DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS
2. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
In the instant case, claim 1 contains a contingent limitation based on when regular or irregular flight conditions are established.
Optional Limitations
3. Claim 11 maintains optional limitations separated by the conjunction "or". For example, to anticipate or render obvious the embodiment "wherein the sender comprises a recording device for recording flight data, or mission data, or both", only one of the three options need be found in the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 attempts to bodily incorporate claim 11, which depends from claims 10, 9, and 1; this creates antecedence issues with “An aircraft”.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s contention (see pages 5-6 filed 01 July 2026) with respect to the objections to claims 1 and 11 has been fully considered and is persuasive in view of the amendments provided. Therefore, the objections to claims 1 and 11 has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s contention (see page 6 filed 01 July 2026) with respect to the rejection of claims 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been fully considered and is persuasive in part; while the amendment to claim 9 cures the antecedence issues, claim 12 remains rejected under the same grounds and rationale (see above section 4). Therefore, the rejection of claims 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s contention (see pages 6-8 filed 01 July 2026) with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and is persuasive in view of the amendments provided. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Subsequently, the prior art rejections of all claims dependent therefrom or that incorporate claim 1 are withdrawn.
Claims Allowable - Reasons for Allowance
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
8. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 1 is allowed. None of the prior art cited could anticipate, or be combined to render obvious monitoring a connection parameter of the data connection, and an orientation parameter of the aircraft with respect to the at least one terrestrial station and to the at least one non-terrestrial station, wherein the connection parameter represents at least one of a connection quality, and a signal strength, wherein the orientation parameter contains an attitude value representing an attitude of the aircraft; and determining regular flight conditions when the connection parameter satisfies a connection threshold value, and the orientation parameter satisfies an orientation threshold value, and determining irregular flight conditions otherwise.
Independent claims 9 and 11 maintain the embodiments of claim 1 and are also allowed.
Subsequently, claims 2-8 and 10 are also now allowable due to dependence on their respective independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Prior Art
9. None of the prior art cited could anticipate or be combined to render obvious the invention of claim 12. Upon resolution of the above cited issue, claim 12 will be in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M DAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1332. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 0830-1730.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Ortiz can be reached on 571-272-1206. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN M DAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663 25 August 2026
Prosecution Insights