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 Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on April 16, 2025. Claims 1-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 11 of U.S Patent No. 10741085 as follows:
Instant Application’s claims
Parent Application’s claims
1
1
2
1
7
3
8
3
10
11
11
11
16
13
17
13
19
11
20
11
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because parent claims recite substantially the same flight planning system including a flight planning application programming interface (API) configured to communicate with a plurality of modules and a client device, receive a request associated with a selection of one of a plurality of tools, retrieve information responsive to the request from a third-party device or another module based on the selected tool, generate a flight plan based on the retrieved information, and transmit the generated flight plan to the client device.
The current claims merely provide further details regarding the types of information communicated or included in the generated flight plan, such as pilot information, aircraft information, a user-defined waypoint, user-generated content, departure information, arrival information, altitude information, estimated time of travel, alternate airport information, Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight type, Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flight type, geographic path information, receipt of real-time information, and an internal/external API architecture. These limitations represent data types and flight plan contents that would have been obvious variations of the flight planning system broadly claimed in the copending application. The reference(s) applied in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 below teach these additional limitations; therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the parent application's claimed flight planning system to include the limitations recited in the instant claims.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/ patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/ patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Specification
The specification is objected to because the paragraphs are numbered using three-digit Arabic numerals (e.g., “[001]”) rather than at least four numerals including leading zeros as contemplated by 37 CFR 1.52(b)(6) (e.g., “[0001]”). Applicant is required to correct the paragraph numbering.
Specification paragraphs [006], [036] - [038], [041], [051], [071], [097] - [099], [0117], and [0122] are objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [006] recites “configured transmit”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to "configured to transmit” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraph [036] recites “flight planning system 10”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “flight planning system 110” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraph [037] recites “may be as a server, computer, laptop, mobile device”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “may be a server, computer, laptop, mobile device” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraph [038] recites “light plans”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “flight plans” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraph [041] recites “useful or planning flight maneuvers”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “useful for planning flight maneuvers” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraphs [051], [099], and [0122] recites “flight plant”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “flight plan” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraph [071] recites “may execute instructions via processing hardware 420 perform process 500”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “may execute instructions via processing hardware 420 to perform process 500” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraph [0097] recites “may be posted the directory”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “may be posted in the directory” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraph [098] recites “director information may be vied”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “directory information may be viewed” or any appropriate correction.
Paragraph [0117] recites “Fuel the fuel tool may include”. Examiner respectfully suggests revising it to “The fuel tool may include” or any appropriate correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “generating a flight plan based on the retrieved”. The phrase “the retrieved” does not identify the subject matter or information upon which the flight plan is generated. Although the preceding limitation recites “retrieving, based on the tool selection, information responsive to the request,” it is unclear whether “the retrieved” refers to the retrieved information or to another element. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets “the retrieved” as referring to “the retrieved information” recited in the preceding limitation.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One: Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea of evaluating and organizing flight-planning information to formulate and communicate a flight plan. More specifically, the claims recite “receive, from the client device, a request for information associated with a selection of one of a plurality of tools”, “retrieve, based on the tool selection, information responsive to the request”, “generate a flight plan based on the retrieved information”, and “transmit ... the flight plan to the client device” which fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because Applicant’s claims merely use a flight planning API, client device, plurality of modules, and third-party device to collect, generate, and communicate flight-planning information, rather than providing a technical improvement to the operation of the computer, API, network, flight-planning system, or another technology. The claims merely limit the abstract idea to the particular field of flight planning and aviation.
Step 2B: Applicant’s claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitation of components such as a “flight planning application programming interface (API),” “client device,” “plurality of modules,” and “third-party device” are used only for their conventional and expected functions of receiving, retrieving, processing, and communicating information. The claims do not improve the operation of the flight planning system, the functionality of the API, the client device, or the third-party device. Instead, the claims merely apply the abstract idea in the particular field of flight planning, which does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 do not comprise any further limitations which cause the abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application or recite significantly more than the abstract idea. In particular, the limitations directed to displaying the flight plan, receiving real-time information, communicating through internal and external APIs, communicating pilot information, aircraft information, combining a flight route with interactive graphics, and transmitting the flight plan to a third-party device which do not provide a technical improvement.
Claims 19-20 likewise do not comprise any further limitations which cause the abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application or recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 19 merely recites providing an API, receiving a request, retrieving information, generating a flight plan, and transmitting the flight plan, while claim 20 further recites displaying the flight plan at a display device of the client device. These limitations merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer and communication components.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 6,754,581 (hereinafter, "Blachowicz") in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0093217 (hereinafter, "Hale").
Regarding claim 1, Blachowicz discloses a flight planning system for providing a flight plan to a client device, comprising:
a flight planning application programming interface (API) (“several categories of user interface (UI) screens are available for entering and viewing trip related information” (Col. 4, lines 2-4)) configured to:
communicate with a plurality of modules and the client device (“communication of information among the aviation Service provider at the operational center 12 and all vendors and clients” (Col. 4, lines 17-19)); and
receive, from the client device, a request for information associated with a selection of one of a plurality of tools corresponding to one of the plurality of modules (“receive from a client a request for specific services relating to a specific air travel trip along with the basic trip plan” (Col. 1, lines 21-22)); and
However, Blachowicz does not explicitly teach
a flight planning module configured to:
retrieve, based on the tool selection, information responsive to the request from at least one of:
a third-party device; or
another of the plurality of modules;
generate a flight plan based on the retrieved information; and
transmit, using the flight planning API, the flight plan to the client Device.
Hale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
a flight planning module configured to:
retrieve, based on the tool selection (“The user can then select an option to apply the information to the active, secondary, and/or alternate flight plan, The information selected by the user is sent to the flight object services component” (para 0118)), information responsive to the request (“receiving data associated with a flight into an object(s) on a computing device configured to generate and modify a flight object” (para 0011)) from at least one of:
a third-party device; or another of the plurality of modules (“The flight planning/processing device communicates, if a network is available, to one or more servers or other data sources to obtain flight plan information” (para 0069));
generate a flight plan based on the retrieved information (“Modifications to the flight information are received and updates to the flight objects are generated” (para 0023)); and
transmit, using the flight planning API, the flight plan to the client device (“The new or updated flight plans are thus transmitted to the various subscribers, on-board flight management system, or mobile devices using air/ground messaging service” (para 0109)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Blachowicz with the teachings of Hale in order to dynamically make changes to a flight plan and communicate the changes across multiple or local systems and subscribers; see Hale at least at [0022].
Regarding claim 2, Blachowicz discloses the flight planning system of claim 1. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the flight plan is configured for display at a display device of the client device (“A plurality of user interfaces are provided for displaying a plurality of types of information about real time progress of the at least one trip as planned by an operational center” (Col. 1, lines 62-65)).
Regarding claim 3, Blachowicz discloses the flight planning system of claim 1. However, Blachowicz does not explicitly teach wherein the flight planning system is configured to receive real-time information from the third-party device.
Hale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the flight planning system is configured to receive real-time information from the third-party device (“The flight planning/processing device communicates, if a network is available, to one or more servers or other data sources to obtain flight plan information” (para 0069) and “Managing flight information involves real-time synchronization and communication across multiple systems” (para 0016)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Blachowicz with the teachings of Hale in order to view and edit flight plan with real time airspace environment data; see Hale at least at [0023].
Regarding claim 4, Blachowicz discloses the flight planning system of claim 1. However, Blachowicz does not explicitly teach wherein the flight planning API comprises an internal flight plan API for communicating with the client device and an external flight plan API for communicating with the third-party device.
Hale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the flight planning API comprises an internal flight plan API for communicating with the client device (“the flight object services component 120 can send the flight object to the mobile application 150 via API 128” (para 0085)) and an external flight plan API for communicating with the third-party device (“a Web interface through which aspects of its operation may be accessed through the use of a Web browser application program” (para 0164)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Blachowicz with the teachings of Hale in order to allow any approved user to view and select procedures applicable to a flight; see Hale at least at [0033].
Regarding claim 5, Blachowicz discloses the flight planning system of claim 1. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the flight planning APl is configured to communicate at least one of pilot information, aircraft information, a user-defined waypoint, or user-generated content (“The air travel and related information can include trip identification information, … and the name of a pilot for the aircraft making the trip” (Col. 3, lines 45-52)).
Regarding claim 6, Blachowicz discloses the flight planning system of claim 1. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the flight plan comprises at least one of departure information, arrival information, altitude information, aircraft information (“The air travel and related information can include trip identification information, … a tail number for a designated aircraft” (Col. 3, lines 45-51)), an estimated time of travel (“a Time and Distance Calculator for calculating time and distance from an arrival airport” (Col. 6, lines 14-15)), or pilot information (“The air travel and related information can include trip identification information, … and the name of a pilot for the aircraft making the trip” (Col. 3, lines 45-52)).
Regarding claim 7, Blachowicz discloses the flight planning system of claim 1. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the flight plan comprises at least one of an alternate airport, an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight type, a Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flight type, or a geographic path between an arrival location and a departure location (Fig. 7, #50 and “The Flight Route Screen 50 graphically presents a flight route for the scheduled flight” (Col. 5, lines 8-10)).
Regarding claim 8, Blachowicz discloses the flight planning system of claim 1. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the flight planning module is configured to generate the flight plan by combining a flight route and interactive graphics (Fig. 7, #50 and “The Flight Route Screen 50 graphically presents a flight route for the scheduled flight” (Col. 5, lines 8-10)).
Regarding claim 9, Blachowicz discloses the flight planning system of claim 1. However, Blachowicz does not explicitly teach wherein the flight planning system is configured to transmit the flight plan to the third-party device.
Hale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the flight planning system is configured to transmit the flight plan to the third-party device (“flight plans are thus transmitted to the various subscribers, on-board flight management system, or mobile devices” (para 0109)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Blachowicz with the teachings of Hale in order to synchronize the flight information across multiple systems; see Hale at least at [0016].
Regarding claim 10, Blachowicz discloses a method of planning a flight, comprising:
receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with a selection of one of a plurality of tools corresponding to one of a plurality of modules (“receive from a client a request for specific services relating to a specific air travel trip along with the basic trip plan” (Col. 1, lines 21-22));
However, Blachowicz does not explicitly teach
retrieving, based on the tool selection, information responsive to the request from at least one of a third-party device or one of the plurality of modules;
generating a flight plan based on the retrieved information; and
transmitting, using a flight planning application programming interface (API), the flight plan to the client device.
Hale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
retrieving, based on the tool selection (“The user can then select an option to apply the information to the active, secondary, and/or alternate flight plan, The information selected by the user is sent to the flight object services component” (para 0118)), information responsive to the request from at least one of a third-party device or one of the plurality of modules (“receiving data associated with a flight into an object(s) on a computing device configured to generate and modify a flight object” (para 0011) and “The flight planning/processing device communicates, if a network is available, to one or more servers or other data sources to obtain flight plan information” (para 0069));
generating a flight plan based on the retrieved information (“Modifications to the flight information are received and updates to the flight objects are generated” (para 0023)); and
transmitting, using a flight planning application programming interface (API), the flight plan to the client device (“The new or updated flight plans are thus transmitted to the various subscribers, on-board flight management system, or mobile devices using air/ground messaging service” (para 0109)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Blachowicz with the teachings of Hale in order to dynamically make changes to a flight plan and communicate the changes across multiple or local systems and subscribers; see Hale at least at [0022].
Regarding claim 11, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 10. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the flight plan is configured for display at a display device of the client device (“A plurality of user interfaces are provided for displaying a plurality of types of information about real time progress of the at least one trip as planned by an operational center” (Col. 1, lines 62-65)).
Regarding claim 12, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 10. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses receiving real-time information from the third-party device (“the FOS 10 collects the air travel and related information, updates the air travel and related information, and makes available real time updates of air travel and related information through computer networks” (Col. 3, lines 41-45)).
Regarding claim 13, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 10. However, Blachowicz does not explicitly teach wherein the flight planning API comprises an internal flight plan API for communicating with the client device and an external flight plan API for communicating with the third-party device.
Hale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
wherein the flight planning API comprises an internal flight plan API for communicating with the client device (“the flight object services component 120 can send the flight object to the mobile application 150 via API 128” (para 0085)) and an external flight plan API for communicating with the third-party device (“a Web interface through which aspects of its operation may be accessed through the use of a Web browser application program” (para 0164)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Blachowicz with the teachings of Hale in order to allow any approved user to view and select procedures applicable to a flight; see Hale at least at [0033].
Regarding claim 14, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 10. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses communicating, by the flight planning AP, at least one of pilot information, aircraft information, a user-defined waypoint, or user-generated content (“The air travel and related information can include trip identification information, … and the name of a pilot for the aircraft making the trip” (Col. 3, lines 45-52)).
Regarding claim 15, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 10. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the flight plan comprises at least one of departure information, arrival information, altitude information, aircraft information (“The air travel and related information can include trip identification information, … a tail number for a designated aircraft” (Col. 3, lines 45-51)), an estimated time of travel (“a Time and Distance Calculator for calculating time and distance from an arrival airport” (Col. 6, lines 14-15)), or pilot information (“The air travel and related information can include trip identification information, … and the name of a pilot for the aircraft making the trip” (Col. 3, lines 45-52)).
Regarding claim 16, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 10. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the flight plan comprises at least one of an alternate airport, an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight type, a Visual Flight Rules (VFR) flight type, or a geographic path between an arrival location and a departure location (Fig. 7, #50 and “The Flight Route Screen 50 graphically presents a flight route for the scheduled flight” (Col. 5, lines 8-10)).
Regarding claim 17, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 10. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses wherein the generating includes generating the flight plan as an interactive flight plan by combining a flight route and interactive graphics (Fig. 7, #50 and “The Flight Route Screen 50 graphically presents a flight route for the scheduled flight” (Col. 5, lines 8-10)).
Regarding claim 18, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 10. However, Blachowicz does not explicitly teach transmitting the flight plan to the third-party device.
Hale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
transmitting the flight plan to the third-party device (“flight plans are thus transmitted to the various subscribers, on-board flight management system, or mobile devices” (para 0109)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Blachowicz with the teachings of Hale in order to synchronize the flight information across multiple systems; see Hale at least at [0016].
Regarding claim 19, Blachowicz discloses a method of planning a flight, comprising:
providing a flight planning application programming interface (API) (“several categories of user interface (UI) screens are available for entering and viewing trip related information” (Col. 4, lines 2-4)) configured to communicate with a plurality of modules and a client device (“communication of information among the aviation Service provider at the operational center 12 and all vendors and clients” (Col. 4, lines 17-19));
receiving, from a client device, a request for information associated with a selection of one of a plurality of tools corresponding to one of the plurality of modules (“receive from a client a request for specific services relating to a specific air travel trip along with the basic trip plan” (Col. 1, lines 21-22));
However, Blachowicz does not explicitly teach
retrieving, based on the tool selection, information responsive to the request from at least one of a third-party device or one of the plurality of modules;
generating a flight plan based on the retrieved; and
transmitting, using the flight planning API, the flight plan to the client device.
Hale, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
retrieving, based on the tool selection (“The user can then select an option to apply the information to the active, secondary, and/or alternate flight plan, The information selected by the user is sent to the flight object services component” (para 0118)), information responsive to the request (“receiving data associated with a flight into an object(s) on a computing device configured to generate and modify a flight object” (para 0011)) from at least one of a third-party device or one of the plurality of modules (“The flight planning/processing device communicates, if a network is available, to one or more servers or other data sources to obtain flight plan information” (para 0069));
generating a flight plan based on the retrieved (“Modifications to the flight information are received and updates to the flight objects are generated” (para 0023)); and
transmitting, using the flight planning API, the flight plan to the client device (“The new or updated flight plans are thus transmitted to the various subscribers, on-board flight management system, or mobile devices using air/ground messaging service” (para 0109)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of filing, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Blachowicz with the teachings of Hale in order to dynamically make changes to a flight plan and communicate the changes across multiple or local systems and subscribers; see Hale at least at [0022].
Regarding claim 20, Blachowicz discloses the method of claim 19. Additionally, Blachowicz discloses displaying the flight plan at a display device of the client device (“A plurality of user interfaces are provided for displaying a plurality of types of information about real time progress of the at least one trip as planned by an operational center” (Col. 1, lines 62-65)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ALHARBI whose telephone number is (313)446-6621. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00AM – 7:30PM 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, Abby Flynn can be reached on (571) 272-9855. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ADAM M ALHARBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights