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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on April 14, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on April 14, 2025.
Claims 21-40 have been presented for examination.
Claims 21-40 are currently rejected.
Claims 21-40 are currently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Surace (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0082208).
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 21
Claim 21. A method for providing cloud service to an onboard aircraft system, the method comprising:
accessing, by a cloud service system during a flight, in-flight data associated with an aircraft, wherein the in-flight data comprises telemetry data of the aircraft;
based on the in-flight data, computing, by the cloud service system, a condition associated with an operation of the aircraft;
based on the condition, computing, by the cloud service system during the flight, a deviation to flight operations of the aircraft based on the in-flight data; and
transmitting, by the cloud service system, instructions associated with the deviation to the flight operations to the aircraft,
wherein the instructions are computed in a format of an avionics system on-board the aircraft and are transmitted as digital data sent as data packets over a communication network, wherein the deviation to the flight operations are configured to be communicated to a user onboard the aircraft.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of based on the in-flight data, computing, by the cloud service system, a condition associated with an operation of the aircraft; based on the condition, computing, by the cloud service system during the flight, a deviation to flight operations of the aircraft based on the in-flight data.
These limitation, as drafted, are a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the cloud service system”. That is, other than reciting “by the cloud service system” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by the cloud service system” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. Specifically, the claims describe a person using the observed in-flight data to compute, by mentally judging or manually with the aid of pen and paper, a condition associated with the operation of the aircraft, and accordingly computing a deviation to flight operations. The mere nominal recitation of “by the cloud service system” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of accessing, by a cloud service system during a flight, in-flight data associated with an aircraft, wherein the in-flight data comprises telemetry data of the aircraft; transmitting, by the cloud service system, instructions associated with the deviation to the flight operations to the aircraft, wherein the instructions are computed in a format of an avionics system on-board the aircraft and are transmitted as digital data sent as data packets over a communication network, wherein the deviation to the flight operations are configured to be communicated to a user onboard the aircraft.
The accessing step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering in-flight data for use in the computing steps), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending data), and amounts to mere post solution data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “cloud service system” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processing environment, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. 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), 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 (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 32
Independent claim 32 recites limitations that are parallel in scope to those provided in claim 1. The recited additional elements “one or more hardware processors” and “memory storing instructions” are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Accordingly, claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rationale.
Claim 40
Independent claim 32 recites limitations that are parallel in scope to those provided in claim 1. The recited additional elements “one or more hardware processors” is recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Accordingly, claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rationale.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 22-31 and 33-39 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 22-31 and 33-39 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 21-40 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Surace (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0082208).
Regarding claim 21, Surace discloses a method for providing cloud service to an onboard aircraft system (Surace ¶ 35 “on-board vehicle navigation systems 314”), the method comprising:
accessing, by a cloud service system during a flight, in-flight data associated with an aircraft (Surace ¶ 18 “gather, store, and process vehicle data” such that “one or more communications station(s) 210 may relay data between the cloud service 205 and a vehicle, such as aircraft 131,” see ¶ 32) wherein the in-flight data comprises telemetry data of the aircraft; (Surace ¶ 44 “The GNSS receivers may determine positioning information for the aircraft 131. The positioning information may include information about one or more of position (e.g., latitude and longitude, or Cartesian coordinates), altitude, speed, heading, or track, etc. for the vehicle.”)
based on the in-flight data, computing, by the cloud service system, a condition associated with an operation of the aircraft; (Surace ¶ 43 “determine whether physical environment (e.g., buildings, structures, cranes, etc.) around the aircraft 131 and/or on/near the routes 141 may be or will be (e.g., based on location, speed, flight plan of the aircraft 131) within a safe flight envelope of the aircraft 131.”)
based on the condition, computing, by the cloud service system during the flight, a deviation to flight operations of the aircraft based on the in-flight data; and (Surace ¶ 21 discloses forming a “deviated route 142” such that “the deviated route 142 may ensure that the path and the time of the aircraft (e.g., 4-D coordinates of the flight trajectory) do not intersect any position and time coordinates of the weather constraint 121 (e.g., 4-D coordinates of the weather constraint 121).”)
transmitting, by the cloud service system, instructions associated with the deviation to the flight operations to the aircraft, (Surace ¶ 22 “the vehicle management computer of aircraft 131b may predict, prior to take-off, that spatial restriction 122, caused by buildings, would hinder the direct flight path of aircraft 131b flying from hub 112 to hub 117, as depicted in FIG. 1. In response to that prediction, the vehicle management computer of aircraft 131b may generate a 4-D trajectory with a vehicle path that bypasses a 3-dimensional zone (e.g., zone including the location and the altitude) associated with those particular buildings”)
wherein the instructions are computed in a format of an avionics system on-board the aircraft and are transmitted as digital data sent as data packets over a communication network, (Surace ¶ 91 “the computer (or “platform” as it may not be a single physical computer infrastructure) may include a data communication interface 560 for packet data communication”)
wherein the deviation to the flight operations are configured to be communicated to a user onboard the aircraft. (Surace ¶ 37 “The vehicle management computer 302 may transmit instructions/data/graphical user interface(s) to the one or more display(s) 304 and/or the pilot/user interface(s) 324,” wherein the instructions include “flight plan data,” see ¶ 33, such that “a flight path confirmation suggestion that may indicate that aircraft 131 is deviating significantly from the planned flight path 340 (e.g., due to weather, traffic, new obstacles, etc.) [i.e., the deviation to the flight operations],” see ¶ 76)
Regarding claim 22, Surace discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising:
computing, by the cloud service system during the flight, flight operations data based on the in-flight data; and (Surace ¶ 49 “The flight routing program 344 may determine the planned flight path 340 using various planning algorithms (e.g., flight planning services on-board or off-board the aircraft 131), aircraft constraints (e.g., cruising speed, maximum speed, maximum/minimum altitude, maximum range, etc.) of the aircraft 131, and/or external constraints (e.g., restricted airspace, noise abatement zones, etc.).”)
computing, by the cloud service system during the flight, the deviation to the flight operations of the aircraft based on the flight operations data. (Surace ¶ 50 “The flight routing program 344 may determine an unplanned flight path 342 based on the planned flight path 340 and unplanned event triggers, and using the various planning algorithms, the aircraft constraints of the aircraft 13”)
Regarding claim 23, Surace discloses the method of claim 22, wherein:
the flight operations data comprises at least one of: (i) a route, (ii) a flight procedure, or (iii) a landing location of the aircraft. (Surace ¶ 49 discloses “The flight routing program 344 may determine or receive a planned flight path 340”)
Regarding claim 24, Surace discloses the method of claim 21, wherein:
the telemetry data comprises at least one of (i) a location, (ii) an altitude, or (iii) a heading of the aircraft. (Surace in at least ¶ 28 “The identification message may include an identifier of the aircraft and/or transponder aircraft data (e.g., speed, location, track, etc.) of the aircraft.”)
Regarding claim 25, Surace discloses the method of claim 21, wherein:
the in-flight data comprises pilot feedback data indicative of pilot initiated interactions with the aircraft. (Surace ¶ 37 discloses that “one or more display(s) 304 and/or the pilot/user interface(s) 324 may receive user inputs, and transmit the user inputs to the vehicle management computer 302” including receiving “planned flight path 340/unplanned flight path 342 and/or the user inputs (collectively, “course”), and determine inputs to the actuation system 360 to change speed, heading, attitude of the aircraft 131 to match the course based on the control laws 358 and navigation rules 374),” see ¶ 53)
Regarding claim 26, Surace discloses the method of claim 25, wherein:
the in-flight data comprises vehicle data, wherein the vehicle data is indicative of at least one of (i) an energy level or (ii) a status of one or more aircraft systems, or (iii) a connectivity status between the aircraft and the cloud service system during the flight. (Surace ¶ 42 “the actuation systems 360 may transmit feedback/current status of the actuation systems 360 to the vehicle management computer 302 (which may be referred to as actuation systems data).”)
Regarding claim 27, Surace discloses the method of claim 21, wherein:
the cloud service system comprises a machine- learned model trained to compute the deviation to the flight operations. (Surace ¶ 80 “the vehicle data, the collective vehicle data, and the vehicle parameters may be analyzed using advanced analytics, such as machine learning, to transform the raw date (or the vehicle data and the collective vehicle data) into usable system knowledge,” wherein the “certification requirements information may also include aircraft deviation thresholds for how far off course an aircraft may deviate from (or within) a route,” see ¶ 62)
Regarding claim 28, Surace discloses the method of claim 21, wherein:
the transmitting, by the cloud service system, the computed deviation to the flight operations to the aircraft comprises automatically performing an operation. (Surace in at least ¶ 65 discloses a “trigger rule may be an actuation system rule that initiates a actuation system analysis if the vehicle data includes actuation systems data,” wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a trigger indicates an automatic subsequent operation.)
Regarding claim 29, Surace discloses the method of claim 21, wherein:
the deviation to the flight operations comprises at least one of (i) a reroute or (ii) a diversion of the aircraft. (Surace ¶ 21 discloses “the vehicle management computer may modify a direct path (e.g., the route 141 between hub 112 and hub 115) with a slight curvature away from the weather constraint 121 (e.g., a northward detour) to form a deviated route 142”)
Regarding claim 30, Surace discloses the method of claim 21, wherein:
the user onboard the aircraft comprises a pilot and (Surace in at least ¶ 35 “pilot/user interface(s) 324 to receive and communicate information from pilots and/or users 310 of the aircraft 131”)
wherein the computed deviation to the flight operations are displayable to the pilot via an on- board aircraft system. (Surace ¶ 37 discloses “The vehicle management computer 302 may transmit instructions/data/graphical user interface(s) to the one or more display(s) 304 and/or the pilot/user interface(s) 324,” wherein the display may include unplanned flight path information and updates to route information, see ¶ 50)
Regarding claim 31, Surace discloses the method of claim 21, wherein:
the condition associated with the operation of the aircraft comprises at least one of (1) a condition associated with a component of the aircraft, (2) a medial emergency, (3) a weather condition (Surace ¶ 46 “the one or more of the weather information services 318 may transmit update messages to the aircraft 131 that includes the route weather information and/or updates to the route weather information”), or (4) a potential obstruction to the aircraft. (Surace ¶ 43 discloses “the machine vision function may determine whether physical environment (e.g., buildings, structures, cranes, etc.) around the aircraft 131 and/or on/near the routes 141 may be or will be (e.g., based on location, speed, flight plan of the aircraft 131) within a safe flight envelope of the aircraft 131.”)
Regarding claim 32, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above. In addition, Surace further discloses one or more hardware processors; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations, the operations comprising the limitation of claim 21 (Surace in at least ¶¶ 92-93).
Regarding claim 33, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 22 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 34, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 23 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 35, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 24 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 36, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 25 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 37, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 38, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 27 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 28 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 40, Surace discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0317530) discloses a method for controlling flight of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) includes obtaining information about a location of an object of interest, and calculating, during operation of the UAV, a flight-restricted distance for the UAV to maintain relative to the object of interest.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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 at (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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662