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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1. An aerospace commerce exchange system comprising:
an air-to-ground wireless communication network;
a plurality of clients operably coupled to the network, the clients comprising data producers and data consumers;
an aerospace commerce exchange platform operably coupled to the network to provide exchange services to the data producers and the data consumers such that the data producers provide information to the aerospace commerce exchange platform to be accessed by the data consumers; and
a security module configured to enable secure communication associated with the exchange services between the clients,
wherein at least one of the data producers comprises an in-flight aircraft that is operably coupled to the aerospace commerce exchange platform via an air-to-ground wireless communication link to provide the information as data from components or sensors of the aircraft to the aerospace commerce exchange platform while the aircraft is in-flight,
wherein the data from the components or sensors of each of the aircraft and the other in- flight aircraft define a first level at which permissioned or permissionless blockchain techniques are employed to ensure authentication of the data, and
wherein permissioned or permissionless blockchain techniques are further employed at a second level to ensure authentication of the aircraft record and the respective aircraft records for the other in-flight aircraft.
The underlined elements represent certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial interactions including sales activities as the abstract idea connects producers and consumers.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims include. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations. Claim 13 is similarly rejected.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 7 merely narrow the scope of the data and the transaction. Claims 5, 6 and 10-12 add general blockchain concepts.
Claims 8 and 9 add standard computer architecture for managing security, i.e., implementing abstract concepts.
Claims 14-20 are similarly rejected.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1, 13 and dependents recite the limitation "each of the aircraft, the other in-flight aircraft, and the aircraft record" in the s. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: clients, an aerospace commerce exchange platform and security module in claims 1 and 13 and an ecommerce module in claims 7 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 Nos. 12,387,193 and 11,893,566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the independent claims of the cited patents includes all of the limitations of the present claims. The claims are not identical because the patented claims include additional limitations as shown below. All dependent claims of the cited patents mirror the present dependent claims.
Present claims vs 12,387,193
1. An aerospace commerce exchange system comprising: an air-to-ground wireless communication network; a plurality of clients operably coupled to the network, the clients comprising data producers and data consumers; an aerospace commerce exchange platform operably coupled to the network to provide exchange services to the data producers and the data consumers such that the data producers provide information to the aerospace commerce exchange platform to be accessed by the data consumers; and a security module configured to enable secure communication associated with the exchange services between the clients, wherein at least one of the data producers comprises an in-flight aircraft that is operably coupled to the aerospace commerce exchange platform via an air-to-ground wireless communication link to provide the information as data from components or sensors of the aircraft to the aerospace commerce exchange platform while the aircraft is in-flight, wherein the security module is configured to provide a distributed ledger for communication of the data from the components or sensor of the aircraft as an aircraft record for the aircraft, and from components or sensors of multiple other in-flight aircraft as respective aircraft records for the other in-flight aircraft, and wherein the data from the components or in- sensors of each of the aircraft and the other in-flight aircraft define a first level at which permissioned or permissionless blockchain techniques are employed to ensure authentication of the data, and wherein permissioned or permissionless blockchain techniques are further employed at a second level to ensure authentication of the aircraft record and the respective aircraft records for the other in-flight aircraft.
Present claims vs 11,893,566
1. An aerospace commerce exchange system comprising: an air-to-ground wireless communication network; a plurality of clients operably coupled to the network, the clients comprising data producers and data consumers; an aerospace commerce exchange platform operably coupled to the network to provide exchange services to the data producers and the data consumers such that the data producers provide information to the aerospace commerce exchange platform to be accessed by the data consumers; and a security module configured to enable secure communication associated with the exchange services between the clients, wherein at least one of the data producers comprises an in-flight aircraft that is operably coupled to the aerospace commerce exchange platform via an air-to-ground wireless communication link to provide the information as data from components or sensors of the aircraft to the aerospace commerce exchange platform while the aircraft is in-flight, wherein the aerospace commerce exchange platform comprises a development module configured to enable one of the data consumers to use the information provided from the aircraft to create a tool accessible via the network for use as one of the exchange services, wherein the security module is configured to provide a distributed ledger for communication of the data from the components or sensor of the aircraft as an aircraft record for the aircraft, and from components or sensors of multiple other in-flight aircraft as respective aircraft records for the other in-flight aircraft, and wherein the data from the components or sensors of each of the aircraft and the other in- flight aircraft define a first level at which permissioned or permissionless blockchain techniques are employed to ensure authentication of the data, and wherein permissioned or permissionless blockchain techniques are further employed at a second level to ensure authentication of the aircraft record and the respective aircraft records for the other in-flight aircraft.
Cited Prior art
Applicant includes a European search Report as prior art however, the claims searched are dissimilar to those of the present application and thus the prior art cited as a reference does not apply.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM E RANKINS whose telephone number is (571)270-3465. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-530 M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Bennett Sigmond can be reached on 303-297-4411. 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.
/WILLIAM E RANKINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights