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 .
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,557 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
Claim 1 of the current application is the same as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,557 B2 except that it’s missing the limitation “starting the first-to-start engine based on the selecting”.
Claim 13 of the current application is the same as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,557 B2 except that it’s missing the limitation “and the first-to-start engine configured to be started based on the select step”.
Claim 17 of the current application is the same as claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,557 B2 except that it’s missing the limitation “starting the first-to-start engine at the first timepoint based on the selecting step”.
The missing steps would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claims 2-12, 14-16, 18-20 of the current application are identical to claims 2-12, 14-16, 18-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,384,557 B2.
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 without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving historical fuel usage and taxiway information, optimizing one or more predetermined factors, selecting which of the first or second engine to start first based on the one or more predetermined factors and producing a first-to-start alert indicating which engine is the first engine to start (Claims 1 and 14), and additionally, determining an engine use plan, estimating a total amount of fuel needed for executing the plan and producing a fuel estimate indication (Claim 17).
The recited limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting "a determination module in claim 14" nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the "determination module" language in claim 14, "Optimizing, determining and estimating" in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally figuring out which engine to start based on the collected data and other predetermined parameters using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 14 recites one additional element, a determination module. The determination module 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. Regarding the additional limitations of "receiving historical fuel usage, receiving taxiway information, and producing a first to start alert and signal", the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. In particular, the receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The "producing a first to start alert and signal" is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of indicating a result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) 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 (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a determination module to perform the determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. 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 "receiving historical fuel usage, receiving taxiway information, and producing a first to start alert and signal" are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities according to Gayraud et al US 9,105,186 B2 discloses a method for aiding the taxiing of an aircraft comprising a plurality of onboard propulsion means by monitoring the parameters of the avionics systems during the implementation of the taxiing procedure (Abstract). 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 "producing a first to start alert and signal" 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/ 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 claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2-12, 14-16, 18-20 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. With respect to claim 2, the steps are part of the mental process. Claims 3-7 discloses details about the collected data and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 8 is part of the mental process. Claims 9-10 recite the additional element of producing the alert and has been analyzed above as insignificant extra solution activity. Claims 11-12 recite additional steps that are part of the mental process. Claim 14 recite an additional step that can be performed in the mind and is part of the mental process. Claims 15-16 recite additional elements of producing the alert and has been analyzed above as insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 18 recite additional steps that can be performed mentally and fall under the mental process grouping on abstract ideas. Claim 19 elaborates on the received data and has been analyzed above as insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 20 discloses details about the collected data and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, 18-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 17 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Buisson et al US 2023/0260412 A1 discloses operation of a two (or more) engine aircraft, and more particularly, for determining a time for turning on the second engine prior to take off and turning off the engine subsequent to landing.
Cox et al US 2017/0008618 A1 discloses movement of aircraft taxiing on the ground between landing and takeoff and at other times requiring aircraft ground travel and specifically to a ground movement system and method for maximizing the efficiency of ground movement and optimizing time and other savings possible when aircraft are equipped with onboard landing gear wheel-mounted non-engine drive motors controllable in conjunction with operation of the aircraft's engines to move the aircraft during ground travel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMI KHATIB whose telephone number is (571)270-1165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Erin M Piateski can be reached at 571-270 7429. 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.
/RAMI KHATIB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights