CTNF 19/193,260 CTNF 86449 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 2. This communication is a first office action, non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 3. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 4. Claims 1-20 a re rejec ted under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johns on (USP 6,341,248) in view of Calder (EP-4074605 A1). As Per Claim 1, Johnson teaches, a computer-implemented method for improved flight operation monitoring, the computer-implemented method comprising: identifying one or more rule triggering conditions associated with the rule creation request; monitoring one or more conditions based on the one or more rule activation conditions by comparing the one or more conditions to the one or more rule activation conditions; in response to determining that the one or more conditions satisfy the one or more rule activation conditions, monitoring the one or more flight operational parameters based on the one or more rule triggering conditions by comparing the one or more flight operational parameters to the one or more rule triggering conditions; and causing rendering of a user interface comprising an alert message when the one or more flight operational parameters satisfy the one or more rule triggering conditions ( Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). Howev er, Johnson does not explicitly teach, identifying one or more rule activation conditions associated with a rule creation request for temporary monitoring of one or more flight operational parameters associated with a flight operation. In an analogous art, Calder discloses, aircraft electrical power distribution 300 includes controller 307, wherein, identifying one or more rule activation conditions associated with a rule creation request for temporary monitoring of one or more flight operational parameters associated with a flight operation; ( via controller 307 is receiving sensor data from sensor arrangement 308, determining Aircraft state ( e.g., aircraft on the ground and stationary or taxiing); low altitude take -off ( early stage of take-off, either on the ground or about to take -off); cruise system state ; supersonic cruise system state; decent system state etc.; Page 10, 6 th para; Page 12, 2 nd -4 th para; Page 13,1 st para; Page 18 7 th para—Page 19 whole Page, Figs. 3, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnson and Calder before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Johnson , to include the power distribution teachings ( electrical power distribution system, controller and sensors etc.) of Calder and configure with the system of Johnson in order to acquire different sensor data at different state of aircraft flight operation, to monitor aircraft in-flight operational parameters, identify any abnormality and display alert ot the pilot for immediate remediation. Motivation to combine the two teachings is, to receive aircraft data at different flight state and identify any abnormality in flight data (i.e., an added feature to collecting and monitoring flight data for safe flight operation). As per Claim 2 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the one or more rule triggering conditions comprises threshold values for the one or more flight operational parameters. ( Johnson : (Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). As per Claim 3 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein monitoring the one or more flight operational parameters comprises: accessing measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters; and comparing the measured data to the one or more rule triggering conditions. ( Johnson : (Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). As per Claim 4 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 3. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein accessing the measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters comprises retrieving the measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters from a flight management system. (Johnson : col.7, lines 54-63, Fig.2). As per Claim 5 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, receiving the rule creation request; and creating one or more monitoring rules based on the rule creation request (Calder: Page 10, 6 th para; Page 12, 2 nd -4 th para; Page 13,1 st para; Page 18 7 th para—Page 19 whole Page, Figs. 3, 7). As per Claim 6 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 5. However, Johnson in view of Calder does not explicitly teach, wherein the one or more monitoring rules comprise one or more user-defined monitoring rules. However, defining one or more monitoring rules comprising one or more user-defined monitoring rules, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As per Claim 7 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, performing a rule validation operation with respect to the one or more rule triggering conditions before determining whether the one or more conditions satisfy the one or more rule activation conditions. ( Johnson : (Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). As per Claim 8 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 1. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, receiving, via the user interface, an indication of a selection from a user indicating confirmation to render the user interface. ( Johnson: providing alert to pilot , col.5, lines 20-51). As Per Claim 9, Johnson discloses, a computing system for improved flight operation monitoring, the computing system comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to: identify one or more rule triggering conditions associated with the rule creation request; monitor one or more conditions based on the one or more rule activation conditions by comparing the one or more conditions to the one or more rule activation conditions; in response to determining that the one or more conditions satisfy the one or more rule activation conditions, monitor the one or more flight operational parameters based on the one or more rule triggering conditions by comparing the one or more flight operational parameters to the one or more rule triggering conditions; and cause rendering of a user interface comprising an alert message when the one or more flight operational parameters satisfy the one or more rule triggering conditions. ( Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). However, Johnson does not explicitly teach, identify one or more rule activation conditions associated with a rule creation request for temporary monitoring of one or more flight operational parameters associated with a flight operation; In an analogous art, Calder discloses, aircraft electrical power distribution 300 includes controller 307, wherein, identify one or more rule activation conditions associated with a rule creation request for temporary monitoring of one or more flight operational parameters associated with a flight operation; (via controller 307 is receiving sensor data from sensor arrangement 308, determining Aircraft state (e.g., aircraft on the ground and stationary or taxiing); low altitude take -off (early stage of take-off, either on the ground or about to take -off); cruise system state ; supersonic cruise system state; decent system state etc.; Page 10, 6 th para; Page 12, 2 nd -4 th para; Page 13,1 st para; Page 18 7 th para—Page 19 whole Page, Figs. 3, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnson and Calder before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Johnson , to include the power distribution teachings ( electrical power distribution system, controller and sensors etc.) of Calder and configure with the system of Johnson in order to acquire different sensor data at different state of aircraft flight operation, to monitor aircraft in-flight operational parameters, identify any abnormality and display alert to the pilot for immediate remediation. As per Claim 10 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the one or more rule triggering conditions comprises threshold values for the one or more flight operational parameters ( Johnson : (Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). As per Claim 11 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to monitor the one or more flight operational parameters by: accessing measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters; and comparing the measured data to the one or more rule triggering conditions ( Johnson : (Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). As per Claim 12 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 11. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to access the measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters by retrieving the measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters from a flight management system (Johnson : col.7, lines 54-63, Fig.2). As per Claim 13 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive the rule creation request; and create one or more monitoring rules based on the rule creation request (Calder: Page 10, 6 th para; Page 12, 2 nd -4 th para; Page 13,1 st para; Page 18 7 th para—Page 19 whole Page, Figs. 3, 7). As per Claim 14 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 13. However, Johnson in view of Calder does not explicitly teach, wherein the one or more monitoring rules comprise one or more user-defined monitoring rules. However, defining one or more monitoring rules comprising one or more user-defined monitoring rules, would be an obvious matter of design choice, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As per Claim 15 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: perform a rule validation operation with respect to the one or more rule triggering conditions before determining whether the one or more conditions satisfy the one or more rule activation conditions ( Johnson : (Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). As per Claim 16 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 9. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: receive, via the user interface, an indication of a selection from a user indicating confirmation to render the user interface ( Johnson: providing alert to pilot , col.5, lines 20-51). As Per Claim 17, Johnson teaches, one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for improved flight operation monitoring, the at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer coded instructions configured to, when executed by at least one processor: identify one or more rule triggering conditions associated with the rule creation request; monitor one or more conditions based on the one or more rule activation conditions by comparing the one or more conditions to the one or more rule activation conditions; in response to determining that the one or more conditions satisfy the one or more rule activation conditions, monitor the one or more flight operational parameters based on the one or more rule triggering conditions by comparing the one or more flight operational parameters to the one or more rule triggering conditions; and cause rendering of a user interface comprising an alert message when the one or more flight operational parameters satisfy the one or more rule triggering conditions. ( Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). However, Johnson does not explicitly teach, identify one or more rule activation conditions associated with a rule creation request for temporary monitoring of one or more flight operational parameters associated with a flight operation; In an analogous art, Calder discloses, aircraft electrical power distribution 300 includes controller 307, wherein, identify one or more rule activation conditions associated with a rule creation request for temporary monitoring of one or more flight operational parameters associated with a flight operation; ( via controller 307 is receiving sensor data from sensor arrangement 308, determining Aircraft state ( e.g., aircraft on the ground and stationary or taxiing); low altitude take -off ( early stage of take-off, either on the ground or about to take -off); cruise system state ; supersonic cruise system state; decent system state etc.; Page 10, 6 th para; Page 12, 2 nd -4 th para; Page 13,1 st para; Page 18 7 th para—Page 19 whole Page, Figs. 3, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Johnson and Calder before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the systems of Johnson , to include the power distribution teachings ( electrical power distribution system, controller and sensors etc.) of Calder and configure with the system of Johnson in order to acquire different sensor data at different state of aircraft flight operation, to monitor aircraft in-flight operational parameters, identify any abnormality and display alert ot the pilot for immediate remediation. As per Claim 18 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 17. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the one or more rule triggering conditions comprises threshold values for the one or more flight operational parameters. ( Johnson : (Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). As per Claim 19 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 17. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the computer coded instructions are further configured to, when executed by at least one processor monitor the one or more flight operational parameters by: accessing measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters; and comparing the measured data to the one or more rule triggering conditions. ( Johnson : (Abstract, Col.4, line 54- Col.5, line 51; col.3, line 20-47; Col.3, line 65-col.4, line 10; col.1, lines 67-col.2, line 6; col.6, line 30- col.7, line 6, Figs. 2-10). As per Claim 20 , Johnson as modified by Calder teaches the limitation of Claim 19. However, Johnson in view of Calder teaches, wherein the computer coded instructions configured to, when executed by the at least one processor to access the measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters by retrieving the measured data for the one or more flight operational parameters from a flight management system (Johnson : col.7, lines 54-63, Fig.2). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD SHAFI whose telephone number is (571)270-5741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am -5:00 pm. 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, Scott Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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. /MUHAMMAD SHAFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666C Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 3 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 9 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 10 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 11 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 12 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/193,260 Page 13 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights