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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampel et al. (Hampel; US Pub No. 2019/0147755 A1) in view of Chiu et al. (Chiu; US Pub No. 2021/0099839 A1).
As per claim 1, Hampel teaches a system comprising:
at least one processor (paragraph [0031], lines 14-15); and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having computer-
executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to (paragraph [0031], lines 13-15):
receive data indicating a location of a user device (paragraph [0031], lines 1-20).
Hampel does not expressly teach determine, based on the data indicating the location of the user device, whether a user of the user device is located in a geographic area associated with an airfield;
based on a determination that the user is located in the geographic area associated
with an airfield, receive data indicating movement of the user device;
determine whether the user is inside of an airplane that has taken off based on the data
indicating the movement of the user device; and
track the location of the user device based on a determination that the user is inside of
the airplane.
Chiu teaches determine, based on the data indicating the location of the user device, whether a user of the user device is located in a geographic area associated with an airfield (paragraph [0019]);
based on a determination that the user is located in the geographic area associated
with an airfield, receive data indicating movement of the user device (paragraph [0046], lines 7-9);
determine whether the user is inside of an airplane that has taken off based on the data
indicating the movement of the user device (paragraph [0046], lines 7-9); and
track the location of the user device based on a determination that the user is inside of
the airplane (paragraph [0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the location determination as taught by Chiu, since Chiu states that such a modification would result in monitoring and tracking the usage of the device during a flight.
As per claim 2, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to:
receive additional data indicating movement of the user device;
determine whether the airplane has landed based on the additional data indicating movement
of the user device (Chiu, paragraph [0061]); and
based on a determination the airplane has landed, cease tracking the location of the user
device (Chiu, paragraph [0061]).
As per claim 3, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to:
cause the tracked location of the user device to be transmitted to a second user device (Hampel, paragraph [0033], lines 1-14).
As per claim 4, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to:
receive an indication of one or more entities (Hampel, paragraph [0060], lines 10-17); and
transmit a notification to at least one of the one or more entities based on at least one of:
an indication that the airplane has taken off;
an indication that the airplane has landed;
an indication that the location of the user device is no longer being tracked; or
an indication that a measurement of the movement of the user device has exceeded a
threshold measure (Hampel, paragraph [0060], lines 1-30: angle has changed by more than a predetermined threshold configured value).
As per claim 5, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the data indicating the location of the user device is generated by a location determination module of the user device (Hampel, paragraph [0011]: global positioning system (GPS)).
As per claim 6, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, to receive the data indicating the location of the user device, the user device transmits the data indicating the location of the user device at a first frequency (Hampel, paragraph [0033], lines 1-8; paragraph [0035], lines 19-23: multiple communication channels), and
wherein to track the location of the user device, the computer-executable instructions further
cause the system to cause the user device to transmit additional data indicating the location of the user device at a second frequency (Hampel, paragraph [0035], lines 1-23: relay navigation data over one of multiple communication channels).
As per claim 7, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 6, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to:
detect that the airplane has landed (Chiu, paragraph [0061]); and
cause the user device to transmit additional data indicating the location of the user device at
the first frequency (Hampel, paragraph [0033], lines 1-8; paragraph [0035], lines 19-23: multiple communication channels).
As per claim 8, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, to determine whether the user of the user device is located in a geographic area associated with an airfield, the computer-executable instructions cause the system to:
identify a geographic area within which the airfield is located (Chiu, paragraph [0061]); and
compare the location of the user device to the geographic area within which the airfield is
located (Chiu, paragraph [0061]).
As per claim 9, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein, to determine whether the user of the user device is inside of an airplane that has taken off, the computer-executable instructions cause the system to:
identify a geographic area associated with a runway of the airfield (Chiu, paragraph [0061]);
determine whether the user is located within the geographic area based on the geographic
area and the location of the user device (Chiu, paragraph [0061]); and
determine whether the user is inside of an airplane that has taken off based on the
determination of whether the user is located within the geographic area and the data indicating the movement of the user device (Chiu, paragraph [0061]).
As per claim 12, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein data indicating the movement of the user device comprises data received from at least one of:
a gyroscope sensor of the user device;
an accelerometer of the user device;
a location determination module of the user device; or
a global-positioning-system module of the user device (Hampel, paragraph [0031], lines 9-20).
As per claim 13, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein a geographic area associated with an airfield comprises a geographic area associated with an off-airport landing site (Chiu, paragraph [0061]).
As per claim 14, Hampel in view of Chiu further teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to:
receive an indication of an off-airport landing site (Chiu, paragraph [0061]); and
identify a geographic area associated with the off-airport landing site based on the indication
of the off-airport landing site (Chiu, paragraph [0061]).
As per claim 15, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a non-transitory computer-readable medium having contents configured to cause at least one processor to perform a method comprising:
receiving data indicating a location of a user device;
determining whether a user of the user device is located in a geographic area associated with
an airfield based on the data indicating the location of the user device;
based on a determination that the user is located in the geographic area associated with an
airfield, receiving data indicating movement of the user device; and
determine whether the user of the user device is inside of an airplane that has taken off based
on the data indicating the movement of the user device; and
tracking the location of the user device based on a determination that the user of the user
device is inside of the airplane that has taken off.
As per claim 16, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving additional data indicating movement of the user device;
determining whether the airplane has landed based on the additional data indicating
movement of the user device; and
based on a determination the airplane has landed, ceasing tracking the location of the user
device.
As per claim 17, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises:
causing the tracked location of the user device to be transmitted to a second user device.
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 4 above) the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving an indication of one or more entities; and
transmitting a notification to at least one of the one or more entities based on at least one of:
an indication that the airplane has taken off;
an indication that the airplane has landed;
an indication that the location of the user device is no longer being tracked; or
an indication that a measurement of the movement of the user device has exceeded a threshold measure.
As per claim 19, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a method comprising:
receiving data indicating a location of a user device;
determining whether a user of the user device is located in a geographic area associated with
an airfield based on the data indicating the location of the user device;
based on a determination that the user is located in the geographic area associated with an
airfield, receiving data indicating movement of the user device; and
determine whether the user of the user device is inside of an airplane that has taken off based
on the data indicating the movement of the user device; and
tracking the location of the user device based on a determination that the user of the user
device is inside of the airplane that has taken off.
As per claim 20, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the method of claim 19, further comprising:
receiving additional data indicating movement of the user device;
determining whether the airplane has landed based on the additional data indicating
movement of the user device; and
based on a determination the airplane has landed, ceasing tracking the location of the user
device.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hampel in view of Chiu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suiter et al. (Suiter; US Patent No. 11,657,721 B1).
As per claim 10, Hampel in view of Chiu teaches the system of claim 1.
Hampel in view of Chiu does not expressly teach wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to:
receive historical data indicating one or more flights in which the user piloted an airplane, the
historical data including at least one of:
an indication of an airplane flown by the user,
an airfield from which the user took off, or an airfield from which the user landed at; and
identify a time at which the airplane took off based on the data indicating the movement of
the user device and the determination that the user is inside of an airplane that has taken off;
receive flight data based on the identified time at which the airplane took off and the airfield,
the flight data including information describing the airplane; and
determine whether the user is flying the airplane based on the information describing the
airplane.
Suiter teaches wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to:
receive historical data indicating one or more flights in which the user piloted an airplane (col. 16, lines 8-18), the historical data including at least one of:
an indication of an airplane flown by the user (col. 16, lines 10-11),
an airfield from which the user took off, or an airfield from which the user landed at (col. 16, lines 12-14); and
identify a time at which the airplane took off based on the data indicating the movement of
the user device and the determination that the user is inside of an airplane that has taken off (col. 16, lines 12-14: flight plan; col. 24, lines 37-38);
receive flight data based on the identified time at which the airplane took off and the airfield,
the flight data including information describing the airplane (col. 16, lines 8-18); and
determine whether the user is flying the airplane based on the information describing the
airplane (col. 1, lines 27-32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the historical flight data as taught by Suiter, since Suiter states in column 16, lines 3-19 that such a modification would result in optimizing the aircraft performance based of past pilot data.
As per claim 11, Hampel in view of Chiu, and further in view of Suiter, further teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the computer-executable instructions further cause the system to:
based on a determination that the user is flying the airplane (Hampel, paragraph [0011]: pilot mode):
cause data indicating the user flying the airplane and the tracked location of the user device to be transmitted to a second user device (Hampel, paragraph [0006], lines 25-28; paragraph [0011]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Feyereisen et al. (US Pub No. 2023/0102215 A1): similar inventive concept
Rosenbach (US Patent No. 9,277,355 B1): similar inventive concept
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights