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 .
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 07/06/2026.
Claims 21-40 have been presented for examination.
Claims 21-40 are currently rejected.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surace (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0082208) in view of Erignac (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0104164).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on 07/06/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 102
The Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks, filed on 07/06/2026, appear to be primarily directed to the amended claim language. The Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21-40 have been considered but are moot because amendments shift the scope of claims and necessitate a new ground of rejection, which is made in view of Erignac (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0104164).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surace (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0082208) in view of Erignac (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2021/0104164).
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; (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 ¶ 32 discloses relaying data between a cloud service 205 and aircraft 131 such that “the cloud service 205 may transmit the status message to the service associated with the vehicle,” see ¶ 74, such that when the status message indicates that aircraft 131 is “deviating significantly from the planned flight path 340 (e.g., due to weather, traffic, new obstacles, etc.) ... a flight spacing suggestion that may indicate that the distance between the aircraft 131 should be increased or that the number of aircraft should be decreased for a given area/route 141,” see ¶ 76)
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, and (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,” such that “the vehicle data and collective vehicle data may be formatted into feature vectors,” and upon receiving transponder aircraft data (e.g., speed, location, track, etc.) of the aircraft 131, e.g., from the on-board vehicle navigation systems 314, transmitting the identification message to a nearby aircraft.)
Surace does not expressly disclose:
based on the format, the avionics system is configured to interpret one or more procedures executable by the aircraft; and
based on the instructions, controlling a component of the aircraft to perform an operation.
However, Erignac discloses:
based on the format, the avionics system is configured to interpret one or more procedures executable by the aircraft; and (Erignac ¶ 6 discloses “the clearance command is received at a front end module from the ground control station in text format. In some examples, the front end module interprets the clearance command and determines whether the clearance command contains a taxi or exit command”)
based on the instructions, controlling a component of the aircraft to perform an operation. (Erignac ¶ 6 discloses that “executing the planned taxi route includes causing a vehicle management system to control movement of the aircraft along an input ground path”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the communication of data in the avionics system of Surace with specifying that based on a format, the avionics system is configured to interpret one or more procedures executable by the aircraft, as disclosed by Erignac, with reasonable expectation of success, because automating different processes of an aircraft, such as using a specific format for data communication, can lead to a reduction in operation costs and increases in predictability and efficiency (Erignac ¶ 31), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 22, Surace in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac discloses the method of claim 21, wherein:
the deviation to the flight operations are configured to be communicated to a user onboard the aircraft, (Surace in at least ¶ 54 discloses guiding the pilot based on navigation data and flight plan data, and wherein “information may also include aircraft deviation thresholds for how far off course an aircraft may deviate from (or within) a route 141/flight path,” see ¶ 62, wherein “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,” see ¶ 37)
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 in combination with Erignac 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 medical 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 in combination with Erignac 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 in combination with Erignac discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 22 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 34, Surace in combination with Erignac discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 23 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 35, Surace in combination with Erignac discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 24 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 36, Surace in combination with Erignac discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 25 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 37, Surace in combination with Erignac discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 26 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 38, Surace in combination with Erignac discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 27 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 39, Surace in combination with Erignac discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 28 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 40, Surace in combination with Erignac discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 21 for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662
Prosecution Insights