DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the amendments and arguments after board decision filed May 14th, 2026. Claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-26 are currently pending.
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 § 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 3-6, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited of record Suddreth et al. (US Pub. No. 20190272762 A1), herein after Suddreth, as evidenced by and in view of previously cited of record Velastri et al. (US Pub. No. 20200286388 A1), herein after Velastri.
Regarding claim 24, Suddreth teaches [a] method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising: generating a first route plan having a starting point and an ending point, wherein the first route plan is based on at least one parameter and wherein the first route plan is configured to cause the vehicle to generate an overpressure event (Suddreth: Para. 0014 and 0015; "Flight planning systems and methods, which support enhanced or augmented supersonic flight planning through the strategic integration of sonic boom forecast data, are provided. Embodiments of the flight planning system seek to automate, to the extent appropriate, the generation boom-regulated flight plans; that is, flight plans containing supersonic flight plan segments, which can be flown by an aircraft (A/C) without the production of excessive sonic booms... The occurrence of an excessive (threshold-exceeding) sonic boom is also referred to herein as an “overpressure event.”" "During operation, the flight planning system endeavors to construct flight plans in accordance with specified flight plan criteria. The flight plan criteria sets-out the pertinent constraints of the flight plan, such as starting waypoint (origin), ending waypoint (destination), Estimated Time of Departure (ETD), and the like."); receiving an operator input to change at least one operating parameter of the vehicle (Suddreth: Para. 0015; "Such flight plan criteria may be entered utilizing any suitable pilot input interface, such as an input interface associated with a Flight Management System (FMS) included within or otherwise associated with the flight planning system."); generating a second route plan based, at least in part, on the operator input (Suddreth: Para. 0015; "Following entry of the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system endeavors to generate a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the entered flight plan criteria. If successful in generating a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system may present the flight plan on a display device to, for example, allow pilot review and confirmation before final submission to the A/C avionics."); displaying, on a display, (i) the first route plan including symbology indicating the overpressure event and (ii) the second route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0015, 0045, and 0046; "In addition to alerting the pilot of the impending occurrence of an excessive sonic boom or “overpressure event” should the flight plan be executed in its originally-generated or unmodified form, the visual notification may also convey other information useful in evaluating the causal factors underlying the system's inability to generate a boom-regulated flight plan, such as symbology identifying the geographical location or locations at which any excessive sonic booms are predicted to occur." "FIG. 4 is a screenshot of a GUI including a flight plan comparison page 66, which may be generated on avionic display 32 by flight planning system 10 in a further exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. Flight plan comparison page 66 visually plots a first or primary flight plan 68 and a second or alternative flight plan 70, which have been generated by system 10 based upon entered flight plan criteria. The depicted flight plans are superimposed over a map view presented from, for example, a two-dimensional planform perspective, although it will be appreciated that other perspectives are possible (e.g., a forward-looking, three dimensional perspective). The flight plans may be distinguished utilizing distinctive waypoint markers as shown. If desired, other graphics may be provided on map view, including, for example, an A/C graphic 74, a heading graphic 76, a range ring graphic 78, and various symbols indicative of terrain, weather, and structures (not shown for clarity)." "As indicated in FIG. 4 by sonic boom symbol 88, an excessive sonic boom is predicted should primary flight plan 68 be executed as originally generated. Thus, flight planning system 10 further presents alternative flight plan 70, which terminates at the desired end waypoint, but which averts the potential occurrence of an excessive sonic boom or overpressure event."); receiving an operator input to select a route plan displayed on the display; and generating actuator instructions to control the vehicle to follow the selected route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0015; "Following entry of the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system endeavors to generate a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the entered flight plan criteria. If successful in generating a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system may present the flight plan on a display device to, for example, allow pilot review and confirmation before final submission to the A/C avionics.").
Suddreth does not explicitly teach wherein: the second route plan includes the symbology indicating the overpressure event when the vehicle, upon being controlled along the second route plan, will violate supersonic flight restrictions, Suddreth does, however, teach generating multiple flight paths and symbology indicative of weather to allow a pilot to route around an area where an overpressure event would occur (Suddreth: Para. 0045; “Flight plan comparison page 66 visually plots a first or primary flight plan 68 and a second or alternative flight plan 70, which have been generated by system 10 based upon entered flight plan criteria. The depicted flight plans are superimposed over a map view presented from, for example, a two-dimensional planform perspective, although it will be appreciated that other perspectives are possible (e.g., a forward-looking, three dimensional perspective). The flight plans may be distinguished utilizing distinctive waypoint markers as shown. If desired, other graphics may be provided on map view, including, for example, an A/C graphic 74, a heading graphic 76, a range ring graphic 78, and various symbols indicative of terrain, weather, and structures (not shown for clarity).”), that the overpressure event would violate a supersonic flight restriction (Suddreth: Para. 0036; “In embodiments, the boom tolerance threshold may be assigned a georeferenced value in embodiments and, thus, may vary based upon the particular geographical location or region in which a sonic boom is predicted to occur... Such georeferenced values can be varied as a function of local or regional noise abatement regulations, political boundaries, the type and vulnerability of manmade structures within a region to pressure wave damage, proximity to land if a sonic boom is forecast to occur over water, and other parameters.”), that if the original flight plan would cause an overpressure event then the system would generate less optimal solutions including alternate flight plans (Suddreth: Para 0042; "Continuing with the instant example, if the A/C is unable to climb at the flight plan interval under consideration, or if a reasonable altitude gain remains insufficient to remove the excessive sonic boom prediction, flight planning system 10 may consider other, less optimal solutions... Flight planning system 10 may submit such 'what-if' queries on a relatively frequent basis to compensate for changes in dynamic parameters impacting the Mach cutoff speed calculation, such changes in forecast A/C speeds and weather (e.g., wind) conditions. Finally, if no navigational solutions are found during STEP 44 of method 36, an advisory message or other notification may be generated indicating that system 10 was unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan c satisfying the entered flight plan criteria."), and that if the less optimal solution would still cause an overpressure event then the system would generate symbology indicative of where the sonic boom would occur (Suddreth: Para 0043 and 0048; "If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom." “Further, in instances in which a boom-regulated flight plan cannot be established, or in instances in which relatively large deviations from an initially-generated flight plan are required to remove an excessive sonic boom prediction, the flight planning system may duly notify a pilot and provide penitent information helpful in discerning an acceptable solution to address the excessive sonic boom prediction”). Furthermore, this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Velastri which teaches wherein: the second route plan includes the symbology indicating the overpressure event when the vehicle, upon being controlled along the second route plan, will violate supersonic flight restrictions (Velastri: Para. 0037, 0071, 0072, 0073, and 0114; "To address the technical challenges associated with determining and then visualizing aerial flight safety risks, the system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to enable human and machine pilots of aerial vehicles 101 to understand the safety risks associated with a given flight path or potential flight path by aggregating various location-based risk factors or risk-related data associated with the flight path." "In step 307, the visualization module 207 can then render the generated virtual obstacle object in a user interface of a device in relation to the flight path or other path of travel. For example, the virtual obstacle object can be rendered in a mapping display so that the object corresponds to a real-world location associated with the computed risk level." "FIG. 5 is a diagram of a trip planning user interface (UI) 501 for visualizing risk levels for aerial vehicle flights, according to one embodiment... Element 505b displays the rendered virtual obstacle objects determined over areas around or near the flight path 507. In this way, the flight path 507 can be drawn or computed to avoid passing through any of the virtual obstacle objects to minimize safety risks over the flight path 507. For example, the mapping platform 117 can initiate a generation of a different flight path based on determining that a risk level associated with a current or potential flight path is above a risk threshold." "It is noted that the representation as illustrated in UI 501 is not a heatmap simply based on population. Ideally, for trip planning, a pilot would pick a route which has no risk volume or virtual obstacle object on the flight path (e.g., no crossing of any rendered risk object). If that is not possible, the pilot could then take the route with the lowest risk (e.g., crossing objects with lower risk levels). This is especially useful when the pilot needs to adapt to changing conditions while flying (e.g., during rerouting of a flight path) as the pilot will need to make very quick decisions on-the-fly." "In one embodiment, the aerial vehicle 101 is capable of being configured with and executing at least one route based on visualized risk levels, dynamic population density predictions according to the embodiments described herein... In addition, the aerial vehicle 101 can be configured to observe restricted paths or routes. For example, the restricted paths may be based on governmental regulations that govern/restrict the path that the aerial vehicle 101 may fly (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies regarding required distances between objects).") for the benefit of improving a pilot’s ability to adapt to non-ideal flight situations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to include in the display of alternative secondary flight plans for when a primary flight plan will violate supersonic restrictions, as taught by Suddreth, to also display alternative secondary flight plans that violates a flight restriction with symbols for the violations of the flight restrictions in the second flight plan, as evidenced by Velastri, for the benefit of improving a pilot’s ability to adapt to non-ideal flight situations.
Regarding claim 3, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 24, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 24, wherein the generating the first route plan includes requesting and receiving data, or portions thereof, from one or more of a ground based system, a cloud based system, a vehicle based system, a weather system, or a data server (Suddreth: Para. 0016; "Various different data sources and analysis techniques may be employed by the flight planning system in obtaining sonic boom forecast data, which is then utilized to determine whether a boom-regulated flight plan can be established for a particular set of flight plan criteria. In certain embodiments, the flight planning system may retrieve sonic boom predictions from a remote entity, such as a cloud-based service or server farm, dedicated to performing relatively complex forecasting algorithms.").
Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied above, and regarding the limitation wherein the data includes at least one of a population data indicating population density or distribution, or flight restrictions on overpressure events, Suddreth renders this feature obvious as Suddreth teaches that the threshold for allowable sonic booms over a geographic zone include noise abatement laws over a populated zone and that the threshold can be modified or received from various sources (Suddreth: Para. 0035 and 0036; "While a single value is assigned to the sonic boom threshold in such embodiments, flight planning system 10 may allow the value of the boom tolerance threshold to be modified through software updates, pilot input, by ATC communications, or in another manner. In other implementations of method 36 and system 10, the boom tolerance threshold may be assigned a dynamic or variable value, which is actively modified by flight planning system 10 as a function of one or more parameters relating to a given sonic boom prediction. In this latter instance, a range of boom tolerance threshold values may be stored in memory 16 and differentiated by time of day, varying geographical zones, and other such differentiating factors, as discussed more fully below." "By actively varying the value of the sonic boom threshold in relation to geographical region, more intensive sonic booms (that is, sonic booms having greater pressures or decibel levels) may be permitted within certain geographical regions, such as those that are relatively unpopulated. Conversely, only sonic booms of relatively low intensities may be permitted in other geographical regions, such as those that are densely populated, or sonic booms may be strictly banned in such regions. Such georeferenced values can be varied as a function of local or regional noise abatement regulations, political boundaries, the type and vulnerability of manmade structures within a region to pressure wave damage, proximity to land if a sonic boom is forecast to occur over water, and other parameters.") for the benefit of maintaining updated flight parameters for considering where supersonic travel is permissible.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filling of the application to modify the data retrieved from various sources which includes cloud or server based sources from Suddreth in view of Velastri with data about population density or distribution or flight restrictions on overpressure events from Suddreth for the benefit of maintaining updated flight parameters for considering where supersonic travel is permissible.
Regarding claim 4, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 24, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 24, further comprising: receiving at least one additional operator input if the first route plan and the second route plan are not selected by the operator; and generating at least one additional route plan based on the additional operator input, wherein the second route plan and the at least one additional route plan are not displayed on the display at the same time (Suddreth: Para. 0043; "Progressing next to STEP 46 of method 36, it is ascertained whether flight planning system 10 was successful in establishing a boom-regulated flight plan. If able to successfully arrive at a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 may present the boom-regulated flight plan for pilot approval prior to final FMS submission (STEP 50). In an embodiment, the relevant fields of the FMS may be populated such that the boom-regulated flight plan parameters are entered into the FMS upon selection of a “SUBMIT” option by the pilot. Otherwise, the boom-regulated flight plan may be atomically entered into the FMS or other avionic suite component during STEP 50. System 10 may submit the flight plan and any navigational commands associated therein to the pertinent flight deck systems in a suitable format, such as Aeronautical Radio Incorporated (ARINC) 429. Method 36 may conclude with final entry of the boom-regulated flight plan. If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom.").
Regarding claim 5, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 24, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 24, further comprising: displaying at least one additional route plan on the display, and wherein the receiving the operator input includes a selection of the first route plan, the second route plan, or the at least one additional route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0043; "If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom.").
Regarding claim 6, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 24, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 24, wherein the receiving the operator input includes receiving an input via at least one of the vehicle, a ground-based system, or a cloud- based system (Suddreth: Para. 0028; "Flight planning method 36 commences at STEP 38 with the generation of a baseline flight plan containing at least one supersonic flight plan segment; that is, a segment or portion of the flight plan calling for supersonic A/C flight. The baseline flight plan is generated in accordance specified flight plan criteria, which can be entered into flight planning system 10 by a pilot utilizing input interface 18. Such flight plan criteria can include a starting waypoint, an ending waypoint, a ETD, and other relevant parameters. A pilot may manually program such flight plan criteria into flight planning system 10, which may include or assume the form of an FMS, utilizing a designated physical interface or Graphic User Interface (GUI). For example, in one embodiment, the designated pilot input interface can be alphanumeric keypad provided on an MCDU. Afterwards, the pilot may review the MCDU display screen to ensure accurate entry of the flight plan parameters and then utilize the MCDU keypad to submit the flight plan to the avionics suite of the A/C. Alternatively, the flight plan parameters may be automatically submitted to an FMS or, more generally, flight planning system 10 from another device, such as an EFB or tablet, utilized for pre-planning purposes.").
Regarding claim 21, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 24, and Velastri goes on to further teach [t]he method of claim 24, wherein the first route plan and the second route plan are displayed on the display when the vehicle being controlled along one or both of the first route plan or the second route plan would travel through a weather event, or cause an emergency of the vehicle (Velastri: Para. 0037, 0071, 0072, and 0114; "To address the technical challenges associated with determining and then visualizing aerial flight safety risks, the system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to enable human and machine pilots of aerial vehicles 101 to understand the safety risks associated with a given flight path or potential flight path by aggregating various location-based risk factors or risk-related data associated with the flight path." "In step 307, the visualization module 207 can then render the generated virtual obstacle object in a user interface of a device in relation to the flight path or other path of travel. For example, the virtual obstacle object can be rendered in a mapping display so that the object corresponds to a real-world location associated with the computed risk level." "FIG. 5 is a diagram of a trip planning user interface (UI) 501 for visualizing risk levels for aerial vehicle flights, according to one embodiment... Element 505b displays the rendered virtual obstacle objects determined over areas around or near the flight path 507. In this way, the flight path 507 can be drawn or computed to avoid passing through any of the virtual obstacle objects to minimize safety risks over the flight path 507. For example, the mapping platform 117 can initiate a generation of a different flight path based on determining that a risk level associated with a current or potential flight path is above a risk threshold." "In one embodiment, the aerial vehicle 101 is capable of being configured with and executing at least one route based on visualized risk levels, dynamic population density predictions according to the embodiments described herein. The aerial vehicle 101 can also be configured avoid areas with high risk levels, populated areas, objects, and/or obstructions. In addition, the aerial vehicle 101 can be configured to observe restricted paths or routes. For example, the restricted paths may be based on governmental regulations that govern/restrict the path that the aerial vehicle 101 may fly (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies regarding required distances between objects). In one embodiment, the system 100 may also take into account one or more pertinent environmental or weather conditions (e.g., rain, water levels, sheer winds, etc. in and around underground passageways and their entry/exit points) in determining a route or flight path.").
Regarding claim 25, Suddreth teaches [a] system for controlling a vehicle, the system comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor executing the instructions to perform a process including: generating a first route plan having a starting point and an ending point, wherein the first route plan is based on at least one parameter and wherein the first route plan is configured to cause the vehicle to generate an overpressure event (Suddreth: Para. 0014 and 0015; "Flight planning systems and methods, which support enhanced or augmented supersonic flight planning through the strategic integration of sonic boom forecast data, are provided. Embodiments of the flight planning system seek to automate, to the extent appropriate, the generation boom-regulated flight plans; that is, flight plans containing supersonic flight plan segments, which can be flown by an aircraft (A/C) without the production of excessive sonic booms... The occurrence of an excessive (threshold-exceeding) sonic boom is also referred to herein as an “overpressure event.”" "During operation, the flight planning system endeavors to construct flight plans in accordance with specified flight plan criteria. The flight plan criteria sets-out the pertinent constraints of the flight plan, such as starting waypoint (origin), ending waypoint (destination), Estimated Time of Departure (ETD), and the like."); in response to receiving an operator input to change at least one operating parameter of the vehicle, generating a second route plan based, at least in part, on the operator input (Suddreth: Para. 0015; "Following entry of the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system endeavors to generate a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the entered flight plan criteria. If successful in generating a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system may present the flight plan on a display device to, for example, allow pilot review and confirmation before final submission to the A/C avionics."); displaying, on a display, (i) the first route plan including symbology indicating the overpressure event and (ii) the second route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0015, 0045, and 0046; "In addition to alerting the pilot of the impending occurrence of an excessive sonic boom or “overpressure event” should the flight plan be executed in its originally-generated or unmodified form, the visual notification may also convey other information useful in evaluating the causal factors underlying the system's inability to generate a boom-regulated flight plan, such as symbology identifying the geographical location or locations at which any excessive sonic booms are predicted to occur." "FIG. 4 is a screenshot of a GUI including a flight plan comparison page 66, which may be generated on avionic display 32 by flight planning system 10 in a further exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. Flight plan comparison page 66 visually plots a first or primary flight plan 68 and a second or alternative flight plan 70, which have been generated by system 10 based upon entered flight plan criteria. The depicted flight plans are superimposed over a map view presented from, for example, a two-dimensional planform perspective, although it will be appreciated that other perspectives are possible (e.g., a forward-looking, three dimensional perspective). The flight plans may be distinguished utilizing distinctive waypoint markers as shown. If desired, other graphics may be provided on map view, including, for example, an A/C graphic 74, a heading graphic 76, a range ring graphic 78, and various symbols indicative of terrain, weather, and structures (not shown for clarity)." "As indicated in FIG. 4 by sonic boom symbol 88, an excessive sonic boom is predicted should primary flight plan 68 be executed as originally generated. Thus, flight planning system 10 further presents alternative flight plan 70, which terminates at the desired end waypoint, but which averts the potential occurrence of an excessive sonic boom or overpressure event."); in response to receiving an operator input to select a route plan displayed on the display, generating actuator instructions to control the vehicle to follow the selected route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0015; "Following entry of the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system endeavors to generate a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the entered flight plan criteria. If successful in generating a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system may present the flight plan on a display device to, for example, allow pilot review and confirmation before final submission to the A/C avionics.").
Suddreth does not explicitly teach wherein: the second route plan includes the symbology indicating the overpressure event when the vehicle, upon being controlled along the second route plan, will violate supersonic flight restrictions, Suddreth does, however, teach generating multiple flight paths and symbology indicative of weather to allow a pilot to route around an area where an overpressure event would occur (Suddreth: Para. 0045; “Flight plan comparison page 66 visually plots a first or primary flight plan 68 and a second or alternative flight plan 70, which have been generated by system 10 based upon entered flight plan criteria. The depicted flight plans are superimposed over a map view presented from, for example, a two-dimensional planform perspective, although it will be appreciated that other perspectives are possible (e.g., a forward-looking, three dimensional perspective). The flight plans may be distinguished utilizing distinctive waypoint markers as shown. If desired, other graphics may be provided on map view, including, for example, an A/C graphic 74, a heading graphic 76, a range ring graphic 78, and various symbols indicative of terrain, weather, and structures (not shown for clarity).”), that the overpressure event would violate a supersonic flight restriction (Suddreth: Para. 0036; “"In embodiments, the boom tolerance threshold may be assigned a georeferenced value in embodiments and, thus, may vary based upon the particular geographical location or region in which a sonic boom is predicted to occur... Such georeferenced values can be varied as a function of local or regional noise abatement regulations, political boundaries, the type and vulnerability of manmade structures within a region to pressure wave damage, proximity to land if a sonic boom is forecast to occur over water, and other parameters.”), that if the original flight plan would cause an overpressure event then the system would generate less optimal solutions including alternate flight plans (Suddreth: Para 0042; "Continuing with the instant example, if the A/C is unable to climb at the flight plan interval under consideration, or if a reasonable altitude gain remains insufficient to remove the excessive sonic boom prediction, flight planning system 10 may consider other, less optimal solutions... Flight planning system 10 may submit such 'what-if' queries on a relatively frequent basis to compensate for changes in dynamic parameters impacting the Mach cutoff speed calculation, such changes in forecast A/C speeds and weather (e.g., wind) conditions. Finally, if no navigational solutions are found during STEP 44 of method 36, an advisory message or other notification may be generated indicating that system 10 was unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan c satisfying the entered flight plan criteria."), and that if the less optimal solution would still cause an overpressure event then the system would generate symbology indicative of where the sonic boom would occur (Suddreth: Para 0043 and 0048; "If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom." “Further, in instances in which a boom-regulated flight plan cannot be established, or in instances in which relatively large deviations from an initially-generated flight plan are required to remove an excessive sonic boom prediction, the flight planning system may duly notify a pilot and provide penitent information helpful in discerning an acceptable solution to address the excessive sonic boom prediction”). Furthermore, this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Velastri which teaches wherein: the second route plan includes the symbology indicating the overpressure event when the vehicle, upon being controlled along the second route plan, will violate supersonic flight restrictions (Velastri: Para. 0037, 0071, 0072, 0073, and 0114; "To address the technical challenges associated with determining and then visualizing aerial flight safety risks, the system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to enable human and machine pilots of aerial vehicles 101 to understand the safety risks associated with a given flight path or potential flight path by aggregating various location-based risk factors or risk-related data associated with the flight path." "In step 307, the visualization module 207 can then render the generated virtual obstacle object in a user interface of a device in relation to the flight path or other path of travel. For example, the virtual obstacle object can be rendered in a mapping display so that the object corresponds to a real-world location associated with the computed risk level." "FIG. 5 is a diagram of a trip planning user interface (UI) 501 for visualizing risk levels for aerial vehicle flights, according to one embodiment... Element 505b displays the rendered virtual obstacle objects determined over areas around or near the flight path 507. In this way, the flight path 507 can be drawn or computed to avoid passing through any of the virtual obstacle objects to minimize safety risks over the flight path 507. For example, the mapping platform 117 can initiate a generation of a different flight path based on determining that a risk level associated with a current or potential flight path is above a risk threshold." "It is noted that the representation as illustrated in UI 501 is not a heatmap simply based on population. Ideally, for trip planning, a pilot would pick a route which has no risk volume or virtual obstacle object on the flight path (e.g., no crossing of any rendered risk object). If that is not possible, the pilot could then take the route with the lowest risk (e.g., crossing objects with lower risk levels). This is especially useful when the pilot needs to adapt to changing conditions while flying (e.g., during rerouting of a flight path) as the pilot will need to make very quick decisions on-the-fly." "In one embodiment, the aerial vehicle 101 is capable of being configured with and executing at least one route based on visualized risk levels, dynamic population density predictions according to the embodiments described herein... In addition, the aerial vehicle 101 can be configured to observe restricted paths or routes. For example, the restricted paths may be based on governmental regulations that govern/restrict the path that the aerial vehicle 101 may fly (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies regarding required distances between objects).") for the benefit of improving a pilot’s ability to adapt to non-ideal flight situations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to include in the display of alternative secondary flight plans for when a primary flight plan will violate supersonic restrictions, as taught by Suddreth, to also display alternative secondary flight plans that violates a flight restriction with symbols for the violations of the flight restrictions in the second flight plan, as evidenced by Velastri, for the benefit of improving a pilot’s ability to adapt to non-ideal flight situations.
Regarding claim 10, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 25, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 25, wherein the generating the first route plan includes requesting and receiving data, or portions thereof, from one or more of a ground based system, a cloud based system, a vehicle based system, a weather system, or a data server (Suddreth: Para. 0016; "Various different data sources and analysis techniques may be employed by the flight planning system in obtaining sonic boom forecast data, which is then utilized to determine whether a boom-regulated flight plan can be established for a particular set of flight plan criteria. In certain embodiments, the flight planning system may retrieve sonic boom predictions from a remote entity, such as a cloud-based service or server farm, dedicated to performing relatively complex forecasting algorithms.").
Suddreth remains as applied above, and regarding the limitation wherein the data includes at least one of a population data indicating population density or distribution, or flight restrictions on overpressure events, Suddreth renders this feature obvious as Suddreth teaches that the threshold for allowable sonic booms over a geographic zone include noise abatement laws over a populated zone and that the threshold can be modified or received from various sources (Suddreth: Para. 0035 and 0036; "While a single value is assigned to the sonic boom threshold in such embodiments, flight planning system 10 may allow the value of the boom tolerance threshold to be modified through software updates, pilot input, by ATC communications, or in another manner. In other implementations of method 36 and system 10, the boom tolerance threshold may be assigned a dynamic or variable value, which is actively modified by flight planning system 10 as a function of one or more parameters relating to a given sonic boom prediction. In this latter instance, a range of boom tolerance threshold values may be stored in memory 16 and differentiated by time of day, varying geographical zones, and other such differentiating factors, as discussed more fully below." "By actively varying the value of the sonic boom threshold in relation to geographical region, more intensive sonic booms (that is, sonic booms having greater pressures or decibel levels) may be permitted within certain geographical regions, such as those that are relatively unpopulated. Conversely, only sonic booms of relatively low intensities may be permitted in other geographical regions, such as those that are densely populated, or sonic booms may be strictly banned in such regions. Such georeferenced values can be varied as a function of local or regional noise abatement regulations, political boundaries, the type and vulnerability of manmade structures within a region to pressure wave damage, proximity to land if a sonic boom is forecast to occur over water, and other parameters.") for the benefit of maintaining updated flight parameters for considering where supersonic travel is permissible.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filling of the application to modify the data retrieved from various sources which includes cloud or server based sources from Suddreth in view of Velastri with data about population density or distribution or flight restrictions on overpressure events from Suddreth for the benefit of maintaining updated flight parameters for considering where supersonic travel is permissible.
Regarding claim 11, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 25, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 25,wherein the process further includes, in response to receiving at least one additional operator input if the first route plan and the second route plan are not selected by the operator, generating at least one additional route plan based on the additional operator input, wherein the second route plan and the at least one additional route plan are not displayed on the display at the same time (Suddreth: Para. 0043; "Progressing next to STEP 46 of method 36, it is ascertained whether flight planning system 10 was successful in establishing a boom-regulated flight plan. If able to successfully arrive at a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 may present the boom-regulated flight plan for pilot approval prior to final FMS submission (STEP 50). In an embodiment, the relevant fields of the FMS may be populated such that the boom-regulated flight plan parameters are entered into the FMS upon selection of a “SUBMIT” option by the pilot. Otherwise, the boom-regulated flight plan may be atomically entered into the FMS or other avionic suite component during STEP 50. System 10 may submit the flight plan and any navigational commands associated therein to the pertinent flight deck systems in a suitable format, such as Aeronautical Radio Incorporated (ARINC) 429. Method 36 may conclude with final entry of the boom-regulated flight plan. If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom.").
Regarding claim 12, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 25, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 25, wherein the process further includes displaying at least one additional route plan on the display, and wherein the receiving the operator input includes a selection of the first route plan, the second route plan, or the at least one additional route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0043; "If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom.").
Regarding claim 13, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 25, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 25, wherein the operator input is received via at least one of the vehicle, a ground-based system, or a cloud-based system (Suddreth: Para. 0028; "Flight planning method 36 commences at STEP 38 with the generation of a baseline flight plan containing at least one supersonic flight plan segment; that is, a segment or portion of the flight plan calling for supersonic A/C flight. The baseline flight plan is generated in accordance specified flight plan criteria, which can be entered into flight planning system 10 by a pilot utilizing input interface 18. Such flight plan criteria can include a starting waypoint, an ending waypoint, a ETD, and other relevant parameters. A pilot may manually program such flight plan criteria into flight planning system 10, which may include or assume the form of an FMS, utilizing a designated physical interface or Graphic User Interface (GUI). For example, in one embodiment, the designated pilot input interface can be alphanumeric keypad provided on an MCDU. Afterwards, the pilot may review the MCDU display screen to ensure accurate entry of the flight plan parameters and then utilize the MCDU keypad to submit the flight plan to the avionics suite of the A/C. Alternatively, the flight plan parameters may be automatically submitted to an FMS or, more generally, flight planning system 10 from another device, such as an EFB or tablet, utilized for pre-planning purposes.").
Regarding claim 22, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied in claim 25, and Velastri goes on to further teach [t]he system of claim 25, wherein the first route plan and the second route plan are displayed on the display when the vehicle being controlled along one or both of the first route plan or the second route plan would travel through or adjacent an undesirable or hazardous weather event or area, or cause an emergency of the vehicle (Velastri: Para. 0037, 0071, 0072, and 0114; "To address the technical challenges associated with determining and then visualizing aerial flight safety risks, the system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to enable human and machine pilots of aerial vehicles 101 to understand the safety risks associated with a given flight path or potential flight path by aggregating various location-based risk factors or risk-related data associated with the flight path." "In step 307, the visualization module 207 can then render the generated virtual obstacle object in a user interface of a device in relation to the flight path or other path of travel. For example, the virtual obstacle object can be rendered in a mapping display so that the object corresponds to a real-world location associated with the computed risk level." "FIG. 5 is a diagram of a trip planning user interface (UI) 501 for visualizing risk levels for aerial vehicle flights, according to one embodiment... Element 505b displays the rendered virtual obstacle objects determined over areas around or near the flight path 507. In this way, the flight path 507 can be drawn or computed to avoid passing through any of the virtual obstacle objects to minimize safety risks over the flight path 507. For example, the mapping platform 117 can initiate a generation of a different flight path based on determining that a risk level associated with a current or potential flight path is above a risk threshold." "In one embodiment, the aerial vehicle 101 is capable of being configured with and executing at least one route based on visualized risk levels, dynamic population density predictions according to the embodiments described herein. The aerial vehicle 101 can also be configured avoid areas with high risk levels, populated areas, objects, and/or obstructions. In addition, the aerial vehicle 101 can be configured to observe restricted paths or routes. For example, the restricted paths may be based on governmental regulations that govern/restrict the path that the aerial vehicle 101 may fly (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies regarding required distances between objects). In one embodiment, the system 100 may also take into account one or more pertinent environmental or weather conditions (e.g., rain, water levels, sheer winds, etc. in and around underground passageways and their entry/exit points) in determining a route or flight path.").
Regarding claim 26, Suddreth teaches [a] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for controlling a vehicle, the method comprising: generating a first route plan having a starting point and an ending point, wherein the first route plan is based on at least one parameter and wherein the first route plan is configured to cause the vehicle to generate an overpressure event (Suddreth: Para. 0014 and 0015; "Flight planning systems and methods, which support enhanced or augmented supersonic flight planning through the strategic integration of sonic boom forecast data, are provided. Embodiments of the flight planning system seek to automate, to the extent appropriate, the generation boom-regulated flight plans; that is, flight plans containing supersonic flight plan segments, which can be flown by an aircraft (A/C) without the production of excessive sonic booms... The occurrence of an excessive (threshold-exceeding) sonic boom is also referred to herein as an “overpressure event.”" "During operation, the flight planning system endeavors to construct flight plans in accordance with specified flight plan criteria. The flight plan criteria sets-out the pertinent constraints of the flight plan, such as starting waypoint (origin), ending waypoint (destination), Estimated Time of Departure (ETD), and the like."); receiving an operator input to change at least one operating parameter of the vehicle (Suddreth: Para. 0015; "Such flight plan criteria may be entered utilizing any suitable pilot input interface, such as an input interface associated with a Flight Management System (FMS) included within or otherwise associated with the flight planning system."); generating a second route plan based, at least in part, on the operator input (Suddreth: Para. 0015; "Following entry of the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system endeavors to generate a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the entered flight plan criteria. If successful in generating a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system may present the flight plan on a display device to, for example, allow pilot review and confirmation before final submission to the A/C avionics."); displaying, on a display, (i) the first route plan including symbology indicating the overpressure event and (ii) the second route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0015, 0045, and 0046; "In addition to alerting the pilot of the impending occurrence of an excessive sonic boom or “overpressure event” should the flight plan be executed in its originally-generated or unmodified form, the visual notification may also convey other information useful in evaluating the causal factors underlying the system's inability to generate a boom-regulated flight plan, such as symbology identifying the geographical location or locations at which any excessive sonic booms are predicted to occur." "FIG. 4 is a screenshot of a GUI including a flight plan comparison page 66, which may be generated on avionic display 32 by flight planning system 10 in a further exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. Flight plan comparison page 66 visually plots a first or primary flight plan 68 and a second or alternative flight plan 70, which have been generated by system 10 based upon entered flight plan criteria. The depicted flight plans are superimposed over a map view presented from, for example, a two-dimensional planform perspective, although it will be appreciated that other perspectives are possible (e.g., a forward-looking, three dimensional perspective). The flight plans may be distinguished utilizing distinctive waypoint markers as shown. If desired, other graphics may be provided on map view, including, for example, an A/C graphic 74, a heading graphic 76, a range ring graphic 78, and various symbols indicative of terrain, weather, and structures (not shown for clarity)." "As indicated in FIG. 4 by sonic boom symbol 88, an excessive sonic boom is predicted should primary flight plan 68 be executed as originally generated. Thus, flight planning system 10 further presents alternative flight plan 70, which terminates at the desired end waypoint, but which averts the potential occurrence of an excessive sonic boom or overpressure event."); receiving an operator input to select a route plan displayed on the display; and generating actuator instructions to control the vehicle to follow the selected route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0015; "Following entry of the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system endeavors to generate a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the entered flight plan criteria. If successful in generating a boom-regulated flight plan satisfying the flight plan criteria, the flight planning system may present the flight plan on a display device to, for example, allow pilot review and confirmation before final submission to the A/C avionics.").
Suddreth does not explicitly teach wherein: the second route plan includes the symbology indicating the overpressure event when the vehicle, upon being controlled along the second route plan, will violate supersonic flight restrictions, Suddreth does, however, teach generating multiple flight paths and symbology indicative of weather to allow a pilot to route around an area where an overpressure event would occur (Suddreth: Para. 0045; “Flight plan comparison page 66 visually plots a first or primary flight plan 68 and a second or alternative flight plan 70, which have been generated by system 10 based upon entered flight plan criteria. The depicted flight plans are superimposed over a map view presented from, for example, a two-dimensional planform perspective, although it will be appreciated that other perspectives are possible (e.g., a forward-looking, three dimensional perspective). The flight plans may be distinguished utilizing distinctive waypoint markers as shown. If desired, other graphics may be provided on map view, including, for example, an A/C graphic 74, a heading graphic 76, a range ring graphic 78, and various symbols indicative of terrain, weather, and structures (not shown for clarity).”), that the overpressure event would violate a supersonic flight restriction (Suddreth: Para. 0036; “"In embodiments, the boom tolerance threshold may be assigned a georeferenced value in embodiments and, thus, may vary based upon the particular geographical location or region in which a sonic boom is predicted to occur... Such georeferenced values can be varied as a function of local or regional noise abatement regulations, political boundaries, the type and vulnerability of manmade structures within a region to pressure wave damage, proximity to land if a sonic boom is forecast to occur over water, and other parameters.”), that if the original flight plan would cause an overpressure event then the system would generate less optimal solutions including alternate flight plans (Suddreth: Para 0042; "Continuing with the instant example, if the A/C is unable to climb at the flight plan interval under consideration, or if a reasonable altitude gain remains insufficient to remove the excessive sonic boom prediction, flight planning system 10 may consider other, less optimal solutions... Flight planning system 10 may submit such 'what-if' queries on a relatively frequent basis to compensate for changes in dynamic parameters impacting the Mach cutoff speed calculation, such changes in forecast A/C speeds and weather (e.g., wind) conditions. Finally, if no navigational solutions are found during STEP 44 of method 36, an advisory message or other notification may be generated indicating that system 10 was unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan c satisfying the entered flight plan criteria."), and that if the less optimal solution would still cause an overpressure event then the system would generate symbology indicative of where the sonic boom would occur (Suddreth: Para 0043 and 0048; "If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom." “Further, in instances in which a boom-regulated flight plan cannot be established, or in instances in which relatively large deviations from an initially-generated flight plan are required to remove an excessive sonic boom prediction, the flight planning system may duly notify a pilot and provide penitent information helpful in discerning an acceptable solution to address the excessive sonic boom prediction”). Furthermore, this feature is well known in the art as evidenced by Velastri which teaches wherein: the second route plan includes the symbology indicating the overpressure event when the vehicle, upon being controlled along the second route plan, will violate supersonic flight restrictions (Velastri: Para. 0037, 0071, 0072, 0073, and 0114; "To address the technical challenges associated with determining and then visualizing aerial flight safety risks, the system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to enable human and machine pilots of aerial vehicles 101 to understand the safety risks associated with a given flight path or potential flight path by aggregating various location-based risk factors or risk-related data associated with the flight path." "In step 307, the visualization module 207 can then render the generated virtual obstacle object in a user interface of a device in relation to the flight path or other path of travel. For example, the virtual obstacle object can be rendered in a mapping display so that the object corresponds to a real-world location associated with the computed risk level." "FIG. 5 is a diagram of a trip planning user interface (UI) 501 for visualizing risk levels for aerial vehicle flights, according to one embodiment... Element 505b displays the rendered virtual obstacle objects determined over areas around or near the flight path 507. In this way, the flight path 507 can be drawn or computed to avoid passing through any of the virtual obstacle objects to minimize safety risks over the flight path 507. For example, the mapping platform 117 can initiate a generation of a different flight path based on determining that a risk level associated with a current or potential flight path is above a risk threshold." "It is noted that the representation as illustrated in UI 501 is not a heatmap simply based on population. Ideally, for trip planning, a pilot would pick a route which has no risk volume or virtual obstacle object on the flight path (e.g., no crossing of any rendered risk object). If that is not possible, the pilot could then take the route with the lowest risk (e.g., crossing objects with lower risk levels). This is especially useful when the pilot needs to adapt to changing conditions while flying (e.g., during rerouting of a flight path) as the pilot will need to make very quick decisions on-the-fly." "In one embodiment, the aerial vehicle 101 is capable of being configured with and executing at least one route based on visualized risk levels, dynamic population density predictions according to the embodiments described herein... In addition, the aerial vehicle 101 can be configured to observe restricted paths or routes. For example, the restricted paths may be based on governmental regulations that govern/restrict the path that the aerial vehicle 101 may fly (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies regarding required distances between objects).") for the benefit of improving a pilot’s ability to adapt to non-ideal flight situations.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filing of the application to include in the display of alternative secondary flight plans for when a primary flight plan will violate supersonic restrictions, as taught by Suddreth, to also display alternative secondary flight plans that violates a flight restriction with symbols for the violations of the flight restrictions in the second flight plan, as evidenced by Velastri, for the benefit of improving a pilot’s ability to adapt to non-ideal flight situations.
Regarding claim 17, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 26, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the generating the first route plan includes requesting and receiving data, or portions thereof, from one or more of a ground based system, a cloud based system, a vehicle based system, a weather system, or a data server (Suddreth: Para. 0016; "Various different data sources and analysis techniques may be employed by the flight planning system in obtaining sonic boom forecast data, which is then utilized to determine whether a boom-regulated flight plan can be established for a particular set of flight plan criteria. In certain embodiments, the flight planning system may retrieve sonic boom predictions from a remote entity, such as a cloud-based service or server farm, dedicated to performing relatively complex forecasting algorithms.").
Suddreth remains as applied above, and regarding the limitation wherein the data includes at least one of a population data indicating population density or distribution, or flight restrictions on overpressure events, Suddreth renders this feature obvious as Suddreth teaches that the threshold for allowable sonic booms over a geographic zone include noise abatement laws over a populated zone and that the threshold can be modified or received from various sources (Suddreth: Para. 0035 and 0036; "While a single value is assigned to the sonic boom threshold in such embodiments, flight planning system 10 may allow the value of the boom tolerance threshold to be modified through software updates, pilot input, by ATC communications, or in another manner. In other implementations of method 36 and system 10, the boom tolerance threshold may be assigned a dynamic or variable value, which is actively modified by flight planning system 10 as a function of one or more parameters relating to a given sonic boom prediction. In this latter instance, a range of boom tolerance threshold values may be stored in memory 16 and differentiated by time of day, varying geographical zones, and other such differentiating factors, as discussed more fully below." "By actively varying the value of the sonic boom threshold in relation to geographical region, more intensive sonic booms (that is, sonic booms having greater pressures or decibel levels) may be permitted within certain geographical regions, such as those that are relatively unpopulated. Conversely, only sonic booms of relatively low intensities may be permitted in other geographical regions, such as those that are densely populated, or sonic booms may be strictly banned in such regions. Such georeferenced values can be varied as a function of local or regional noise abatement regulations, political boundaries, the type and vulnerability of manmade structures within a region to pressure wave damage, proximity to land if a sonic boom is forecast to occur over water, and other parameters.") for the benefit of maintaining updated flight parameters for considering where supersonic travel is permissible.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the filling of the application to modify the data retrieved from various sources which includes cloud or server based sources from Suddreth in view of Velastri with data about population density or distribution or flight restrictions on overpressure events from Suddreth for the benefit of maintaining updated flight parameters for considering where supersonic travel is permissible.
Regarding claim 18, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 26, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the method further comprises: receiving at least one additional operator input if the first route plan and the second route plan are not selected by the operator; and generating at least one additional route plan based on the additional operator input, wherein the second route plan and the at least one additional route plan are not displayed on the display at the same time (Suddreth: Para. 0043; "Progressing next to STEP 46 of method 36, it is ascertained whether flight planning system 10 was successful in establishing a boom-regulated flight plan. If able to successfully arrive at a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 may present the boom-regulated flight plan for pilot approval prior to final FMS submission (STEP 50). In an embodiment, the relevant fields of the FMS may be populated such that the boom-regulated flight plan parameters are entered into the FMS upon selection of a “SUBMIT” option by the pilot. Otherwise, the boom-regulated flight plan may be atomically entered into the FMS or other avionic suite component during STEP 50. System 10 may submit the flight plan and any navigational commands associated therein to the pertinent flight deck systems in a suitable format, such as Aeronautical Radio Incorporated (ARINC) 429. Method 36 may conclude with final entry of the boom-regulated flight plan. If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom.").
Regarding claim 19, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied as in claim 26, and Suddreth goes on to further teach [t]he non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the method further comprises: displaying at least one additional route plan on the display, and wherein the receiving the operator input includes a selection of the first route plan, the second route plan, or the at least one additional route plan (Suddreth: Para. 0043; "If unable to construct a boom-regulated flight plan, flight planning system 10 progresses to STEP 48 and generates a corresponding visual notification on avionic displays 32. Such a visual notification can include symbology relating pertinent information to a pilot or other viewer, such as the location at which the excessive sonic boom is projected to originate or to first strike a surface of the Earth. Additionally or alternatively, graphics can be generated on the avionic display presented suggested rerouting options satisfying the flight plan criteria and avoiding the forecast occurrence of an excessive sonic boom.").
Regarding claim 23, Suddreth and Velastri remain as applied in claim 26, and Velastri goes on to further teach [t]he non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 26, wherein the first route plan and the second route plan are displayed on the display when the vehicle being controlled along one or both of the first route plan or the second route plan would travel through a weather event, increase risk, or cause an emergency of the vehicle (Velastri: Para. 0037, 0071, 0072, and 0114; "To address the technical challenges associated with determining and then visualizing aerial flight safety risks, the system 100 of FIG. 1 introduces a capability to enable human and machine pilots of aerial vehicles 101 to understand the safety risks associated with a given flight path or potential flight path by aggregating various location-based risk factors or risk-related data associated with the flight path." "In step 307, the visualization module 207 can then render the generated virtual obstacle object in a user interface of a device in relation to the flight path or other path of travel. For example, the virtual obstacle object can be rendered in a mapping display so that the object corresponds to a real-world location associated with the computed risk level." "FIG. 5 is a diagram of a trip planning user interface (UI) 501 for visualizing risk levels for aerial vehicle flights, according to one embodiment... Element 505b displays the rendered virtual obstacle objects determined over areas around or near the flight path 507. In this way, the flight path 507 can be drawn or computed to avoid passing through any of the virtual obstacle objects to minimize safety risks over the flight path 507. For example, the mapping platform 117 can initiate a generation of a different flight path based on determining that a risk level associated with a current or potential flight path is above a risk threshold." "In one embodiment, the aerial vehicle 101 is capable of being configured with and executing at least one route based on visualized risk levels, dynamic population density predictions according to the embodiments described herein. The aerial vehicle 101 can also be configured avoid areas with high risk levels, populated areas, objects, and/or obstructions. In addition, the aerial vehicle 101 can be configured to observe restricted paths or routes. For example, the restricted paths may be based on governmental regulations that govern/restrict the path that the aerial vehicle 101 may fly (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies regarding required distances between objects). In one embodiment, the system 100 may also take into account one or more pertinent environmental or weather conditions (e.g., rain, water levels, sheer winds, etc. in and around underground passageways and their entry/exit points) in determining a route or flight path.").
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments filed May 14th, 2026 with respect to 112(b) rejections of claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-26 of record have been fully considered and have rendered the 112(b) rejections moot. Therefore, the 112(b) rejections of claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-26 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed May 14th, 2026 with respect to the 103 rejections of claims 3-6, 10-13, 17-19, and 21-26 in view of Suddreth in further view of Velastri have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends (see Remarks, filed May 14th, 2026) that the claims are distinguished over the prior art of record for the reasons provided in the Appeal Brief dated January 15th, 2025 and the Reply Brief dated April 22nd, 2025. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding the reasons set forth by the Applicant set forth in the Appeal Brief dated January 15th, 2025, the examiner has noted their response to these arguments in the Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief dated March 20th, 2025.
Applicant contends (see page 4 lines 8-23 of the Reply Brief filed April 22nd, 2025) that “there is no legal precedent to support an allegation that an ordinarily skilled artisan may deduce that a prior art reference could produce or be modified to produce an explicitly recited feature of a claim when, in fact, the prior art reference does not suggest such a feature”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The question of whether the prior art suggests such a feature will be discussed later, however the examiner notes regarding the issue of whether a person ordinarily skilled in the art can “deduce” an explicit feature from the prior art is supported in MPEP 2141.03(I) which establishes that “‘A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). ‘[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.’ Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” (emphasis added). The examiner further notes that MPEP 2143.01 states “A ‘motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill." Zup v. Nash Mfg., 896 F.3d 1365, 1371, 127 USPQ2d 1423, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 [107 USPQ2d 1706] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328 [92 USPQ2d 1849] (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-21))” (emphasis added). As such, the examiner notes that it is not unreasonable to contemplate whether a person ordinarily skilled in the art could deduce a prior art reference would teach a feature or could be motivated to be combined with a similar prior art to teach a feature when said feature is not explicitly recited within said prior art.
Applicant contends (see page 5 line 1 through page 6 line 6 of the Reply Brief filed April 22nd, 2025) that Suddreth does not even teach, suggest, or hint at the claimed feature of displaying a second route plan that would violate the supersonic flight restrictions. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that, as previously stated in the Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief dated March 20th, 2025, the prior art of Suddreth discloses in at least paragraphs 0017 and 0043-0045 that the field of endeavor of Suddreth is in reducing the number of sonic booms and overpressure events (which are violations of supersonic flight restrictions) when possible while paragraph 0048 also recites “Further, in instances in which a boom-regulated flight plan cannot be established… the flight planning system may duly notify a pilot and provide penitent information helpful in discerning an acceptable solution to address the excessive sonic boom prediction” which provides motivation to modify the generation of alternative route plans to, in instances where a boom-regulated flight plan cannot be generated, to generate an alternative flight plan that does have a supersonic violation but may be preferable over the original flight plan. The examiner does note that the 103 rejection of the independent claims have been updated to better reflect what Suddreth teaches and how it is combined with Velastri to render obvious the second route plan cam have a violation of supersonic restriction when said route plan would reduce the number of such restrictions during flight.
Applicant contends (see page 6 lines 8-18 of the Reply Brief filed April 22nd, 2025) that the prior art of Velastri is deficient in teaching generating a second route plan that would violate the supersonic restriction as the prior art of Velastri is focused on generating and displaying flight paths that are associated with a risk level. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that this limitation is being rejected by Suddreth as evidenced by Velastri. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the prior art of Suddreth is used to teach displaying alternative routes to a main route for a supersonic flight when the main route would experience an overpressure event in a restricted airspace in order to reduce the number of overpressure events while the prior art of Velastri teaches generating alternative flight paths that have a certain level of risk but are less risky that a main flight path (Velastri Para. 0071-0073) and in at least paragraph 0114 “In one embodiment, the aerial vehicle 101 is capable of being configured with and executing at least one route based on visualized risk levels... The aerial vehicle 101 can also be configured avoid areas with high risk levels, populated areas, objects, and/or obstructions. In addition, the aerial vehicle 101 can be configured to observe restricted paths or routes. For example, the restricted paths may be based on governmental regulations that govern/restrict the path that the aerial vehicle 101 may fly (e.g., Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policies regarding required distances between objects)” which establishes that the risk avoidance of Velastri is also based on government regulations and paragraph 0034 of Velastri further clarify that the “risks” that the vehicle is routing around are risks to the vehicle and the public “as well as other flight restrictions often apply” such as noise pollution restrictions. As such, the prior art of Velastri does render obvious the idea of modifying the generation of alternative flight paths from Suddreth to generate an alternative flight path that does cause overpressure events when such events are unavoidable but the alternative flight path have less overpressure events or are less severe as the alternative flight path would reduce the risk to public safety and would reduce the risk of the aircraft causing too many overpressure events that would violate government restrictions.
Applicant contends (see page 7 lines 8-19 of the Reply Brief filed April 22nd, 2025) that the examiner has erred in establishing a factual basis for the 103 combination of Suddreth in view of Velastri as the motivation to combine the references is not sufficient to render obvious the claimed invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the factual basis given by the examiner in the Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief dated March 20th, 2025, is for why one ordinarily skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references, not that the motivation to combine the references is sufficient in and of itself to teach the claimed invention. The factual basis for why the invention is rendered obvious by the combination of Suddreth in view of Velastri is established in the 103 rejection above.
Applicant contends (see page 7 line 22 through page 8 line 11 of the Reply Brief filed April 22nd, 2025) that the examiner has failed to establish a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that MPEP 2142 provides that a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness is established when the examiner sets “forth in the Office action: (A) the relevant teachings of the prior art relied upon, preferably with reference to the relevant column or page number(s) and line number(s) where appropriate, (B) the difference or differences in the claim over the applied reference(s), (C) the proposed modification of the applied reference(s) necessary to arrive at the claimed subject matter, and (D) an explanation as to why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time”. In this case, the examiner has provided in the 103 rejection above what the prior arts of Suddreth and Velastri teach in the form of their alternative route proposing inventions, what the prior art of Suddreth does not explicitly teach in the explicit recitation of the alternative route causing an overpressure event, the modification of the alternative route of Suddreth with the alternative route that is at risk of causing a risk of violating a flight restriction from Velastri, and an explanation as to why one ordinarily skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the two.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aaron K McCullers whose telephone number is (571)272-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, Roughly 9 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Angela Ortiz can be reached on (571) 272-1206. 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.
/A.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ANGELA Y ORTIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663
Prosecution Insights