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 is the first office action on the merits, claims 1-10 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 06/16/2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the IDS is enclosed herewith.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 8 are rejected as indefinite because it is not clear what the meaning of the term “a radiofrequency signal to be transmitted by the leading aircraft at a more or less constant power” is. “More or less constant” is a term of degree that fails to inform a person skilled in the art with reasonable certainty of the permissible variation in the transmit power.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-10, are rejected based on their dependence from rejected claims
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claim 1 is directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Does claim 1 fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. The claim is directed toward a machine which falls within one of the statutory categories.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 recites:
An anticollision monitoring system for a leading aircraft taking part in a formation flight in which a following aircraft flies close to a vortex created by a leading aircraft, the monitoring system comprising electronic circuitry integrated into at least one avionics computer of the aircraft, wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to:
receive information relating to activation of a formation flight guidance mode, from the following aircraft; and
receive information identifying the leading aircraft;
wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to: receive information relating to a power level of a radiofrequency signal received from the leading aircraft by the following aircraft, the radiofrequency signal received by the following aircraft corresponding to a radiofrequency signal to be transmitted by the leading aircraft at a more or less constant power throughout a phase of the formation flight; and
store a value of the power level, referred to as an initial power level value,
in response to receiving the information relating to the activation of the formation flight guidance mode of the following aircraft and the information identifying the leading aircraft;
wherein the electronic circuitry is further configured to carry out, repeatedly during participation of the following aircraft in the formation flight, steps of:
receiving information relating to the power level of the radiofrequency signal received from the leading aircraft by the following aircraft;
storing a value of the power level, referred to as a current power level, at a current time;
calculating a difference between the current power level value and the initial power level value;
determining a first collision risk between the following aircraft and the leading aircraft if the calculated difference is greater than a power threshold; and
if the first collision risk is determined, ordering issue of an alert in a cockpit of the following aircraft and ordering a disengagement of the participation of the following aircraft in the formation flight.
The highlighted portion of claim 1 above is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, an abstract idea. It merely consists of a leading aircraft deciding if there is a collision risk. This is equivalent to a human observing the strength of the a received signal, noting and remembering an initial strength, repeatedly observing the present strength, judging whether the present strength has increased than the remembered/noted baseline by more than a tolerance that was recorded, and upon making that judgement, deciding to raise a alarm and ordering to break off from the formation.
The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person observing a collision risk can be done in the human mind. The mere nominal recitation that the transmission is being executed by a computer executing a program does not take the limitation out of the mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim 1 recites:
An anticollision monitoring system for a leading aircraft taking part in a formation flight in which a following aircraft flies close to a vortex created by a leading aircraft, the monitoring system comprising electronic circuitry integrated into at least one avionics computer of the aircraft, wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to:
receive information relating to activation of a formation flight guidance mode, from the following aircraft; and
receive information identifying the leading aircraft;
wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to: receive information relating to a power level of a radiofrequency signal received from the leading aircraft by the following aircraft, the radiofrequency signal received by the following aircraft corresponding to a radiofrequency signal to be transmitted by the leading aircraft at a more or less constant power
throughout a phase of the formation flight; and
store a value of the power level, referred to as an initial power level value,
in response to receiving the information relating to the activation of the formation flight guidance mode of the following aircraft and the information identifying the leading aircraft;
wherein the electronic circuitry is further configured to carry out, repeatedly during participation of the following aircraft in the formation flight, steps of:
receiving information relating to the power level of the radiofrequency signal received from the leading aircraft by the following aircraft;
storing a value of the power level, referred to as a current power level, at a current time;
calculating a difference between the current power level value and the initial power level value;
determining a first collision risk between the following aircraft and the leading aircraft if the calculated difference is greater than a power threshold; and
if the first collision risk is determined, ordering issue of an alert in a cockpit of the following aircraft and ordering a disengagement of the participation of the following aircraft in the formation flight.
The underlined portion of claim 1 above does not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
As noted above, merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is indicative that the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Thus, it is clear that the abstract idea is merely implemented on a computer, which is indicative of the abstract idea having not been integrated into a practical application.
The “receive” steps recited in the claim is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering an electronic representation of an area), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “..if the first…”, and “..and ordering a disengagement” steps is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the mental process) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgments in a generic or general purpose computing environment. The one or more data networks, one or more processors, one or more memories storing computer readable instructions, and the computer readable storage medium comprising computer-readable instructions are recited at a high level of generality and merely automate the generating steps.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 does not recite any specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field. Further, applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the process steps are performing using anything other than a conventional computer. 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 performance of an action is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data, such as the “provid[ing] for …navigational assistance”, is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
CONCLUSION
Thus, since claim 1 is: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claim 1 is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Independent claims 8 is likewise rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-10 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. For example, In claim 3, the addition limitations of
“wherein the information relating to the power level of the radiofrequency signal received from the leading aircraft corresponds to a peak power level...”, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind using a similar analysis applied to claim 1 above. The system in claim 3, specifically the limitation above, is a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind and, therefore, and abstract idea. Claim 3 is equivalate to a person mentally observing the information relating to the power level.
As such, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
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 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.
Claims 1, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120004844, to Sahasrabudhe et al. (hereinafter Sahasrabudhe), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110012729, to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claim 8, Sahasrabudhe teaches, An anticollision monitoring system for a leading aircraft taking part in a formation flight in which a following aircraft flies close to a vortex created by a leading aircraft, the monitoring system comprising electronic circuitry integrated into at least one avionics computer of the aircraft, (See at least paragraph [0011] “Shown in FIG. 1 is schematic representation of a self-contained, autonomous formation flying system 10. Referring to FIG. 1, the system 10 controls a position of a follower aircraft 12, for example, a helicopter, to a leader. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the leader is a lead aircraft 14, but in other embodiments the leader may be another moving object, for example, a ground vehicle, a sea vehicle, or a refueling drogue.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0016] “ A relative position 42 obtained via the various sensors is communicated through an avionics bus 38, such as a MIL-STD-1553 bus, to a flight control computer 40 of the follower aircraft 12.”).
wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to: receive information relating to activation of a formation flight guidance mode, from the following aircraft; and (See at least paragraph [0020] “the system 10 includes means for the system 10 to be disengaged. Such means may include a pilot input to a control stick of the aircraft 12, a button or switch which is activated by the pilot. Further, if the flight control system 40 determines that the path of the lead aircraft 14 is unsafe to follow, the flight control system 10 will engage the formation flying system 10.”).
receive information identifying the leading aircraft; (See at least paragraph [0016] “Global positioning coordinates of the lead aircraft 14 are obtained and transmitted to the follower aircraft 12,”).
and ordering a disengagement of the participation of the following aircraft in the formation flight. (See at least paragraph [0020] “if the flight control system 40 determines that the path of the lead aircraft 14 is unsafe to follow, the flight control system 10 will engage the formation flying system 10.”).
Sahasrabudhe fails to explicitly teach, However, Hess discloses, wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to: receive information relating to a power level of a radiofrequency signal received from the leading aircraft by the following aircraft, the radiofrequency signal received by the following aircraft corresponding to a radiofrequency signal to be transmitted by the leading aircraft at a more or less constant power throughout a phase of the formation flight; and (See at least paragraph [0020] “the alarm monitoring device 120 may receive signals transmitted by the base station 122, and determine the distance based on the strength of the signal.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0035] “alarm monitoring device 120 measures the strength of the received radio signal. Wireless communication system 132 and process 128 analyze the received signal to determine a signal strength value.”).
store a value of the power level, referred to as an initial power level value, (See at least paragraph [0036] “alarm monitoring device 120 may measure and store the signal strength value from the first received radio signal. ”).
in response to receiving the information relating to the activation of the formation flight guidance mode of the following aircraft and the information identifying the leading aircraft; wherein the electronic circuitry is further configured to carry out, repeatedly during participation of the following aircraft in the formation flight, steps of: receiving information relating to the power level of the radiofrequency signal received from the leading aircraft by the following aircraft; storing a value of the power level, referred to as a current power level, at a current time; calculating a difference between the current power level value and the initial power level value; (See at least paragraph [0037] “The change in distance is calculated by the change in signal strength from received radio signals.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0035] “Process 400 begins at step 405 when alarm monitoring device 120 receives a radio signal from alarm base station 122, which may periodically send a signal to alarm monitoring device 120, or the received radio signal may be sent in response to a signal sent by alarm monitoring device 120, such as in a request and acknowledgement system. Next in step 410, alarm monitoring device 120 measures the strength of the received radio signal. Wireless communication system 132 and process 128 analyze the received signal to determine a signal strength value.”).
determining a first collision risk between the following aircraft and the leading aircraft if the calculated difference is greater than a power threshold; (See at least paragraph [0037] “the strength of the received radio signal is checked against the threshold value to determine if a security event has occurred. In this case, a security event is an unanticipated change in distance between alarm monitoring device 120 and alarm base station 122. The change in distance is calculated by the change in signal strength from received radio signals. If the signal strength of the received radio signal is within tolerance or within the threshold values, then alarm monitoring device 120 returns to step 405. If the signal strength is outside the tolerance by either being too strong or too weak, then alarm monitoring device 120 moves to step 425.”). and
if the first collision risk is determined, ordering issue of an alert in a cockpit of the following aircraft (See at least paragraph [0038] “ In step 425, alarm monitoring device 120 initiates an alert.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0025] “siren 138 creates an audible alert in alarm monitoring device 120”).
Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sahasrabudhe to incorporate the teachings of Hess because both references teach the same problem, detecting when two moving objects approach an unsafe distance, therefore the combination uses each reference per its established function with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess disclose the claimed features of claim 1, Sahasrabudhe fails to explicitly teach, However Hess discloses, wherein the power threshold is within an interval [6dB; 18dB], or is 12dB. (See at least paragraph [0037] “ alarm monitoring device 120 creates a threshold signal strength value or tolerance”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sahasrabudhe to incorporate the teachings of Hess for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, and commensurate claim 9, Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess disclose the claimed features of claim 1, and Sahasrabudhe further discloses, wherein the electronic circuitry is further configured to receive position information of the following aircraft originating from a receiver of a satellite positioning system of the following aircraft, as well as position information of the leading aircraft originating from a receiver of a satellite positioning system of the leading aircraft, in order to determine a distance between the following aircraft and the leading aircraft based on the position information of the following aircraft and the leading aircraft, and to determine a second collision risk between the following aircraft and the leading aircraft when the distance is below a distance threshold. (See at least paragraph [0016-0017] “Relative global positioning data and sensor data, in the form of range 30, azimuth 32 and elevation 34 is provided to the sensor fusion computer 20. Relative global positioning requires an additional global positioning sensor 26 and a datalink device 36 at the lead aircraft 14. Global positioning coordinates of the lead aircraft 14 are obtained and transmitted to the follower aircraft 12, where the relative position of the follower aircraft 12 is determined by comparing the data from the lead aircraft 14 global positioning sensor 26 to the data from the follower aircraft 12 global positioning sensor 26. A relative position 42 obtained via the various sensors is communicated through an avionics bus 38, such as a MIL-STD-1553 bus, to a flight control computer 40 of the follower aircraft 12. The relative position 42 is compared to a selected relative position 44 at the flight control computer 40. A determination is made by the flight control computer of a magnitude of an error 46 between the relative position 42 and the selected relative position 44 and it is determined whether high gain corrective measures 48 or relatively low gain corrective measures 50 are necessary to move the follower aircraft 12 such that the relative position 44 is within an acceptable range. The necessary correction is determined and transformed into body-axis velocities v.sub.x, v.sub.y, and v.sub.z relative to the three body axes of the follower aircraft 12.”).
Regarding claim 6, Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess disclose the claimed features of claim 5, Sahasrabudhe fails to explicitly teach, However Hess discloses, wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to order issue of an alert in the cockpit of the following aircraft and to order a disengagement of the participation of the following aircraft in the formation flight if the first collision risk or the second collision risk is determined. (See at least paragraph [0022] “Alternatively, or as a redundant way to detect movement, the alarm monitoring device 120 may be engaged in two-way communication with the base station 122 via any communication protocol that allows for regular communication between the base station 122 and the alarm monitoring device 120 at predetermined intervals. Moving the alarm monitoring device 120 out of the range of the base station 122 disrupts the communication and indicates movement of the alarm monitoring device 120. Based on this movement, the alarm monitoring device 120 or the base station 122 may trigger the security event, including sounding the siren 138 and/or enable the GPS receiver 140.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sahasrabudhe to incorporate the teachings of Hess for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess disclose the claimed features of claim 5, Sahasrabudhe fails to explicitly teach, However Hess discloses, wherein the electronic circuitry is configured to order issue of an alert in the cockpit of the following aircraft and to order a disengagement of the participation of the following aircraft in the formation flight if the first collision risk and the second collision risk are determined. (See at least paragraph [0022] “Alternatively, or as a redundant way to detect movement, the alarm monitoring device 120 may be engaged in two-way communication with the base station 122 via any communication protocol that allows for regular communication between the base station 122 and the alarm monitoring device 120 at predetermined intervals. Moving the alarm monitoring device 120 out of the range of the base station 122 disrupts the communication and indicates movement of the alarm monitoring device 120. Based on this movement, the alarm monitoring device 120 or the base station 122 may trigger the security event, including sounding the siren 138 and/or enable the GPS receiver 140.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sahasrabudhe to incorporate the teachings of Hess for the same motivation reasons in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess disclose the claimed features of claim 1, and Sahasrabudhe further discloses, An aircraft comprising the anticollision monitoring system of claim 1. (See at least paragraph [0011] “Shown in FIG. 1 is schematic representation of a self-contained, autonomous formation flying system 10. Referring to FIG. 1, the system 10 controls a position of a follower aircraft 12, for example, a helicopter, to a leader. In the embodiment shown in FIG. 1, the leader is a lead aircraft 14, but in other embodiments the leader may be another moving object, for example, a ground vehicle, a sea vehicle, or a refueling drogue.”).
Claims 2-3, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 20120004844, to Sahasrabudhe et al. (hereinafter Sahasrabudhe), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110012729, to Hess et al (hereinafter Hess), and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20070132638, to Frazier et al (hereinafter Frazier).
Regarding claim 2, Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess disclose the claimed features of claim 5, Sahasrabudhe fails to explicitly teach, However Frazier discloses, wherein the radiofrequency signal received by the following aircraft corresponds to a radiofrequency signal transmitted by a DME or ADS-B system of the leading aircraft. (See at least paragraph [0014] “the present invention comprises a data link Mode-S transponder, which generates and transmits ADS-B broadcast data. Such ADS-B broadcast data contains aircraft position information of the host aircraft.”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0036] “The MFL 250 maintains cell separation using information that is periodically broadcast from the cell leader's transponder, specifically, Global Positioning System (GPS) squitter data.”).
Sahasrabudhe as modified by Frazier, are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring systems. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess to incorporate the teachings of Frazier because Frazier describes as transmitted at a defined peak 640 watts peak pulse. Measuring a pulsed signal strength by its peak value is the conventional metric for such transmissions, making peak measurement an obvious application of a known technique with predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess disclose the claimed features of claim 5, Sahasrabudhe fails to explicitly teach, However Frazier discloses, wherein the information relating to the power level of the radiofrequency signal received from the leading aircraft corresponds to a peak power level. (See at least paragraph [0068] “The Mode-S RF power transmission level is 640 watts peak pulse, 250 watts minimum.”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Sahasrabudhe as modified by Hess to incorporate the teachings of Frazier for the same motivation reasons in claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights