, the additional limitation “issuing procedural guidance to an operatively coupled augmented reality display device in each formation aircraft in the subset using one or more computing devices” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of MPEP 2106.05(g) and the cases cited therein, including OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, which indicate that “presenting offers” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed at a high level of generality.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Regarding Independent Claim 7:
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to a method for identifying a leading aircraft on a trailing aircraft augmented reality display and arranging formation flight information on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 15 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 7 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 7 recites:
A method for identifying a leading aircraft on a trailing aircraft augmented reality display and arranging formation flight information on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display accordingly comprising:
forming a subsequent couple using computing devices, wherein a computing device on the leading aircraft is a lead computing device and a computing device on the trailing aircraft is a trail computing device;
determining the location of the leading aircraft on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display using data from the lead computing device, data from the trail computing device, and data from one or more gyroscopes and/or one or more compasses associated with the trailing augmented reality display;
determining the size of the leading aircraft on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display using data from the lead computing device and data from the trail computing device; and
arranging formation flight information for a virtual overlay on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display such that the formation flight information does not obstruct the view of the leading aircraft.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “forming a subsequent couple” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally forming a subsequent couple (i.e., forming a group). The limitation “determining the location of the leading aircraft…using data from the lead computing device, data from the trail computing device, and data from one or more gyroscopes and/or one or more compasses associated with the trailing augmented reality display” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining a location using available data. The limitation “determining the size of the leading aircraft…using data from the lead computing device and data from the trail computing device” encompasses mentally determining or recognizing the size of the leading aircraft using available data. Lastly, the limitation “arranging formation flight information for a virtual overlay…such that the formation flight information does not obstruct the view of the leading aircraft” encompasses mentally arranging information.
Step 2A Prong 2: 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”):
A method for identifying a leading aircraft on a trailing aircraft augmented reality display and arranging formation flight information on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display accordingly comprising:
forming a subsequent couple using computing devices, wherein a computing device on the leading aircraft is a lead computing device and a computing device on the trailing aircraft is a trail computing device;
determining the location of the leading aircraft on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display using data from the lead computing device, data from the trail computing device, and data from one or more gyroscopes and/or one or more compasses associated with the trailing augmented reality display;
determining the size of the leading aircraft on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display using data from the lead computing device and data from the trail computing device; and
arranging formation flight information for a virtual overlay on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display such that the formation flight information does not obstruct the view of the leading 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.
The additional limitations “on a trailing aircraft augmented reality display” and “using computing devices, wherein a computing device on the leading aircraft is a lead computing device and a computing device on the trailing aircraft is a trail computing device” merely apply the abstract idea into a technological environment using generic computer components.
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 is not 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.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 7 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “on a trailing aircraft augmented reality display” and “using computing devices, wherein a computing device on the leading aircraft is a lead computing device and a computing device on the trailing aircraft is a trail computing device” are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than integrating the exception into a technological environment.
Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Regarding Independent Claim 10:
Step 1: Claim 10 is directed to a method for visualizing the real-time status of a formation flight (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 10 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 10 recites:
A method for visualizing the real-time status of a formation flight on a hardware display operatively coupled to a specified computing device comprising:
collecting position, altitude, and inertial data for each aircraft in formation flight using one or more computing devices;
transmitting collected aircraft data to a specified computing device in the formation flight;
processing the collected aircraft data to generate a real-time formation flight visualization and data summary; and
displaying the formation flight visualization and data summary on a hardware display operatively coupled to the specified computing device in the formation flight.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “processing the collected aircraft data to generate a real-time formation flight visualization and data summary” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally generating a data summary and using pen and paper to produce a formation flight visualization in real-time using available data.
Step 2A Prong 2: 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”):
A method for visualizing the real-time status of a formation flight on a hardware display operatively coupled to a specified computing device comprising:
collecting position, altitude, and inertial data for each aircraft in formation flight using one or more computing devices;
transmitting collected aircraft data to a specified computing device in the formation flight;
processing the collected aircraft data to generate a real-time formation flight visualization and data summary; and
displaying the formation flight visualization and data summary on a hardware display operatively coupled to the specified computing device in the formation flight.
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.
The additional limitations “collecting position, altitude, and inertial data for each aircraft in formation flight using one or more computing devices”, “transmitting collected aircraft data to a specified computing device in the formation flight”, and “displaying the formation flight visualization and data summary on a hardware display operatively coupled to the specified computing device in the formation flight” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering/transmission and post-solution displaying, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the additional limitations “hardware display”, “specified computing device”, and “one or more computing devices” are recited at a high level of generality and merely integrate the abstract idea into a technological environment using generic computer components.
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 is not 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.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 10 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations “collecting position, altitude, and inertial data for each aircraft in formation flight using one or more computing devices”, “transmitting collected aircraft data to a specified computing device in the formation flight”, and “displaying the formation flight visualization and data summary on a hardware display operatively coupled to the specified computing device in the formation flight” are insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitations “hardware display”, “specified computing device”, and “one or more computing devices” are recited at a high level of generality and merely integrate the abstract idea into a technological environment using generic computer components.
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 well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations “collecting position, altitude, and inertial data for each aircraft in formation flight using one or more computing devices” and “transmitting collected aircraft data to a specified computing device in the formation flight” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of 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), which 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. Furthermore, the additional limitation “displaying the formation flight visualization and data summary on a hardware display operatively coupled to the specified computing device in the formation flight” is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of MPEP 2106.05(g) and the cases cited therein, including OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, which indicate that “presenting offers” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed at a high level of generality.
Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Regarding Independent Claim 14:
Step 1: Claim 14 is directed to a method calculating and displaying formation flight information in an aircraft (i.e., a process). Therefore, claim 14 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong 1: Regarding Prong 1 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 following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 14 recites:
A system for calculating and displaying formation flight information in an aircraft, using an augmented reality display device, the system comprising:
one or more augmented reality display devices wearable by a pilot of an aircraft, each located with a different aircraft in the formation, each augmented reality display device comprising a display screen at least partially transparent which is configured to display formation flight information;
one or more computing devices, each located within a different aircraft in the formation, to include at least one aircraft in the formation containing an augmented reality display device, each computing device comprising and/or operatively connected to: data capture means for obtaining aircraft position, orientation, altitude, and velocity data;
a data analysis module for determining aircraft relative position and velocity;
a communication module for: transmitting and receiving data with a computing device in a second aircraft; and
transmitting and receiving data with an operatively coupled augmented reality display device; and
a virtual overlay program for displaying information relating to aircraft relative position and velocity on the screen of the operatively coupled augmented reality display device.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitations in the human mind. For example, “for determining aircraft relative position and velocity” in the context of this claim encompasses mentally determining aircraft relative position and velocity.
Step 2A Prong 2: 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”):
A system for calculating and displaying formation flight information in an aircraft, using an augmented reality display device, the system comprising:
one or more augmented reality display devices wearable by a pilot of an aircraft, each located with a different aircraft in the formation, each augmented reality display device comprising a display screen at least partially transparent which is configured to display formation flight information;
one or more computing devices, each located within a different aircraft in the formation, to include at least one aircraft in the formation containing an augmented reality display device, each computing device comprising and/or operatively connected to: data capture means for obtaining aircraft position, orientation, altitude, and velocity data;
a data analysis module for determining aircraft relative position and velocity;
a communication module for: transmitting and receiving data with a computing device in a second aircraft; and
transmitting and receiving data with an operatively coupled augmented reality display device; and
a virtual overlay program for displaying information relating to aircraft relative position and velocity on the screen of the operatively coupled augmented reality display device.
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.
The additional limitations “display formation flight information”, “obtaining aircraft position, orientation, altitude, and velocity data”, “transmitting and receiving data with a computing device in a second aircraft”, “transmitting and receiving data with an operatively coupled augmented reality display device”, and “displaying information relating to aircraft relative position and velocity on the screen of the operatively coupled augmented reality display device” are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering/transmission and post-solution displaying, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the additional limitations “augmented reality display device”, “one or more augmented reality display devices wearable by a pilot of an aircraft, each located with a different aircraft in the formation, each augmented reality display device comprising a display screen at least partially transparent which is configured to display formation flight information”, “one or more computing devices, each located within a different aircraft in the formation, to include at least one aircraft in the formation containing an augmented reality display device, each computing device comprising and/or operatively connected to: data capture means”, “a data analysis module”, “a communication module”, “ an operatively coupled augmented reality display device”, and “the screen of the operatively coupled augmented reality display device” are recited at a high level of generality and merely integrate the abstract idea into a technological environment using generic computer components.
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 is not 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.
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 14 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 the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the limitations “display formation flight information”, “obtaining aircraft position, orientation, altitude, and velocity data”, “transmitting and receiving data with a computing device in a second aircraft”, “transmitting and receiving data with an operatively coupled augmented reality display device”, and “displaying information relating to aircraft relative position and velocity on the screen of the operatively coupled augmented reality display device” are insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional limitations “augmented reality display device”, “one or more augmented reality display devices wearable by a pilot of an aircraft, each located with a different aircraft in the formation, each augmented reality display device comprising a display screen at least partially transparent which is configured to display formation flight information”, “one or more computing devices, each located within a different aircraft in the formation, to include at least one aircraft in the formation containing an augmented reality display device, each computing device comprising and/or operatively connected to: data capture means”, “a data analysis module”, “a communication module”, “ an operatively coupled augmented reality display device”, and “the screen of the operatively coupled augmented reality display device” are recited at a high level of generality and merely integrate the abstract idea into a technological environment using generic computer components.
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 well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations “obtaining aircraft position, orientation, altitude, and velocity data”, “transmitting and receiving data with a computing device in a second aircraft”, and “transmitting and receiving data with an operatively coupled augmented reality display device” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of 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), which 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. Furthermore, the additional limitations “display formation flight information” and “displaying information relating to aircraft relative position and velocity on the screen of the operatively coupled augmented reality display device” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in light of MPEP 2106.05(g) and the cases cited therein, including OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, which indicate that “presenting offers” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed at a high level of generality.
Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-9, 11-13, and 15-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception. Dependent claim 2 is directed to identification of the formation flight procedure to be conducted being accomplished through a user input form, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering), and dependent claim 3 is further directed to collecting location data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. Dependent claim 4 is directed to updating displayed chalk responsibilities in accordance with aircraft data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying), and dependent claim 5 is directed to the completion of the formation flight procedure and/or subsequent cancellation of issued procedural guidance being accomplished through a user input form, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering). Dependent claim 6 is further directed to the abstract idea of determining whether the position of each aircraft is within a threshold, dependent claim 8 is directed to continually rearranging formation flight information in response to changes in aircraft data, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., post-solution displaying), and dependent claim 9 further describes the collected data. Dependent claims 11-12 further describe the formation flight visualization and data summary, and dependent claim 13 is directed to storing the formation flight visualization and data summary, which is insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., data storage and transmission). Dependent claims 15-18 further describe the data capture means.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-18 is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robinson of US 20210049925 A1, filed 10/30/2020, hereinafter “Robinson”.
Regarding claim 14, Robinson discloses:
A system for calculating and displaying formation flight information in an aircraft, using an augmented reality display device, the system comprising: (See at least Abstract: “…The training system may include an aircraft sensor system affixed to the aircraft adapted to provide a location of the aircraft, including an altitude of the aircraft, speed of the aircraft, and directional attitude of the aircraft…The helmet may include a see-through computer display through which the pilot sees an environment outside of the aircraft with computer content overlaying the environment to create an augmented reality view of the environment for the pilot…”)
one or more augmented reality display devices wearable by a pilot of an aircraft, (See at least [0054]: “The augmented and virtual reality display device 106 may display content to a pilot flying the aircraft 200. The augmented and virtual reality display device 106 may be one of a head-mounted display (HMD)…”)
each located with a different aircraft in the formation, (See at least [0159]: “…each pilot may see other pilot's virtual image in their augmented and virtual reality equipment.”)
each augmented reality display device comprising a display screen at least partially transparent which is configured to display formation flight information; (See at least [0100]: “…the first head mount display 400 may include a display device 406 to present visuals. The display device may a first see-through display device”)
one or more computing devices, each located within a different aircraft in the formation, to include at least one aircraft in the formation containing an augmented reality display device, (See at least [0081]: “…the first presentation device may include a first head mount display. Further, the second presentation device may include a second head mount display” & [0098]: “…the first processor may be configured for controlling presentation of the at least one first presentation data on the at least one first presentation device 314…the second processor may be configured for controlling presentation of the at least one second presentation data on the at least one second presentation device 324…”)
each computing device comprising and/or operatively connected to: data capture means for obtaining aircraft position, orientation, altitude, and velocity data; (See at least [0087]: “…the at least one first sensor 310 may be communicatively coupled to a first processor associated with the vehicle. Further, the first processor may be configured for determining one or more of the first user location and the first user orientation based on analysis of the first image…” & [0078]: “…the at least one first sensor 310 may be configured for sensing at least one first physical variable associated with the first vehicle 308…the at least one first physical variable may include…a first location, a first speed…”. See also [0121] regarding the first location including a first altitude.)
a data analysis module for determining aircraft relative position and velocity; (See at least [0151]: “…For example, a real pilot in a real aircraft flying over Nevada may be able to ‘see’ a second plane that is actually flying over Virginia as an augmented reality representation in close proximity to the real aircraft. The relative positioning of the representation of the second aircraft to the real aircraft may be programmed based on the training scenario. The scenario, for example, may begin by geospatially locating the two visually separated aircraft within 50 feet of one another in a common virtual airspace… If the either plane makes a real maneuver that affects the relative position of the two aircraft in the virtual environment, the result will be shown by changing the position of the representation of the other aircraft. If the second aircraft puts on its afterburners and the first does not, the pilot of the first aircraft will see the second aircraft pull away in the virtual airspace as the second aircraft flies faster in its real airspace.”)
a communication module for: transmitting and receiving data with a computing device in a second aircraft; and (See at least [0073]: “…the communication device 302 may be configured for transmitting at least one second presentation data to at least one second presentation device 324 associated with the second vehicle 318. Further, the at least one second presentation device 324 may include a second receiver 326 configured for receiving the at least one second presentation data over the second communication channel…”)
transmitting and receiving data with an operatively coupled augmented reality display device; and (See at least [0073]: “…the communication device 302 may be configured for transmitting at least one second presentation data to at least one second presentation device 324 associated with the second vehicle 318. Further, the at least one second presentation device 324 may include a second receiver 326 configured for receiving the at least one second presentation data over the second communication channel…” & [0081]: “…the first presentation device may include a first head mount display. Further, the second presentation device may include a second head mount display.”)
a virtual overlay program for displaying information relating to aircraft relative position and velocity on the screen of the operatively coupled augmented reality display device. (See at least [0150-0151]: “…the common virtual airspace includes a computer generated training asset that is viewable by an operator of each vehicle as content overlaying a real airspace surrounding each of the respective vehicles. It is presented as augmented reality content. A system may identify a geospatial location for each of the two or more vehicles within the virtual airspace, which may be based on the vehicle's actual geospatial locations within their respective airspace and represented within the common virtual airspace…If the either plane makes a real maneuver that affects the relative position of the two aircraft in the virtual environment, the result will be shown by changing the position of the representation of the other aircraft. If the second aircraft puts on its afterburners and the first does not, the pilot of the first aircraft will see the second aircraft pull away in the virtual airspace as the second aircraft flies faster in its real airspace.”)
Regarding claim 15, Robinson discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Robinson additionally discloses:
wherein the data capture means for obtaining aircraft position and altitude data comprises one or more global positioning system (GPS) receivers. (See at least [0050]: “…a geospatial location system adapted to identify a current location of a vehicle (e.g. GPS…” & [0121]: “…the first location including a first altitude associated with the first vehicle 708…”)
Regarding claim 16, Robinson discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Robinson additionally discloses:
wherein the data capture means for obtaining aircraft orientation data comprises one or more gyroscopes. (See at least [0031]: “…To maintain an accurate geometric understanding, a system and method may track information from sensors mounted within the vehicle, including a one or more sensors such as…gyroscopes…”)
Regarding claim 17, Robinson discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Robinson additionally discloses:
wherein the data capture means for obtaining aircraft velocity data comprises one or more accelerometers. (See at least [0077-0078]: “…the at least one first sensor 310 may include one or more of…a first accelerometer…the at least one first sensor 310 may be configured for sensing at least one first physical variable associated with the first vehicle 308…the at least one first physical variable may include…a first speed…”)
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) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byxbe of US 20210350712 A1, filed 05/11/2020, hereinafter “Byxbe”, in view of Robinson.
Regarding claim 1, Byxbe teaches:
A method for issuing formation flight procedural guidance (See at least Abstract: “A formation monitoring system for a plurality of aircraft flying in formation is disclosed…”)
collecting position data for each formation aircraft using one or more computing devices; (See at least [0041]: “…the formation monitoring system includes a receiver 204. The receiver 204 receives positioning signals from one or more aircraft in the flying formation…” & [0055]: “…[0055]: “…the leader aircraft 304 may receive position signals 328 from all follower aircraft 312…”)
determining the relative position in formation of each formation aircraft based on the collected position data; (See at least [0041]: “…the receiver 204 may receive GPS signals from another aircraft, allowing the formation monitoring system 200 to determine the relative distance between the two aircraft” & [0055]: “…the leader aircraft 304 may…calculate the relative position of all aircraft in the aircraft formation 300…”)
identifying a formation flight procedure to be conducted; (See at least [0045]: “…the formation display 120 itself may be configured as a touch-sensitive user interface 224, wherein an aircraft depicted on the formation display 120 is selected for a command to move to another location within the formation, the signal being sent directly from the formation display 120 to the controller 208…”)
determining the subset of formation aircraft affected by the identified formation flight procedure; (See at least [0045]: “…the formation display 120 itself may be configured as a touch-sensitive user interface 224, wherein an aircraft depicted on the formation display 120 is selected for a command to move to another location within the formation, the signal being sent directly from the formation display 120 to the controller 208…”)
mapping procedural guidance for the identified procedure to each formation aircraft in the subset, based on their relative position in formation; and (See at least [0056]: “In some embodiments, “Chalk 1” 308 is configured to send a change-position signal 332 to one or more follower aircraft 312 (e.g., “Chalk 2” 316 in FIG. 2). For example, “Chalk 1” 308 may send a change-position signal 332 to “Chalk 2” 316, commanding the aircraft to move to a position directly behind “Chalk 1” 308 (e.g., as an initial movement within the aircraft formation 300 that is shifting from an echelon right formation to an in-line formation). After the “Chalk 2” 316 has moved to the appropriate position within the aircraft formation 300, “Chalk 1” may then send change-position signals 332 to “Chalk 3” 320 and “Chalk 4” 324 simultaneously or in sequence to move to their respective position in the in-line formation.”)
issuing procedural guidance (See at least [0063]: “In some embodiments, the change-position signals 332 for one or more aircraft may be presented on the formation display 120. For example, “Chalk 2” 316 may be directed by “Chalk 1” 308 to move forward and to the right to a new “Chalk 2” position 404. In another example, “Chalk 3” 316 may be directed by “Chalk 1” 308 to move back slightly to a new “Chalk 3” position 408. In another example, “Chalk 4” 316 may be directed by “Chalk 1” 308 to move forward and to the right to a new “Chalk 4” position 412…”)
Byxbe does not explicitly teach:
…on an augmented reality display device…
…to an operatively coupled augmented reality display device in each formation aircraft in the subset using one or more computing devices.
Robinson teaches:
…on an augmented reality display device… (See at least [0054]: “The augmented and virtual reality display device 106 may display content to a pilot flying the aircraft 200. The augmented and virtual reality display device 106 may be one of a head-mounted display (HMD)…”)
…to an operatively coupled augmented reality display device in each formation aircraft in the subset using one or more computing devices. (See at least [0088]: “…the first presentation device may include a first see-through display device disposed in a first windshield of the first vehicle 308. Further, the second presentation device may include a second see-through display device disposed in a second windshield of the second vehicle 318” & [0162]: “…the augmented reality view 1300 may include a navigation marker 1308 indicating to the pilot 1302 that the civilian aircraft 1304 should take a left turn…”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Byxbe’s method with Robinson’s technique of displaying information on an augmented reality display device in each formation aircraft. Doing so would be obvious “to guide the operator with respect to the other vehicle or object” (See at [0184] of Robinson).
Regarding claim 2, Byxbe and Robinson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Byxbe additionally teaches:
wherein the identification of the formation flight procedure to be conducted is accomplished through a user input form. (See at least [0045]: “…the formation display 120 itself may be configured as a touch-sensitive user interface 224, wherein an aircraft depicted on the formation display 120 is selected for a command to move to another location within the formation, the signal being sent directly from the formation display 120 to the controller 208…”)
Regarding claim 3, Byxbe and Robinson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Byxbe additionally teaches:
wherein one or more computing devices collect location data using sensors comprises one or more global positioning system (GPS) receivers. (See at least [0041]: “…The receiver 204 receives positioning signals from one or more aircraft in the flying formation. The signals may be configured as any positioning signal known in the art including but not limited to a global positioning signal (GPS), a doppler navigational system signal, or a dead reckoning signal. For example, the receiver 204 may receive GPS signals from another aircraft, allowing the formation monitoring system 200 to determine the relative distance between the two aircraft.”)
Regarding claim 4, Byxbe and Robinson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Byxbe additionally teaches:
wherein chalk responsibilities for each aircraft displayed on one or more operatively coupled formation of each formation aircraft following completion of the flight procedure. (See at least Fig. 1, Fig. 4, [0033]: “…In this disclosure, a display for an aircraft cockpit is described that is capable of displaying a representative view of a flying formation (i.e., a synoptic). The display shows any formation configuration changes by an aircraft within the formation and tracks the aircraft's movements during formation change in real-time…” & [0055]: “…the leader aircraft 304 may receive position signals 328 from all follower aircraft 312, calculate the relative position of all aircraft in the aircraft formation 300, then send the aircraft formation data to follower aircraft 312 to appear on their respective formation displays 120. For example, “Chalk 1” 308 may receive position signals from “Chalk 2” 316, “Chalk 3” 320, and “Chalk 4” 324, calculate the relative positions of each aircraft to each other, then send the data back to each aircraft…”)
Although Byxbe does not explicitly teach displaying the updated chalk responsibilities for each aircraft on an augmented reality display device, Byxbe does teach displaying the updated chalk responsibilities for each aircraft on a head-mounted display (See [0035] & [0054]). Additionally, Robinson teaches an augmented reality head-mounted display that displays virtual objects for aircraft mission training (See at least [0141-0145] of Robinson). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the teachings of Byxbe using the augmented reality display taught by Robinson to “coordinate navigation maneuvers with respect to the computer generated content” (See [0067] of Robinson).
Regarding claim 5, Byxbe and Robinson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Byxbe additionally teaches:
wherein the completion of the formation flight procedure and/or subsequent cancellation of issued procedural guidance is accomplished through a user input form. (See at least [0033]: “…The display is also interactive, allowing a flight leader to make suggested formation changes on the display, which are then carried out and tracked.”)
Regarding claim 6, Byxbe and Robinson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Byxbe additionally teaches:
wherein the completion of the formation flight procedure and/or subsequent cancellation of issued procedural guidance is accomplished by determining whether the position of each aircraft in the formation is within a threshold for gauging normal operations. (See at least [0009]: “…the display is further configured to indicate when all aircraft of the plurality of aircraft are in a target position” & [0065]: “…The formation compliance indicator 420 displays on the formation display 120 the status of the flying formation 300 (e.g., whether all aircraft are at the correct position as commanded by change-position signals 332 transmitted from the leader aircraft 304 or not). For example, the formation compliance indicator 420 may be configured as a border to the formation display 120, having a dark color when the aircraft have not reached the correct relative position (e.g., as in FIG. 4)…”)
Regarding claim 7, Byxbe teaches:
A method for identifying a leading aircraft on a trailing aircraft (See at least Abstract: “A formation monitoring system for a plurality of aircraft flying in formation is disclosed. The system includes a display for a leader aircraft configured to display a current position of one or more aircraft of the plurality of aircraft…” & [0055]: “In some embodiments, the leader aircraft 304 may receive position signals 328 from all follower aircraft 312, calculate the relative position of all aircraft in the aircraft formation 300, then send the aircraft formation data to follower aircraft 312 to appear on their respective formation displays 120…”)
forming a subsequent couple using computing devices, wherein a computing device on the leading aircraft is a lead computing device and a computing device on the trailing aircraft is a trail computing device; (See at least [0052-0053]: “…In some embodiments, the formation monitoring system is 200 incorporated into more than one aircraft (e.g., the leader aircraft and one or more follower aircraft)…FIG. 3 is a diagram illustrating an aircraft formation 300 configured with the formation monitoring system 200, in accordance with one or more embodiments of the disclosure. In this diagram, the aircraft formation 300 is configured as an echelon right formation for rotor aircraft that includes a leader aircraft 304 (e.g., a team lead), often referred to in military terms as “Chalk 1” 308. The aircraft formation 300 also includes three follower aircraft 312 (e.g., wingmen), are often referred to in military terms as “Chalk 2” 316, “Chalk 3” 320, and “Chalk 4” 324, respectively…”)
determining the location of the leading aircraft on the trailing aircraft (See at least Fig. 4 & [0054]: “In some embodiments the aircraft formation 300, the leader aircraft 304 and the follower aircraft 312 have formation monitoring systems 200 that are capable of tracking movement of aircraft within the aircraft formation 300. For example, “Chalk 2” 316 may send a position signal 328a to “Chalk 1” 308 that would be received by the receiver 204 of the formation monitoring system 200, where the relative position of “Chalk 2” 316 within the aircraft formation 300 would be displayed on the formation display 120. In this fashion, all aircraft may send position signals that are received by other aircraft and displayed on their respective formation display 120. For example, “Chalk 3” 320 and “Chalk 4” 324 may also each send each other a position signal 328b.”)
determining the size of the leading aircraft on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display using data from the lead computing device and data from the trail computing device; and (See at least Fig. 4 & [0054]: “In some embodiments the aircraft formation 300, the leader aircraft 304 and the follower aircraft 312 have formation monitoring systems 200 that are capable of tracking movement of aircraft within the aircraft formation 300. For example, “Chalk 2” 316 may send a position signal 328a to “Chalk 1” 308 that would be received by the receiver 204 of the formation monitoring system 200, where the relative position of “Chalk 2” 316 within the aircraft formation 300 would be displayed on the formation display 120. In this fashion, all aircraft may send position signals that are received by other aircraft and displayed on their respective formation display 120. For example, “Chalk 3” 320 and “Chalk 4” 324 may also each send each other a position signal 328b.”)
arranging formation flight information for a virtual overlay on the trailing aircraft (See at least Fig. 1 & [0036]: “…the aircraft display 110 may be an SVS display with the formation display 120 taking up the lower left corner of the aircraft display 110, with other portions of the aircraft display 110 displaying the land terrain 130 overlaid with primary flight display (PFD) symbology 140…”)
Byxbe does not explicitly teach:
…augmented reality display…
…data from one or more gyroscopes and/or one or more compasses associated with the trailing augmented reality display…
Robinson teaches:
…augmented reality display… (See at least Fig. 11 & [01510]: “FIG. 11 shows the augmented and virtual reality content shown to a real pilot (such as pilot 1102) flying a real aircraft (such as aircraft 1104), in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. The augmented and virtual reality content may include one or more live aircraft 1106 (representing real pilots flying real aircraft), one or more virtual aircraft 1108 (representing real people on the ground, flying virtual aircraft) and one or more constructed aircraft 1110 (representing aircraft generated and controlled using computer graphics and processing systems)…”)
…data from one or more gyroscopes and/or one or more compasses associated with the trailing augmented reality display… (See at least Fig. 11, [0052]: “An augmented reality system and method in accordance with the principles of the present disclosure may include…a plurality of sensors adapted to identify the vehicle's positional geometry within an environment (e.g. inertial measurement unit (IMU), G-Force sensor, compass) at the current location…” & [0146]: “…the augmented and virtual reality content shown to the real pilot flying the real aircraft may be updated based on the operational state (e.g. location, speed, direction of travel, etc.) of the virtual aircraft flown by the real people (on the ground) and the operational state (e.g. location, speed, direction of travel, etc.) of the constructed aircraft.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Byxbe’s method with Robinson’s technique of including an augmented reality display and data from one or more compasses for determining location of the leading aircraft on the trailing aircraft display. Doing so would be obvious to “allow real pilots in real aircraft using augmented and virtual reality to meet in a virtual airspace” and “improve the accuracy of the positioning of virtual content in an augmented reality system” (See at least [0042] & [0141] of Robinson).
Regarding claim 8, Byxbe and Robinson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above.
Byxbe additionally teaches:
wherein the formation flight information on the virtual overlay of the trailing aircraft (See at least [0033]: “…The display shows any formation configuration changes by an aircraft within the formation and tracks the aircraft's movements during formation change in real-time…” & [0054]: “In some embodiments the aircraft formation 300, the leader aircraft 304 and the follower aircraft 312 have formation monitoring systems 200 that are capable of tracking movement of aircraft within the aircraft formation 300. For example, “Chalk 2” 316 may send a position signal 328a to “Chalk 1” 308 that would be received by the receiver 204 of the formation monitoring system 200, where the relative position of “Chalk 2” 316 within the aircraft formation 300 would be displayed on the formation display 120. In this fashion, all aircraft may send position signals that are received by other aircraft and displayed on their respective formation display 120. For example, “Chalk 3” 320 and “Chalk 4” 324 may also each send each other a position signal 328b.”)
Robinson additionally teaches:
…augmented reality display… (See at least Fig. 11 & [01510]: “FIG. 11 shows the augmented and virtual reality content shown to a real pilot (such as pilot 1102) flying a real aircraft (such as aircraft 1104), in accordance with an exemplary embodiment. The augmented and virtual reality content may include one or more live aircraft 1106 (representing real pilots flying real aircraft), one or more virtual aircraft 1108 (representing real people on the ground, flying virtual aircraft) and one or more constructed aircraft 1110 (representing aircraft generated and controlled using computer graphics and processing systems)…”)
Regarding claim 9, Byxbe and Robinson in combination teach all the limitations of claim 8 as discussed above.
Robinson additionally teaches:
wherein the data collected from the lead computing device and trail computing device to determine location of the leading aircraft on the trailing aircraft augmented reality display comprises position and altitude data. (See at least [0078]: “…the at least one first sensor 310 may be configured for sensing at least one first physical variable associated with the first vehicle 308. Further, the at least one second sensor 320 may be configured for sensing at least one second physical variable associated with the second vehicle. In further embodiments, the at least one first physical variable may include one or more of…a first location…” & [0121]: “...based on the first location including a first altitude associated with the first vehicle 708…”. See also )
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byxbe in view of Frazier of US 20020011950 A1, filed 12/30/1998, hereinafter “Frazier”.
Regarding claim 10, Byxbe teaches:
A method for visualizing the real-time status of a formation flight on a hardware display operatively coupled to a specified computing device comprising: (See at least Abstract: “A formation monitoring system for a plurality of aircraft flying in formation is disclosed. The system includes a display for a leader aircraft configured to display a current position of one or more aircraft of the plurality of aircraft…” & [0033]: “…The display shows any formation configuration changes by an aircraft within the formation and tracks the aircraft's movements during formation change in real-time…”)
collecting position, (See at least [0041]: “…the formation monitoring system includes a receiver 204. The receiver 204 receives positioning signals from one or more aircraft in the flying formation. The signals may be configured as any positioning signal known in the art including but not limited to a global positioning signal (GPS)…”)
transmitting collected aircraft data to a specified computing device in the formation flight; (See at least [0054]: “In some embodiments the aircraft formation 300, the leader aircraft 304 and the follower aircraft 312 have formation monitoring systems 200 that are capable of tracking movement of aircraft within the aircraft formation 300. For example, “Chalk 2” 316 may send a position signal 328a to “Chalk 1” 308 that would be received by the receiver 204 of the formation monitoring system 200, where the relative position of “Chalk 2” 316 within the aircraft formation 300 would be displayed on the formation display 120. In this fashion, all aircraft may send position signals that are received by other aircraft and displayed on their respective formation display 120…”)
processing the collected aircraft data to generate a real-time formation flight visualization and data summary; and (See at least Fig. 1, [0033]: “…The display shows any formation configuration changes by an aircraft within the formation and tracks the aircraft's movements during formation change in real-time…” & [0054]: “…all aircraft may send position signals that are received by other aircraft and displayed on their respective formation display 120…”)
displaying the formation flight visualization and data summary on a hardware display operatively coupled to the specified computing device in the formation flight. (See at least Fig. 1, [0033]: “…The display shows any formation configuration changes by an aircraft within the formation and tracks the aircraft's movements during formation change in real-time…” & [0054]: “…all aircraft may send position signals that are received by other aircraft and displayed on their respective formation display 120…”)
However, Byxbe does not explicitly teach collecting altitude and inertial data for each aircraft in formation flight.
Frazier, however, teaches that ADS-B messages, which contain a respective aircraft’s velocity and altitude, are broadcast from that aircraft’s transponder (See at least Fig. 3 & [0041]).
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Byxbe’s method with Frazier’s technique of collecting altitude and inertial data for each aircraft in formation flight. Doing so would be obvious to “provide pilot/operator situational awareness when flying in a formation of multiple TCAS-equipped aircraft” (See [0069] of Frazier).
Regarding claim 11, Byxbe and Frazier in combination teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Frazier additionally teaches:
wherein the formation flight visualization and data summary comprise aircraft altitude, position, and orientation data for each aircraft in the formation. (See at least Fig. 6 & [0073]: “…the TCAS VSI/TRA display of the present invention not only shows the relative altitude 660 to the TCAS-equipped aircraft 670 (depicted as an airplane icon inside the dotted range ring 640) but annunciates the relative velocity 650 (or range-rate) of the TCAS-equipped aircraft 670 with the formation lead 250 and follower aircraft (610, 680). Own aircraft position is represented by the aircraft icon 670 at the bottom of the display headed toward the twelve o'clock position. The number (-05) on top of the airplane icon 680 represents the relative velocity (650, 652, 654) in, for example, nmi/hr and the number below the targets (e.g., 660 pointing to -01) represent the relative altitude in, for example, thousands of feet. A negative number indicates that the target aircraft (250, 610, 680) is traveling at a lower velocity than the TCAS-equipped aircraft 670 while a positive number indicates that the target aircraft (250, 610, 680) is traveling at a higher velocity than the TCAS-equipped aircraft 670…”)
Regarding claim 12, Byxbe and Frazier in combination teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Frazier additionally teaches:
wherein the formation flight visualization and data summary comprise lateral and vertical spacing between formation aircraft. (See at least Fig. 6 & [0073]: “…the TCAS VSI/TRA display of the present invention not only shows the relative altitude 660 to the TCAS-equipped aircraft 670 (depicted as an airplane icon inside the dotted range ring 640) but annunciates the relative velocity 650 (or range-rate) of the TCAS-equipped aircraft 670 with the formation lead 250 and follower aircraft (610, 680). Own aircraft position is represented by the aircraft icon 670 at the bottom of the display headed toward the twelve o'clock position. The number (-05) on top of the airplane icon 680 represents the relative velocity (650, 652, 654) in, for example, nmi/hr and the number below the targets (e.g., 660 pointing to -01) represent the relative altitude in, for example, thousands of feet. A negative number indicates that the target aircraft (250, 610, 680) is traveling at a lower velocity than the TCAS-equipped aircraft 670 while a positive number indicates that the target aircraft (250, 610, 680) is traveling at a higher velocity than the TCAS-equipped aircraft 670…”)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byxbe in view of Frazier and further in view of Robinson.
Regarding claim 13, Byxbe and Frazier in combination teach all the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above.
Byxbe and Frazier in combination do not explicitly teach:
wherein the formation flight visualization and data summary is stored in the memory of the hardware display for post-flight review.
Robinson teaches:
wherein the formation flight visualization and data summary is stored in the memory of the hardware display for post-flight review. (See at least [0045]: “…The processor may store the sensor data and evaluate the sensor data. The type of vehicle and/or its powered movement characteristics may be stored and used in conjunction with the sensor data to further understand the present condition of the vehicle. The current and past sensor data and movement characteristics may be fused and analyzed to understand the past performance of the vehicle and this trend analysis may be further used to predict a future position of the vehicle…” & [0251]: “…the processor is further adapted to analyze the stored data and generate a trend of the vehicle's locations, speed and conditions over a period of time, the processor further adapted to extrapolate the trend into a future period of time to produce a future predicted vehicle location and future positional attitude.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Byxbe and Frazier’s method with Robinson’s technique of storing formation flight visualization and data summary in the memory of the hardware display for post-flight review. Doing so would be obvious to “improve the accuracy of the positioning of virtual content in an augmented reality system” (See at least [0042] of Robinson).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson in view of Dupont De Dinechin of US 20150054664 A1, filed 03/26/2013, hereinafter “Dupont”.
Regarding claim 18, Robinson discloses all the limitations of claim 14 as discussed above.
Robinson does not explicitly teach:
wherein the data capture means for obtaining aircraft altitude data comprises one or more pressure sensors.
Dupont teaches:
wherein the data capture means for obtaining aircraft altitude data comprises one or more pressure sensors. (See at least [0020]: “a primary altitude of the aircraft determined from measurements by said static pressure sensor…” & [0080]: “The altimeter 6 is connected to the static pressure sensor 5a and the computer 3. It is capable of determining the pressure altitude Z.sub.P of the aircraft 1 relative to a reference level based on the measurement of the static pressure P.sub.S. To this end, the altimeter 6 uses for example a standard atmosphere table that includes tabulated values of static pressure as a function of altitude.”)
One having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to combine Robinson’s method with Dupont’s technique of including a pressure sensor for obtaining aircraft altitude data. Doing so would be obvious to provide “reliable alternative data and information” (See [0013] of Dupont).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KR 20190054645 A is directed to a live mission training device which uses augmented reality to display virtual objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nikki Molina whose telephone number is (571) 272-5180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 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, Aniss Chad, can be reached on (571) 270-3832. 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.
/NIKKI MARIE M MOLINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/ANISS CHAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662