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 § 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 1, 9 – 11, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., process), claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations and claim 18 is directed to a system (i.e., machine). Therefore, claims 1, 14 and 18 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
“a method, comprising:
accessing a configuration for generating messages using a predetermined message format for a first air traffic management device located at a first landing area;
updating the configuration with information about a condition at the first landing area using the predetermined message format; and
outputting, using the first air traffic management device, a message based on the configuration, including transmitting the message to a second air traffic management device associated with an aircraft within a predetermined distance of the first landing area.”
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. The claimed “method” is being interpreted to be equivalent in function to the human mind. For example, “accessing a configuration for generating messages using a predetermined message format for a first air traffic management device located at a first landing area; updating the configuration with information about a condition at the first landing area using the predetermined message format;” in the context of this claim encompasses that the operator may manually observe the first landing area and write out a message in a particular format regarding the status of the first landing area and updating the message a necessary. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, 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. The courts have indicated that additional elements 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.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows: “outputting, using the first air traffic management device, a message based on the configuration, including transmitting the message to a second air traffic management device associated with an aircraft within a predetermined distance of the first landing area.”
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the method outputting, using the first air traffic management device, a message based on the configuration, including transmitting the message to a second air traffic management device associated with an aircraft within a predetermined distance of the first landing area, the examiner submits that these limitations are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by merely using a computer to perform the process (MPEP § 2106.05). In particular, the method in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and as discussed above, the additional limitations of “outputting, using the first air traffic management device, a message based on the configuration, including transmitting the message to a second air traffic management device associated with an aircraft within a predetermined distance of the first landing area” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “outputting, using the first air traffic management device, a message based on the configuration…” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the processors, controller and sensors are all conventional sensors mounted within 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. The additional limitation of “outputting…,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because 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. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the method outputting, using the first air traffic management device, a message based on the configuration…, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Hence, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 9 - 11 and 13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of 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 9 – 11 and 13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 1, 9 – 11, 13, 14 and 18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101. However, dependent claims 2 -8, 12, 15 – 17, 19 and 20 contain subject matter that are not being interpreted as an abstract idea, as well as demonstrating practical application which if incorporated, would overcome current 101 rejections.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 11 and 14 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0189316 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 18; Paul discloses a method (FIG. 1C), a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (computer-readable instructions in a memory that is executed by one or more processing units ¶ 205) and a system (FIG. 1A) comprising:
accessing a configuration for generating messages (The aircraft 100 may communicate with one or more ATCs 106 via radio, such as a very high frequency (VHF) radio, and/or other communication links. In some implementations, the aircraft 100 may act as a relay between the ATC 106 and the GCS 102. For example, the aircraft 100 may receive communications from the ATC 106 and then transmit the communications to the GCS 102. Similarly, the aircraft 100 may receive communications from the GCS 102 and send the communications to the ATC 106. ¶ 28) using a predetermined message format (e.g., ADS-B data ¶ 51) for a first air traffic management device (Air traffic control tower 106-2, FIG. 1A) located at a first landing area (Runway 112-2, FIG. 1A);
updating the configuration with information about a condition at the first landing area using the predetermined message format (“The weather manager module may acquire the current and future weather information in the vicinity of the destination airport 108-2 as well as any other source for weather in between the current location and the destination airport 108-2. The weather information can be provided via satellite, Internet, VHF, onboard weather radar, and Flight Information Services—Broadcast (FIS-B). The information from these and other sources may be fused to provide a unified representation of wind, precipitation, visibility, etc. The aircraft 100 may also include modules for vehicle management, such as optimizing fuel and trajectory based on the performance of the aircraft 100.” ¶ 101); and
outputting, using the first air traffic management device, a message based on the configuration, including transmitting the message to a second air traffic management device (communicates between ATC 1-UA Comms and ATC 2-UA, FIG. 1A) associated with an aircraft within a predetermined distance of the first landing area (“….the predicted landing zone is not centered on the runway at a proper landing location (e.g., a correct distance from the threshold). Although a remote operator may confirm and/or abort the landing, in some implementations, the aircraft 100 may decide to confirm/abort a landing (e.g., based on the predicted landing location/zone).” ¶ 99 and another scenario where the aircraft manages loss of communication during an en route phase. The en route phase may continue until the aircraft has approached the destination airport within a threshold distance ¶ 166).
Claim 18 further comprises one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (¶ 205).
Regarding claim 2, Paul discloses the method, wherein the first air traffic management device comprises an Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receiver component and an ADS-B transmission component (¶¶ 51, 84).
Regarding claim 3, Paul discloses the method, wherein the second air traffic management device is a Mode S transponder (¶ 84).
Regarding claim 4, Paul discloses the method, wherein the Mode S transponder includes an ADS-B component, the ADS-B component configured to transmit and receive ADS-B messages (¶ 51).
Regarding claim 5, Paul discloses the method, wherein the second air traffic management device further includes an ADS-B In receiver, the ADS-B In receiver configured to receive extended ADS-B messages (¶ 84).
Regarding claim 6, Paul discloses the method, wherein the predetermined message format is an ADS-B message, wherein a message type is identified using an 8-bit register identifier in one of a plurality of ADS-B message fields (¶¶ 93, 199).
Regarding claim 7, Paul discloses the method, wherein the plurality of ADS-B message fields include at least one of a terminal area operational capabilities field or terminal area operational status field (FIGS. 6A).
Regarding claim 8, Paul discloses the method, wherein the message is configured to cause the aircraft to redirect to a second landing area based on the condition (generate landing at other contingency airport ¶¶ 65, 99, 161).
Regarding claim 9, Paul discloses the method, wherein the aircraft is an autonomous aircraft (Unmanned aircraft ¶¶ 3, 24).
Regarding claim 10, Paul discloses the method, wherein the condition is a landing hazard associated with the first landing area detected using one or more sensors or cameras provided around the first landing area (cameras to detect if runways are clear for landing ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 11, Paul discloses the method, wherein the aircraft does not include an operable command and control (C2) system (remote unmanned aircraft ¶¶ 3, 24).
Regarding claim 15, Paul discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein: the first air traffic management device comprises an ADS-B receiver component and an ADS-B transmission component; and the second air traffic management device is a Mode S transponder (¶¶ 51, 84).
Regarding claim 16, Paul discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the predetermined message format is an ADS-B message, wherein a message type is identified using an 8-bit register identifier in one of a plurality of ADS-B message fields (¶¶ 51, 84).
Regarding claim 17, Paul discloses the non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein: the condition is a landing hazard associated with the first landing area detected using one or more sensors or cameras provided around the first landing area (cameras to detect if runways are clear for landing ¶ 45); and the message is configured to cause the aircraft to redirect to a second landing area based on the condition (generate landing at other contingency airport ¶¶ 65, 99, 161).
Regarding claim 19, Paul discloses the system, wherein: the first air traffic management device comprises an ADS-B receiver component and an ADS-B transmission component; and
the second air traffic management device is a Mode S transponder (¶¶ 51, 84).
Regarding claim 20, Paul discloses the system, wherein the predetermined message format is an ADS-B message, wherein a message type is identified using an 8-bit register identifier in one of a plurality of ADS-B message fields (¶¶ 51, 84).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0189316 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eckert (Pub. No.: US 2006/0080451 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Paul is silent to the method, wherein the predetermined message format is an ACARS message, wherein a message type is identified using a predefined label field comprising a 2- character alphanumeric code within an ACARS message header. However, Eckert teaches an ACARS messaging system for communicating within an aircraft communication system (¶ 1). More specifically, the ACARS message may include a partial A618 header to be appended as the user-text message that is formatted and uplinked for communication (¶¶ 59, 64).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predetermined message format as taught by Paul to be ACARS message, wherein a message type is identified using a predefined label field comprising a 2- character alphanumeric code within an ACARS message header as taught by Eckert to enhance cost savings for aircraft messaging (¶ 3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0189316 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of George et al. (Pat. No.: 11,862,031 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Paul is silent to the method, wherein the message is generated by a large language model (LLM) using the information about the condition at the first landing area. However, in a similar field of endeavor, George teaches automatically interpreting flight commands from a stream of air traffic control (ATC) radio communications. The method can additionally or alternatively function to train and/or update a natural language processing system based on ATC communications. Additionally, the method can include or be used in conjunction with collision avoidance and/or directed perception for traffic detection. More specifically, a pre-trained large neural language model is tuned for ATC transcripts and flight command queries (col. 12, lines 45-60).
It would have been obvious to modify the messages taught by Paul to wherein the message is generated by a large language model (LLM) using the information about the condition at the first landing area as taught by George to enhance communication accuracy and extend range of object detection, improving collision avoidance (col. 6, lines 35-46).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-9727. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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 at 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 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.
/TYLER J LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights