THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 16, 2022

2021005272 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 16/030,176 07/09/2018 Aaron John Jacobson 18-0679-US-NP (800-279) 8783 107112 7590 03/16/2022 The Small Patent Law Group LLC 1423 Strassner Dr. Suite 100 Brentwood, MO 63144 EXAMINER ANFINRUD, GABRIEL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3662 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/16/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): docket@splglaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com patentadmin@boeing.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AARON JOHN JACOBSON, SCOTT ALLEN, and KENNETH GOCHENOUR Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 Technology Center 3600 Before BARRY L. GROSSMAN, GEORGE R. HOSKINS, and LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-5, and 7-22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies The Boeing Company, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. 2 Claims 2 and 6 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 4, 18-19. Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure is directed to systems and methods of detecting air turbulence within an air space. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. An air turbulence analysis system, comprising: a plurality of aircraft, wherein each of the plurality of aircraft comprises one or more motion sensors configured to output motion signals indicative of motion caused by air turbulence; an air turbulence control unit including one or more processors, wherein the air turbulence control unit is remote from the plurality of aircraft, wherein the air turbulence control unit is configured to receive the motion signals from the one or more motion sensors of the plurality of aircraft within an air space over a defined region surrounding each of the plurality of aircraft as each of the plurality of aircraft flies within the air space, wherein the air turbulence control unit is further configured to determine locations of the air turbulence in real time as the air turbulence occurs within the air space based on the motion signals received from the plurality of aircraft; and a turbulence modeling control unit including one or more processors, wherein the turbulence modeling control unit is remote from the plurality of aircraft, and wherein the turbulence modeling control unit is configured to generate map data used by one or more of the plurality of aircraft to display a real time turbulence map based on the determined locations of air turbulence. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 3 Name Reference Date Zheng US 6,563,452 B1 May 13, 2003 Dugan US 2014/0106333 A1 Apr. 17, 2014 Hampel US 9,126,696 B1 Sept. 8, 2015 Watts US 9,243,922 B2 Jan. 26, 2016 Rizzi US 2018/0122247 A1 May 3, 2018 Hervé Abdi, Normalizing Data, Encyclopedia of Research Design, 2010 REJECTIONS I. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hampel and Dugan. II. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hampel, Dugan, and Rizzi. III. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hampel, Dugan, Abdi, and Watts. IV. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Hampel, Dugan, and Zheng. OPINION Rejection I (Hampel and Dugan) Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Hampel discloses many of the elements recited in claim 1, including (i) a plurality of aircraft including one or more motions sensors configured to output signals indicative of motion caused by air turbulence, (ii) an air turbulence control unit separate from the plurality of aircraft (remote server 100) configured to receive motion signals from the motion sensor(s) and to determine locations of the air turbulence, and (iii) a turbulence modeling control unit. Final Act. 3-4. However, the Examiner finds Hampel does not disclose that the locations are determined in real time Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 4 or that the turbulence modeling control unit generates map data used by one or more of the plurality of aircraft to display a real time turbulence map based on the determined locations. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds Dugan discloses an air turbulence control unit that is configured to determine locations of air turbulence in real time, as the air turbulence occurs within air space, based on motion signals (including acceleration information and location data) from the electronic devices. Final Act. 4 (citing Dugan ¶ 24). Additionally, the Examiner finds Dugan discloses that its air turbulence control unit is configured to generate map data used in a plurality of aircraft to display a real time turbulence map based on the locations of the air turbulence. Id. at 4-5 (citing Dugan ¶ 49). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art “to present a real-time turbulence map, as taught by Dugan, using the system taught by Hampel[,] in order to more accurately communicate the turbulence information, and thus [to] both inform a pilot and air traffic control more effectively to generate safer trajectories.” Final Act. 5 (citing Dugan ¶ 49) (emphasis added). The Examiner also finds this modification to Hampel’s system would “inform the passengers about the turbulence, characteristics, and reassure them that the plane can tolerate it.” Id. (citing Dugan ¶ 49). In contesting Rejection I, Appellant repeatedly quotes the last half of claim 1 (beginning with the language “wherein the air turbulence control unit is further configured to determine locations”) and asserts that neither Hampel nor Dugan, taken alone or in combination, discloses these limitations. See Appeal Br. 8-9, 12; Reply Br. 2. Such a conclusory Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 5 assertion with no analysis to the underlying challenge is insufficient to apprise us of Examiner error. Appellant next notes that claim 1 was amended to change the limitation “separate from the plurality of aircraft” to “remote from the plurality of aircraft” and states, “even in light of the claim amendment in direct response to the Examiner’s suggestion, the same rejections are maintained.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s discussion of the amendment to claim 1 does not assert that Hampel, which the Examiner finds teaches an air turbulence control unit and turbulence modeling control unit (see Final Act. 4; Examiner Interview Summary Record, 1 (mailed on February 2, 2021, hereinafter “Interview Summary”)), fails to disclose that this structure is remote from the plurality of aircraft. See, e.g., Hampel Fig. 2, 4:15-22 (illustrating and describing server 100 being remote from and in communication with various aircraft). Nor does Appellant contest the Examiner’s finding that Dugan discloses communication with a remote server. See Interview Summary, 1; see, e.g., Dugan ¶ 41 (“In one or more embodiments, a web server may collect acceleration . . . data from flights and generate turbulence maps . . . during flights.”). Rather, Appellant merely notes, without identification of any Examiner error, that claim 1 was amended. Next Appellant quotes the following paragraph from page 4 of the Final Office Action in which, after setting forth findings as to what Hampel discloses, the Examiner states: Hampel does not teach; wherein the air turbulence control unit is configured to determine locations of air turbulence in real time as the air turbulence occurs within the air space based on the motion signals, and wherein the air turbulence control unit is Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 6 configured to generate map data used by one or more of the plurality of aircraft to display a real time turbulence map based on the determined locations of air turbulence. Appeal Br. 10 (emphases added). Appellant contends, accurately, that the Examiner’s statement incorrectly refers to an air turbulence control unit that is configured to generate a map, whereas claim 1 requires a turbulence modeling control unit configured to generate a map. See id.; Final Act. 4. To the extent Appellant asserts the Examiner overlooked the turbulence modeling control unit recited in claim 1, we are not apprised of Examiner error because, in the two paragraphs immediately preceding the paragraph from the Final Office Action quoted by Appellant, the Examiner correctly refers to an air turbulence control unit and a turbulence modeling control unit and maps these elements to their respective limitations in claim 1. See Final Act. 4. The Examiner’s explanation of the proposed modification to Hampel’s system makes clear that the aspects being added to this system are the creation of a map that is based on real-time information. Id. at 5; see also id. at 8 (explaining the modification made to Hampel, based on Dugan, in the rejection of independent claim 14). In the Answer, the Examiner further explains the rejection, finding that “[w]hile Hampel only discloses a single processor, it is inherently performing different programs/processes [corresponding to units] regarding tracking turbulence data (column 4 lines 48-49) and distributing the position of the turbulence data with various forms [plurality emphasized].” Ans. 3-4 (citing Hampel 5:10-13). Thus, the Examiner makes clear the finding that Hampel discloses both “units” recited in claim 1, albeit with the “map” and “real-time” deficiencies noted above. Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 7 Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s findings that Dugan discloses a remote server or that Hampel’s remote server satisfies the requirement in claim 1 for two different “units” because it inherently performs different processes and distributes turbulence data with various forms. See generally Reply Br. Therefore, we do not agree with Appellant’s implied argument that the Examiner overlooked the turbulence modeling control unit requirement of claim 1. Appellant next argues “Dugan discloses measuring turbulence with electronic devices such as 204, 206, 208 of ‘other users/passengers’ that are currently passing or recently passed a geographic area.” Appeal Br. 10-11 (citing Dugan ¶ 49). Appellant then reproduces Figures 2A and 2B of Dugan and states, “[a]s shown, the electronic devices are within the internal cabin of the aircraft. In particular, the electronic devices are personal devices, such as smart phones, of passengers.”3 Id. at 11. Appellant does not explain how the fact that Dugan’s electronic devices (smart phones) are inside the cabin of the aircraft has any impact on the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner finds Hampel already discloses a plurality of aircraft including one or more motion sensors4 as well as a remote air turbulence control unit and a remote turbulence modeling control unit. Final Act. 3-4. Furthermore, claim 1 does not preclude the motion sensors from being inside the aircraft. Thus, Appellant’s identification of the location of Dugan’s electronic devices does not address the rejection as 3 Appellant spends the remainder of the portion of the Appeal Brief dedicated to claim 1 reiterating this assertion and quoting (and paraphrasing) the last half of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 11-12. 4 Hampel discloses that these sensors may be hand-held mobile devices. Hampel 4:2-5. Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 8 presented in the Final Office Action and Interview Summary, or the scope of claim 1. Indeed, regarding some of the Examiner’s findings that are relevant to the rejection of claim 1, Appellant admits that “Dugan also includes code that generates real time and historical turbulence maps[, and] Dugan indicates a real time push notification is based on turbulence measured by other users/passengers’ electronic devices that are currently passing, or have recently passed a geographic area.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing Dugan ¶ 49). As for the Examiner’s explanation as to why it would have been obvious to combine these teachings from Dugan with those of Hampel, Appellant does not assert the Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification to Hampel’s system, based on Dugan’s teachings (see Final Act. 5), is flawed. In the Reply Brief, Appellant reiterates the arguments discussed above and, referring to the Examiner’s finding that Dugan discloses a web server (Ans. 3), states: a web server collecting acceleration and/or biometric data is not the same as determining locations of air turbulence in real time (a limitation the Examiner acknowledges that Hampel does not disclose, as noted above). Dugan notes that the web server is collecting such data from devices onboard the aircraft. The web server is not itself determining locations of air turbulence in real time as the air turbulence occurs. Instead, the personal device onboard the aircraft are measuring the turbulence. Reply Br. 3-4 (italicization added). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. As the Examiner correctly finds, Hampel, in its unmodified state, discloses an air turbulence control unit configured to determine locations of air turbulence. See Final Act. 4 (citing Hampel, Fig. 2). Appellant does not specifically contest this finding. Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 9 In any event, regardless of the Examiner’s finding on this point with respect to Hampel, Dugan discloses that, “[i]n one or more embodiments, a web server may collect acceleration and/or biometric data from flights and generate turbulence maps and/or maps of stress levels during flights.” Dugan ¶ 41. Dugan further states, “the web servers may include code that generates real time and historical turbulence maps that may be communicated to passengers.” Id. ¶ 49. The fact that certain signals may originate from passengers’ devices does not negate Dugan’s teaching that Dugan’s web server uses this data to generate maps depicting the location of turbulence and therefore determines locations of air turbulence. Appellant identifies no meaningful difference between the operation of Dugan’s web server and Appellant’s air turbulence control unit. See Spec. ¶ 51. We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments in support of the patentability of claim 1, but find them unavailing. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Claims 3-5, 7, and 10-13 Appellant does not make arguments for the patentability of dependent claims 3-5, 7, and 10-13 aside from those discussed above regarding claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8-12. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 3-5, 7, and 10-13. Claims 14-17, 19, and 20 Appellant makes substantially similar arguments in support of the patentability of independent method claim 14 as those discussed above regarding claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12-15. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 14, and 15-17, 19, and 20 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over Hampel and Dugan. Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 10 Rejection II (Hampel, Dugan, and Rizzi) Claim 8 Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites “the one or more motion sensors of one of the plurality of aircraft comprise an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an inertial sensor, and a global positioning system (GPS) unit.” Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Hampel discloses that its sensors comprise an accelerometer and GPS. Final Act. 11. The Examiner finds Hampel does not disclose that its sensors include a gyroscope and inertial sensor, but that Rizzi discloses these types of sensors. Id. (citing Rizzi ¶¶ 51 and 133). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious “to use gyroscopes and inertial sensors in addition to acceleration sensors and GPS as taught by Hampel in order to further improve the detection of turbulence and to promote redundancy.” Id. Appellant’s entire argument contesting the rejection of claim 8 is as follows: [C]laim 8 recites, in part, “wherein the one or more motion sensors of one of the plurality of aircraft comprise an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an inertial sensor, and a global positioning system (GPS) unit.” That is, one of the aircraft includes motions sensors including (1) an accelerometer, (2) a gyroscope, (3) an inertial sensor, and (4) a GPS unit. The Office Action has not pointed to anything in the cited references that expressly or necessarily describes, teaches, or suggests one aircraft having all of the four noted motion sensors. None of Hampel, Dugan, or Rizzi (alone or in combination with one another) describes, teaches, or suggests all four of these motion sensors in a single aircraft. For at least these additional reasons, the proposed combination does not render claim 8 unpatentable. Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 11 Appeal Br. 16. Thus, in contesting the rejection of claim 8, Appellant recites the further limitations set forth therein and baldly alleges that the cited references, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest them. This vague statement does not constitute a separate argument for patentability of claim 8 pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2020). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board had reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), the precursor to present § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) that applies here, as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Appellant’s statement does not specifically address the Examiner’s findings and proposed combination of the teachings of Hampel, Dugan, and Rizzi or point out why they are in error. Consequently, we sustain the rejection of claim 8. Rejections III and IV (Hampel, Dugan, Abdi, Watts, and Zheng) Claims 9, 18, 21, and 22 Appellant relies on the arguments discussed above regarding claim 1 and 14 to contest Rejections III and IV. See Appeal Br. 16. Accordingly, we sustain Rejections III and IV for the reasons discussed above. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Appeal 2021-005272 Application 16/030,176 12 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 7, 10-17, 19, 20 103 Hampel, Dugan 1, 3-5, 7, 10-17, 19, 20 8 103 Hampel, Dugan, Rizzi 8 9, 18 103 Hampel, Dugan, Abdi, Watts 9, 18 21, 22 103 Hampel, Dugan, Zheng 21, 22 Overall Outcome 1, 3-5, 7- 22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED